Five years later, Abraham Accords may have become a cold peace, expert says

“Overall, the situation has changed dramatically,” according to Ghanem Nuseibeh, the UK-based chairman of Muslims Against Antisemitism. “The Accords have become more of a cold peace – not like Egypt and Jordan, but more of a cold peace instead of a warm one.”

The Abraham Accords were signed in Washington on September 15, 2020, by Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain. They were mediated and supported by US President Donald Trump in his first administration.

At the time, Nuseibeh, like many others, had hopes for the future.

“I hoped we would get to a place where there would be an impetus to have other states sign peace agreements with Israel and other countries that are at a state of war – such as Syria, Lebanon – to enter negotiations with Israel,” he said.

Nuseibeh has extensive experience working with nonprofit organizations that help Jews and Arabs, including in the Gulf. He has also worked on assessing political risk, focusing on the Gulf and the UAE.

His Palestinian background and his family’s origins in Jerusalem provide him with a deep understanding of the region, he said.

Nuseibeh said he hoped the UAE would get more involved in Israel-Palestinian issues, and that it would bring both sides together.

“I hoped the Accords [would be] a vehicle to bring Israel and the Arab countries together and be an example that the peace between Israel and Arab neighbors didn’t have to be a cold peace as it was with Egypt and Jordan,” he said.

The peace agreements with Egypt and then Jordan did not lead to warm ties between Egyptians, Jordanians, and Israelis. Instead, they mostly related to high-level issues but did not enhance ties among the people.

The UAE and Bahrain sought to do things differently, with Jewish holidays celebrated in Dubai and a lot of talk about coexistence.

Nuseibeh and many others were also aware of the risks the Abraham Accords would face. Countries and groups in the region would want to sabotage and undermine them, and the last five years have borne this out.

For example, while there are flights to the UAE, there are many challenges, Nuseibeh said.

“The Accords are important, and they serve a purpose of ensuring that things aren’t getting worse,” he said. “On the Palestinian side, the UAE has been the most important aid provider, and also on the political side. The UAE influence remains important in Israel thanks to the Abraham Accords. However, the political-economic aspects of it are frozen. Israelis do live in the UAE. There is business, but not what it could be.”

THE OCTOBER 7 massacre has changed things, Nuseibeh said. The UAE condemned the terrorist attacks, but people in the UAE regard Israel’s reaction as being “grossly disproportionate.”

“The Palestinian suffering as a result has created a lot of anxiety and anti-Israel segments in many sectors that sort of really put the whole Accords on ice,” he said. “[People in the Gulf] don’t see an opportunity to advance it with the current [Israeli] government or some of its members.”

The Israel-Hamas War, which has dragged on for more than 700 days, has meant that ties between Israel and the Abraham Accords countries have not flourished. Instead, official public relations appear minimal. Recent UAE comments about how annexation would be a redline for the ties is one example.

“Gulf relations go up and down like other regions,” he said. “In terms of the strike against Qatar, the feeling is that if they [Israel] can do it against Qatar, then they can do it against any of us.

“If Israel can do it, then others can do it, and therefore the reaction from the Gulf and the UAE will be that the Gulf won’t allow Israel or anyone to do this kind of strike. That is why we have seen this extraordinarily level of unity similar to the reaction to [former Iraqi president] Saddam [Hussein]’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.”

The very public way Israel took responsibility for the airstrike in Doha has led to the reaction to the Gulf, Nuseibeh said, adding that the strike was not conducted quietly.

Asked whether the Trump administration could help repair ties, he said: “He can, but I don’t know if he wants to. The gap is big in terms of [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and what the Gulf wants. Can Trump bridge the gap? Will he put pressure on Netanyahu in terms of what is needed? Annexation is redline.”

The UAE has positive bipartisan ties in Washington, Nuseibeh said.

“They can easily convey – as can Qatar and Saudi Arabia – what they are happy about and what needs to be done,” he said. “Am I optimistic about Trump? He can do it; he is obviously aiming to get the Nobel Peace Prize. The way things are heading in the Middle East, though, ‘He can do more’ is what people are saying.”

Another piece of the puzzle is how the Europeans view the Abraham Accords and also how the UK and other European countries approach the conflict, Nuseibeh said. They are supportive of the two-state solution, and many of them support the Palestinians, he said.

“The Europeans were not against [the Abraham Accords],” he added. “The UK preferred perhaps business as usual, but they were ready to use the Accords model if it advanced the two-state solution. That is their aim.

“With the more vocal UAE statements in the past few days about annexation, saying it is a redline… the UAE has tied the viability of the Accords to the two-state solution.”

“For many years, Egypt had the Camp David Accords with Israel; they have close security arrangements,” he said. “But there is deep mistrust between Israel and the Egyptians, and it is mutual. It is latent, but it is there. What the Gaza war has done is that it has brought a lot of that latency onto the surface so that it became more visible.”

While Cairo cares about the peace deal with Israel – in part, due to US backing and guarantees – it is also willing to look for friends further afield, such as China, Nuseibeh said.

“They are not talking about replacing the US, but they are saying we can exist without the Americans and Israelis if the national security of Sinai is threatened,” he said. “If that happens, that would be a severe blow to the US and others in the region.”

“Egypt has a major role to play as a mediator, [but you risk turning] it into an adversary – as Netanyahu appears to be trying to do – as with Qatar, where it stops being a mediator,” Nuseibeh said. “If Egypt’s role is neutralized as a mediator, then it can become an adversary.”

This could also lead to a domino effect, possibly harming the Abraham Accords, he said.

It is unlikely that the Abraham Accords will be canceled, Nuseibeh said.

“The UAE doesn’t take decisions lightly,” he said. “They are not impulsive, they look at scenarios, they do simulations and ask experts before they make decisions. Don’t expect hasty decisions.

“I think it’s important to listen to what the UAE is saying. They look at every single aspect to make sure conflict does not erupt. They want people to live in prosperity and harmony; that is what they work towards the interests of everyone in the region. It is important for Israeli public opinion to listen to what the UAE is saying.

“They want a prosperous and safe Israel as much as they want prosperity for the Palestinian side. They are the adults that Israel could talk to. Israel shouldn’t miss that opportunity.”

Regarding where we might be in five years and whether things might change for the better, Nuseibeh said: “Yes, this is the Middle East. Everything is reversible. I don’t think things can change with the current Israeli government; anything can happen afterwards.”

“I think it is possible, as long as the damage that the current government does on the Palestinian front does not reach a point where it becomes so irreversible where there isn’t anything to talk about,” he said.

The current frozen relations could thaw if circumstances change, Nuseibeh said.

“However, that’s not going to be an opportunity that lasts forever at the rate the Israeli government currently is doing things,” he said. “We aren’t there yet in terms of a situation that can’t be salvaged.”