Values and Interests: Examining Israeli Relations with Abraham Accords Countries Post-October 7

BY HANNAH BLUGRIND

---

Throughout its history, Israel has faced a tumultuous relationship with its Arab neighbors. From the outset, Israel fought against six Arab countries to establish its independence. Over time, however, many of those countries began establishing diplomatic relationships with Israel, primarily driven by the potential economic benefits. Despite these diplomatic advances, according to all major polls, the majority of Arabs in the Middle East continue to oppose the existence of the Jewish state.

Despite Israel’s multi-front war precipitated by the October 7 attack by Hamas, several significant peace agreements and collaborations still exist between Israel and Middle Eastern countries. The most notable is the Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, normalizing relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. To fully comprehend the effect of the Accords, we can look at quotes like those from former U.S. Representative Ted Deutch, who states that the Abraham Accords were incredibly unique, with “broad bipartisan support,” providing a “transformative, positive lens through which we can all now look at what is sometimes a challenging region.”

On the one year anniversary of the Accords, former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and United Nations, Gilad Erdan, commented on the significance of the agreement, stating that the countries chose “peace, progress, and prosperity”  over their past differences, promoting a mutually beneficial economy, and changing the way Arabs and Jews perceive each other. 

After October 7, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan strove to balance condemning Israel for its actions, while simultaneously benefiting from their relationship with Israel. The UAE and Bahrain have cultivated robust economic and technological ties with Israel, including the UAE signing a free trade agreement with Israel in 2023, eliminating tariffs on 96 percent of goods. The Accords also enable these countries to collaborate on security and intelligence sharing to counter mutual threats, such as Iran. However, while these Arab nations quietly continue to deepen these ties with the Jewish state, they simultaneously issue public condemnations of Israeli actions relating to the Palestinian territories. 

For instance, UAE officials have openly criticized Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, despite collaborating on security matters with Jerusalem. Mohamed Issa Abushahab, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates to the United Nations, emphasized the importance of stopping illegal practices and settler violence, which he described as having “reached unprecedented levels” and “threatened to fuel tensions.” Tellingly, Abushahab describes Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria as “settlers,” reaffirming, at least rhetorically, his country’s support for a two-state solution. Even more so, following clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians around the Temple Mount in the spring of 2022, the UAE summoned Israel’s ambassador, condemning the actions as a violation of international law while simultaneously maintaining economic agreements with Israel. 

Despite normalization, public opinion, often referred to as the “Arab street,” in Abraham Accords countries largely opposes deepening relations with Israel. A 2024 poll by the Arab Center in Washington, DC revealed that majorities in Bahrain and the UAE view Israel negatively. This creates a contrast between the economic interests of the government and the public opinion of the country, arguably reflecting the underlying opinions of the government as well. Leaders often reflect the dual nature of the country by publicly supporting Palestinians while quietly benefiting from normalization deals. In Bahrain, protests against normalization have erupted, demonstrating the domestic pressure on leaders to appear supportive of Palestine while pursuing the economic advantages that come with relations with Israel. 

Public condemnation of Israeli actions from the governments of Abraham Accords nations serves to placate domestic opposition while quietly allowing security and defense partnerships with Israel to flourish. Emirati and Bahraini relations with Israel are an investment in future security partnerships and economic development, yet the optics of normalization are still carefully managed to ensure the Palestinian issue remains publicly supported. By normalizing relations without requiring concessions on Palestine from the Israeli government, these countries weakened Palestinian diplomatic leverage while claiming to support the Palestinian cause. 

Arab states entered relations with Israel without referencing conditions in the Arab Peace Initiative, the longstanding Arab plan for the “Palestinian question,” undermining Palestinian demands. But these leaders argue that their normalization is beneficial for Palestinians and that the economic cooperation will trickle down. This proves without question that these countries don’t proclaim support for Palestine out of a moral obligation; rather, they do it for their own self-interests, because real support for Palestine would not involve deepening economic and security ties with Israel. 

Economic collaboration strengthens Israel’s financial and technological sectors, bolstering the very state apparatus that Palestinians accuse of perpetuating occupation and inequality. By maintaining and even deepening economic relationships, countries like the UAE and Bahrain provide Israel with greater legitimacy and resources without requiring any meaningful concessions on Palestinian statehood, rights, or sovereignty. 

If these nations were genuinely committed to the Palestinian cause they would use their economic leverage to pressure Israel into making tangible changes; instead, they separate their rhetorical support for Palestinians from their practical dealings with Israel, choosing material gain over moral solidarity. Their economic partnership directly contradicts the spirit of resistance and advocacy they claim to uphold in public forums like the United Nations.

Countries involved in the Abraham Accords display a delicate strategy, balancing material benefits—economic growth and security—with moral posturing through public condemnations of Israel. These contradictory stances reflect efforts to navigate domestic pressures, regional dynamics, and international expectations. This “playing both sides” approach exposes the complexities of Middle Eastern diplomacy and highlights how strategic interests often overshadow professed moral commitments.