Abraham Accord

Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Bahrain formalized relations by signing the Abraham Accord, establishing embassies, exchanging ambassadors, and fostering cooperation across tourism, trade, healthcare, and security. The trilateral agreement between Israel, the UAE, and the United States marks a significant diplomatic breakthrough, with the UAE becoming the third Arab nation to recognize Israel, following Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). This accord challenges the long-standing consensus among many Arab and Muslim-majority states to maintain hostility towards Israel until it agrees to Palestinian statehood.

The Abraham Accord unfolds against a complex historical backdrop, steeped in decades of Arab-Israeli conflict. This conflict is characterized by incessant wars, intractable territorial disputes, and a persistent lack of recognition of Israel by numerous Arab states. Delving into this backdrop requires examining events that have shaped the region's political landscape, including the Hussein-McMahon correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, and the period of the British Mandate. The creation of Israel in 1948 and subsequent wars led to the displacement of Palestinians and the initiation of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Oslo Accords in the 1990s represented an attempt to find a two-state solution, but it ultimately failed to secure lasting peace. The Abraham Accord, therefore, represents not just a bilateral or trilateral agreement, but a potential inflection point in a region defined by prolonged antagonism and unresolved grievances.

Genesis of Conflict: Historical Fault Lines

The roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict are deeply embedded in a series of historical events and agreements, starting with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. During World War I, the British sought to garner support from both Arabs and Jews against the Ottomans. This led to conflicting promises that would later fuel the conflict.

The Hussein-McMahon correspondence (1915-1916) involved a series of letters between Sir Henry McMahon, the British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca. In these letters, McMahon implied British support for Arab independence in territories controlled by the Ottoman Empire, including Palestine, in exchange for Arab assistance in the war against the Ottomans. The Arabs interpreted these promises as a commitment to their independence in the region. However, the British later argued that Palestine was not included in the areas promised to the Arabs.

Simultaneously, the Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) was a secret agreement between Britain and France to divide the Ottoman territories in the Middle East after the war. This agreement contradicted the promises made to the Arabs in the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Palestine was designated to be under international administration, a decision that further complicated the future of the region.

Adding another layer of complexity, the Balfour Declaration (1917) was a public statement by the British government expressing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This declaration was made to garner support from Jewish communities worldwide for the Allied war effort. The declaration stated that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." However, the declaration was seen by Arabs as a betrayal of British promises of independence and as an endorsement of Jewish immigration to Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine (1920-1948) was established by the League of Nations, giving Britain administrative control over Palestine. During this period, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased significantly, leading to growing tensions and conflicts between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs saw the increasing Jewish presence as a threat to their land and their identity. The Peel Commission in 1937 proposed the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states, but this proposal was rejected by the Arab Higher Committee.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War and its Aftermath

The culmination of these tensions led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, triggered by the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. The war involved Israel and a coalition of Arab states, including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The outcome of the war was a decisive victory for Israel, which gained control of approximately 78% of Mandatory Palestine. The war resulted in the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who became refugees in neighboring Arab countries. This event is known as the "Nakba" (catastrophe) by Palestinians.

The armistice agreements of 1949 established the borders between Israel and its neighbors, but these borders were never formally recognized as permanent. The West Bank came under Jordanian control, while the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian control. The status of Jerusalem remained unresolved, with both Israel and Palestine claiming it as their capital.

The Six-Day War in 1967 was another major turning point in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this war, Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. The war resulted in a new wave of Palestinian refugees and further complicated the prospects for peace. UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted after the war, called for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency." However, the resolution did not specify which territories Israel was required to withdraw from, leading to ongoing disputes.

The Yom Kippur War in 1973 was launched by Egypt and Syria in an attempt to regain the territories lost in the Six-Day War. The war ended in a stalemate, but it led to renewed diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict. The Camp David Accords in 1978, brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter, resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. As a result, Egypt became the first Arab country to recognize Israel.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Oslo Accords

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was established in 1964 with the goal of liberating Palestine through armed struggle. Under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the PLO became the main representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO initially rejected Israel's right to exist, but it later recognized Israel in 1988.

