When the Abraham Accords were signed on September 15, 2020, they were hailed as a groundbreaking step toward peace in the Middle East. However, as we approach their third anniversary, the Accords appear to have had little impact on lasting peace in the region, particularly when it comes to the elusive two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
The Accords: A Brief Overview
The Abraham Accords, signed by Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Israel, were supposed to normalize diplomatic relations between Israel and the Arab nations involved. The United States played a pivotal role in mediating these agreements, marking the first such instance of normalization since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty of 1994.
The Mirage of Peace and the Two-State Solution
Despite the initial optimism, the Accords have failed to address the root causes of conflict in the Middle East. Most notably, they have done little to advance the two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, a cornerstone for lasting peace in the region. The Accords have been criticized for sidestepping this critical issue, focusing instead on economic and diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab states.
The U.S. Role: A Double-Edged Sword
The United States, as the mediator of the Accords, has been both a catalyst and a hindrance. While the Trump administration was eager to claim this as a foreign policy win, the Biden administration has been less enthusiastic about using the term “Abraham Accords,” preferring to discuss “the normalization process” instead. This shift in terminology and focus raises questions about the U.S.’s long-term commitment to a two-state solution. While the Accords have opened doors for economic cooperation, they have also led to controversial developments. A secret oil deal between Israel and the UAE has raised environmental concerns, particularly about the endangerment of the Red Sea reefs. The Abraham Accords, while a diplomatic milestone, have not lived up to their promise of bringing lasting peace to the Middle East, especially in the context of a two-state solution. As the world watches, the question remains: Were the Accords a genuine step toward peace or merely a political maneuver devoid of substance?