The Abraham Accords Offer a Path to Palestinian Advancement

The signatories benefited once they acknowledged Israel’s right to exist.

By
23

Tuesday will mark one year since the foreign ministers of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump on the White House lawn to sign agreements that recognized Israel and pledged their countries to mutual cooperation. They were followed shortly thereafter by Morocco and Sudan. Colloquially known as the “Abraham Accords,” these agreements will be celebrated today in Washington at an event featuring the Israeli ambassador and representatives from every Arab country that recognizes Israel, as well as former U.S. administration officials.

These agreements represented a sea change in Arab-Israeli relations and led to massive benefits both to Israel and  their new Arab friends.

The Abraham Accords were in stark contrast to another agreement, signed 53 years before, almost to the day. In September 1967, the Arab League famously signed the Khartoum Resolutions, more colloquially known as the “Three No’s,” indicating that Arab countries would never have peace with Israel, would never negotiate with Israel, and would never recognize Israel. This rejection of Israel’s legitimacy governed Arab-Israeli relations for decades.

But how did we move from Arab rejection of Israel’s very existence to this new era of mutual recognition and cooperation?

The Khartoum Resolutions came in the immediate aftermath of the Six-Day War, a multistate effort by several Arab countries to destroy Israel that ended in a catastrophic tactical defeat. By signing the “Three No’s,” the Arab League nations were signaling that while the battle may have been lost, they maintained their aim of destroying Israel and some day would finish the job. Israel, for its part, declined to commit national suicide.

Thus, the Arab League and the Israelis were diametrically opposed. Israel wanted to exist, while the Arab League wanted Israel to be destroyed. To resolve the situation, one side had to convince the other to change its mind about the desired outcome. The Abraham Accords represented not simply a new diplomatic venture, but, on the part of the signatories, a dramatic end to a war that had lingered for more than 50 years.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
23
By
Comments (23)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I’d like someone to tell me (someone who knows something about the subject), how much credit the Trump admin should get for the accords and how much they happened because conditions were ripe and the Israelis and various other parties did the heavy lifting.

    Maybe a good Remnant episode…

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      In my view, Trump deserves considerable credit insofar as, without him pushing for it, it wouldn't have happened. Neither Obama nor Biden would have pushed for this, and probably would have thrown up roadblocks.

      That said: his primary role was simply letting the Arabs and Israel know this was encouraged by the US. The larger praise goes to Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mohammad Bin Zayed of UAE. Both took political risks to get here and it was they more than anyone that had to hammer out what would happen. Bahrain was sort of an add-on.

      This gets slightly messier with Sudan and Morocco. But at the end of the day neither of them would have happened without UAE going first. It's the main player here.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        But my comment was really directed at Jonah and Steve and maybe Tom. I’d like to hear a Remnant episode diving into the subject.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Ben Connelly

        That makes sense

        Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Phil H

    Donald Trump did a lot of damage. The Abrahamic accords, along with his judicial appointments, count as a lasting achievement of the Trump administration.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      Agree. Far and away his two greatest accomplishments, sitting like a couple of rocks in a sea of disaster.

      Collapse
  3. DJ

    Gotta admit, I was wrong to oppose relocating the embassy to Jerusalem. I thought the Abraham Accords might be a potemkin village - an arms deal masquerading as a peace deal - but it looks like it may be the first step to a lasting change to middle east dysfunction.

    Collapse
  4. Daniel Rabiner

    How can you write an article about the benefits Arab states have received from the Abraham accords but not actually say what those benefits are? The United States recognized the disputed territory of Western Sahara as part of Morocco for making peace with a country they were not at war with for example.

    I'm sure that this was great for Israel, but I have a hard time balancing the benefits gained here versus the Sahwari right to self-determination.

    This is a one sided article that does not analyze the benefits the United States bestowed on the 4 countries to establish relationships with Israel and whether the juice was worth the squeeze. With regards to Morocco, I'd have to say it was not.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Paul Reichardt

    The Abraham Accords mostly represent a continuation of the severing of the Palestinian cause from the greater Arab-Israeli conflict. This process started in 1967 with UNSCR 242 and the “land-for-peace” idea. It continued when the PLO agreed to accept Israel’s right to exist 20 years later as a precondition for the Reagan administration accepting them as the legitimate negotiators for the Palestinians, and confirmed this at Oslo. The elusive Big Kahunas of the AA were populous Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, neither of which signed onto it even though Saudi crown prince MBS was a major driver for them and was BFFs with Kushner. The AAs greatly weakened the Palestinian hand and strengthened the Israeli one, but didn’t advance progress on the core issues of mutual self-determination for Israel and the Palestinians, unless one expects peace to only occur when the Palestinians are completely subjugated and humiliated.

    This article makes a lot more sense if you replace “israel” with “Greater Israel”, which includes at least the land in the 1967 borders + the vast majority of the West Bank. So by insisting on their own self-detemination, in this zero-sum post-Oslo/“two-state” thinking, Palestinians are committed to the “destruction of [the possibility of this Greater] Israel”. If the author wants to argue whether the statements from the PLO and PA about accepting Israel’s right to exist were insincere or the position has been abandoned, then he should argue that instead of lying that they never said it. The question from the late-80’s onward (if not 1967) has always been about the borders in which Israel would exist. It would be most helpful if people who argue along the lines of the author would just come out on the record as having abandoned the “two-state” position; at least be honest about what argument you’re making.