The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 and 1995, were a series of agreements between Israel and the PLO aimed at establishing Palestinian interim self-government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) to govern these territories. However, the Oslo Accords did not resolve the key issues of borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements, leading to ongoing conflict.

The failure of the Oslo Accords to achieve a final peace agreement led to the Second Intifada (2000-2005), a period of intense violence between Israelis and Palestinians. The construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, which began in 2002, further complicated the situation. The barrier has been criticized by Palestinians and the international community as an attempt to annex Palestinian land.

The election of Hamas in 2006 and the subsequent division of the Palestinian territories between Hamas in Gaza and the Fatah-led PA in the West Bank have further complicated the prospects for peace. Several attempts to mediate between Israel and the Palestinians have failed, and the conflict remains unresolved.

The Abraham Accord: A New Paradigm?

Against this backdrop, the Abraham Accord represents a significant shift in the regional dynamics. The Accord, brokered by the United States, normalizes relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. These agreements involve establishing embassies, exchanging ambassadors, and fostering cooperation across various sectors such as tourism, trade, healthcare, and security.

The Abraham Accord marks a departure from the long-standing Arab consensus that normalization with Israel should only occur after a resolution of the Palestinian issue. The UAE and Bahrain have justified their decision by arguing that it will promote regional stability and create opportunities for economic cooperation. However, the Palestinian leadership has condemned the Accord as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

Key Actors and Their Motivations

Several key actors are involved in the Abraham Accord, each with their own motivations and interests.

• Israel: Israel seeks to normalize relations with Arab countries to enhance its security and economic opportunities. Normalization with the UAE and Bahrain provides Israel with new allies in the region and strengthens its position against Iran. Israel also hopes that the Abraham Accord will lead to further normalization agreements with other Arab countries.

• UAE: The UAE aims to promote regional stability and cooperation through normalized relations with Israel. The UAE sees Israel as a valuable partner in countering Iranian influence in the region. The UAE also seeks to enhance its economic ties with Israel and to attract Israeli investment and technology.

• Bahrain: Bahrain seeks to improve relations with Israel and promote regional cooperation. Bahrain is a close ally of Saudi Arabia and is likely to have consulted with Saudi Arabia before signing the Abraham Accord. Bahrain also sees Israel as a valuable partner in countering Iranian influence in the region.

• United States: The United States brokered the Abraham Accord as part of its broader strategy to promote regional stability and counter Iranian influence. The United States sees the Accord as a major diplomatic achievement and hopes that it will lead to further normalization agreements between Israel and Arab countries.

• Palestine: The Palestinian leadership opposes normalization of relations with Israel without a resolution to the Palestinian issue. The Palestinians see the Abraham Accord as a betrayal of their cause and fear that it will weaken their position in future negotiations with Israel.

Broader Implications and Challenges

The Abraham Accord has several broader implications for the region.

• Political: The Accord could lead to a realignment of political alliances in the Middle East, with Israel and its Arab allies forming a bloc against Iran.

• Diplomatic: The Accord represents a significant diplomatic breakthrough and could pave the way for further normalization agreements between Israel and other Arab countries.

• Security: The Accord could lead to enhanced security cooperation between Israel and its Arab allies, countering regional threats such as terrorism and Iranian aggression.

• Economic: The Accord could lead to increased trade and investment opportunities between Israel and its Arab allies, boosting economic growth in the region.

However, the Abraham Accord also faces several challenges.

• Palestinian Issue: The Accord does not address the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Without a resolution to this conflict, lasting peace in the region will be difficult to achieve.

  Advertisement

• Iranian Opposition: Iran strongly opposes the Abraham Accord and has condemned it as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause. Iran could take steps to undermine the Accord and to destabilize the region.

• Public Opinion: Public opinion in many Arab countries remains opposed to normalization with Israel. This could limit the extent to which Arab governments are willing to cooperate with Israel.

India's Perspective

India has maintained a delicate balancing act in its relations with Israel and the Arab world. India recognized Israel in 1950, but for many years, relations were conducted discreetly due to India's close ties with Arab nations and its support for the Palestinian cause. However, in recent decades, India has developed a strong strategic partnership with Israel, particularly in the areas of defense, security, and technology.

