by Ahmed Sallam
Before the outbreak of the latest conflicts in Gaza in October 2023, speculation was mounting that Saudi Arabia and Israel might move toward formal diplomatic relations. The United States was actively pushing Riyadh to join the Abraham Accords, brokered by Washington for forging diplomatic ties between Israel and several Arab nations, as part of its broader Middle East strategy. The prospect of Saudi-Israeli normalization seized global attention as a possible geopolitical game-changer.
However, the conflicts sharply dimmed such prospects -- if they ever existed. The scale of Palestinian casualties and the devastation in Gaza made normalization with Israel politically toxic across the Arab world. As calm has gradually returned to Gaza and parts of the wider region, a key question has resurfaced: Can the Abraham Accords continue to advance, or have developments on the ground imposed lasting constraints?
For Arab states that have signed the Accords or normalized relations with Israel under the framework, namely, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan as well as Egypt and Jordan, which have long had peace treaties with Israel, the challenge has increasingly centered on managing public sentiment. As images of destruction in Gaza circulated widely and casualties climbed into the tens of thousands, governments face rising domestic pressure to recalibrate their political messaging and engagement with Israel.
Looking ahead, these states are more likely to maintain the status quo. During the armed conflict, many adjusted their diplomatic tone to please domestic audiences, a pattern expected to continue. At the same time, economic channels, particularly trade, investment, and technical cooperation with Israel, are likely to remain open, though often disrupted by political tensions and security flare-ups.
Attention has shifted to potential new signatories, countries that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump sought to bring into the Accords. Saudi Arabia has made clear that its participation hinges on "a clear path to a two-state solution," a requirement that Israel, under its current political configuration, has been unwilling to accept. Syria, meanwhile, has ruled out any near-term talks, citing Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights. These positions underscore that any expansion of the Accords is now highly conditional, dependent on progress on the Palestinian issue, credible regional security arrangements, and domestic political calculations, none of which can be resolved quickly.
For Israel, the latest round of conflicts has prompted a reassessment of its regional posture. Recent events have reinforced a hard lesson: Normalization with Arab states is not a substitute for addressing the underlying drivers of conflict. Without meaningful progress on the Palestinian issue, especially amid renewed Israeli military strikes in Gaza and rising tensions in the West Bank, normalization risks becoming politically costly for Arab governments and triggering domestic backlash.
Against this backdrop, the Abraham Accords appear to face several possible trajectories. The Accords could gradually consolidate if genuine political progress is achieved; stagnate if normalization continues without expansion; or regress if the circle of conflict widens and political costs rise. Each scenario highlights the central role of the Palestinian issue in shaping regional diplomacy.
The Gaza ceasefire agreement, effective in October, has therefore emerged as a pivotal factor. The deal, which includes a hostage-prisoner exchange, partial Israeli troop withdrawals, and the provision of humanitarian supplies, offers a limited but significant opportunity to recalibrate Israeli-Palestinian dynamics and ease regional tensions. While fragile, it has underscored a central reality: No regional framework can achieve lasting stability if the Palestinian cause is sidelined or if Gaza remains excluded from political and economic recovery.
For now, successful implementation of the ceasefire -- long demanded by the Arab world -- could help anchor the Abraham Accords within a more legitimate and stable political framework. Failure, by contrast, would expose their vulnerability and heighten the risks of renewed conflicts spilling across borders.
Ultimately, only sustained peace in Gaza and the West Bank can allow the Accords to move forward. The Accords' future depends not on economic deals or security arrangements alone, but on a just and comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue.
While major global powers will continue to influence regional dynamics, the actions of local actors, shifting geopolitical balances, and, above all, the will of the public across the region will most decisively shape Arab-Israeli relations.
As Egypt has consistently proposed, the most realistic path to regional stability lies in addressing the root causes of the conflict and fostering cooperation based on mutual interests and respect for regional societies. Only through this kind of path can the Abraham Accords attain meaningful and lasting growth.
Editor's note: Ahmed Sallam is a former undersecretary of Egypt's State Information Service.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Xinhua News Agency.