    If the two-state solution is dead, then what is the alternative? Endless occupation? Or that the Palestinians will agree to live in an archipelago of tiny Gazastans in the West Bank with Israeli walls and checkpoints around each one? If everyone behaves themselves and gives up on self-determination, they’ll have the opportunity to work in Israel proper to earn their livelihoods and scratch out a decent living before returning to inside the walls of Gazastan-27 in the evening for doing things like sleeping, marrying, raising families, and exercising basic rights. Neoliberal economic policy will save the day. This seems to be the Kushner/Bennett mode of thinking, but it is pure fantasy. No tribe of human beings would ever accept it.

    Collapse
    1. Pohl

      Some good points. I too am curious about the alternatives to 2 states. I just cannot conceive of how Israel in the current climate can abide a basically hostile power nestled against Jerusalem. I think all the Arab states at a minimum will have to join the Accords before this even makes sense for Israeli security.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        CVS

        " I just cannot conceive of how Israel in the current climate can abide a basically hostile power nestled against Jerusalem."

        This is the whole point of why Palestinians need to give up their war aims.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      CVS

      "This article makes a lot more sense if you replace “israel” with “Greater Israel”..."

      Utter nonsense. It doesn't. Nobody is saying a two-state solution is off the table. Israel has never annexed the West Bank and is entirely absent from Gaza. The PA has never recognized the right to Israel to exist as a Jewish state, and has turned down multiple offers of statehood. Why? Because it thought it could do better by saying no, hoping to overcome Israel entirely.

      Once the basic legitimacy of a Jewish state is recognized, however, can a two state solution, or any solution at all really, be realized.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Logical

        Just for fun, following are some possible scenarios, 50 to100 years from now. Too bad I won't be around to see what really happens.

        1. Gaza becomes independent, like a mini Singapore. WB disappears through attrition: gradual settlement buildup and migration of Arabs to Jordan or elsewhere. All politicians talk through forked tongues, as customary, while this happens.

        2. Gaza independent. Civil war splitting Jordan; one of the legs absorbs remnants of WB

        3. Simultaneously two inspiring leaders emerge in Arabs and Jews, motivating both peoples to join hands and declare a single secular state; live happily ever after from the discovery of Unobtainium (10 x value of platinum per gram) off the Mediterranean coast.

        4. With the leadership and donation of Egypt and newly discovered energy sources, most Arabs are relocated to Sinai/Gaza as an independent state, leaving all of WB to Israel (may be some exchange of Israeli land adjacent).

        5. Israel gives up settled WB. A three state solution (Israel, Gaza, and Palestine)

        What are your ideas?

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Paul Reichardt

        "Nobody is saying a two-state solution is off the table."
        The former and current Israeli PMs took exactly that position.

        Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Logical

        "Once the basic legitimacy of a Jewish state is recognized"

        We are 20 years past that talking point. At this stage what Palestinians say or do is totally irrelevant. They have been completely subjugated and are in absolutely no position to do anything. Israel may just plough unoccupied WB and Gaza into ground, should they so choose.

        Reichardt's argument, if I may paraphrase, is "what exactly does Israel want to do with their subjects, and the land they have absolute dominion over, called the Greater Israel?"

        Collapse
        1. Richard Fulmer

          The Israelis could plow the West Bank and Gaza into the ground if they chose, but they choose not to. The Palestinians, by contrast, would certainly plow every Jew into the ground if they could. Strangely, the Jews object to being plowed under - much to the dismay of the UN and many on the left who are outraged whenever the IDF responds to Hamas rocket fire.

          Collapse
  6. Token Liberal

    Great article. As to the Palestinians coming around, I'm not holding my breath.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CVS

      It's not about the Palestinians "coming around," per-se. It's about them being coerced into accepting reality.

      Right now, the Palestinian street goes nuts every time one of their shibboleths are challenged, i.e. "No, you don't get to flood Israel with 5 million 'refugees,'" and the international community usually obliges, i.e. they keep funding UNRWA's anti-semitic textbooks, i.e. "Please stop bombing Hamas inGaza even though they've shot 20k rockets at you in the past few days," etc.

      This signals to people that Israel might some day lose. So they keep fighting.

      The point of not doing these things, and instead to do the opposite, is to show that Israel has won. At some point, the Palestinians get the idea. Maybe not tomorrow or the next day, but down the line. Much like the Abraham Accord countries did.

      It's true the Abraham Accord countries weren't directly in conflict with them in quite the same way. But it's also true that eventually, they realized Israel had more to offer as a friend than as a foe. Right now, being a foe of Israel has paid off well for the Palestinians. That's what needs to stop.

      Collapse
      1. Token Liberal

        From your lips to God's ears

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Back in the 1970s was a satire movie called 🅰🅼🅴🆁🅸🅲🅰🆃🅷🅾🅽. It was set in the future, with the premise being all sorts of things that were outlandish in the 1970s would be normalized decades later. People lived in cars, Vietnam became an economic success story (although "Puke rock" hasn't caught on yet). A big one was Israel and Egypt coming to peace, forming the 𝑼𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑯𝒆𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒃 𝑹𝒆𝒑𝒖𝒃𝒍𝒊𝒄. once they both accepted they really like blondes.

    Collapse
    1. DJ

      I remember commercials for that when I was a kid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      CVS

      Link?

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Chris L

    As much as I loathed Kushner, the Abraham Accords were brilliantly conceived. Since the Palestinians were dead-set on Israeli genocide, they were never going to negotiate in good faith. But they were only ever as strong as their support, so if they lose that support from the other Arab nations, then they have nothing and would have to either change their tack or literally starve.

    Going for the listed countries as the low-hanging fruit just makes sense since it would then show what this article does - namely, everyone is the better for it, and this may then turn around otherwise obstinate anti-Israeli Arab countries. All that would be left, eventually, is (shocker) Iran and their proxy apparatus, which is not exactly an unknown actor in all-things Middle East instability.

    Collapse