At the same time, India has maintained close relations with Arab countries, particularly those in the Gulf region. These countries are important sources of energy for India and host a large Indian diaspora. India has also sought to deepen its economic and security cooperation with these countries.

India has welcomed the Abraham Accord as a positive development that could contribute to regional peace and stability. India sees the Accord as an opportunity to further strengthen its relations with both Israel and the Arab countries involved. India has also expressed its support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Makran Coast, Chabahar Port, and India's Regional Connectivity

The mention of the Makran Coast, Chabahar port, and the Zaranj-Delaram highway in the context of the Abraham Accord might seem tangential, but it highlights India's strategic interests in the region and its efforts to enhance connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The Makran Coast is a semi-desert coastal strip running along the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, shared by Pakistan and Iran. It is a strategically important region for trade and connectivity.

The Chabahar port is a seaport located in southeastern Iran, on the Gulf of Oman. India has invested heavily in the development of Chabahar port as a way to bypass Pakistan and gain direct access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The Chabahar port project is seen as a key component of India's regional connectivity strategy.

The Zaranj-Delaram highway is a 218-kilometer highway in Afghanistan that connects Zaranj, a city near the Iranian border, with Delaram, a city on the Kandahar-Kabul highway. The highway was built by India and is seen as an important link in India's connectivity with Afghanistan.

India's involvement in these projects reflects its desire to play a greater role in the region and to promote economic development and stability. The Abraham Accord could potentially create new opportunities for India to expand its economic and security cooperation with Israel and the Arab countries involved, further enhancing its regional influence.

The Role of the United Nations

The United Nations (UN) has played a significant role in the Arab-Israeli conflict since its inception. In 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states. This resolution was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arab leadership.

The UN has also been involved in peacekeeping efforts in the region. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) was established in 1948 to monitor the armistice agreements between Israel and its neighbors. The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was established in 1974 to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Syria in the Golan Heights. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was established in 1978 to monitor the border between Israel and Lebanon.

The UN has also passed numerous resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict, calling for a peaceful resolution to the conflict and for the protection of Palestinian rights. However, the UN's effectiveness in resolving the conflict has been limited by the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council and the willingness of states to comply with resolutions.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the UN that promotes international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms. Palestine was admitted to UNESCO as a member state in 2011, a move that was opposed by Israel and the United States.

The Balfour Declaration: A Legal and Moral Quandary

The Balfour Declaration, issued in 1917, remains a contentious document in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It declared British support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, while also stating that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

The Balfour Declaration is seen by Zionists as a landmark achievement that paved the way for the creation of Israel. However, it is seen by Palestinians as a betrayal of their rights and as a key factor in the displacement of Palestinians from their homeland.

The legal status of the Balfour Declaration is a matter of debate. Some argue that it was a legally binding commitment by the British government, while others argue that it was merely a statement of policy. Regardless of its legal status, the Balfour Declaration has had a profound impact on the history of the region and continues to be a source of controversy.

Historical Precedents: Egypt and Jordan

The Abraham Accord is not the first instance of an Arab country normalizing relations with Israel. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. These agreements were significant breakthroughs in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but they did not lead to a comprehensive peace settlement.

The Camp David Accords, which led to the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, were brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. The accords involved the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War. The peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was a major achievement, but it was also controversial, as it was seen by some as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

The peace treaty between Israel and Jordan was signed in 1994 and resolved several outstanding issues between the two countries, including borders, water rights, and security cooperation. The peace treaty between Israel and Jordan has led to improved relations and cooperation between the two countries.

Stakeholder Positions: A Complex Web of Interests

The Abraham Accord has elicited a variety of reactions from different stakeholders, reflecting the complex web of interests in the region.

• Israel: Israel views the Abraham Accord as a significant diplomatic victory that enhances its security and economic opportunities. Israel seeks to expand its relations with Arab countries and to counter Iranian influence in the region.

• UAE: The UAE sees the Abraham Accord as a way to promote regional stability and to enhance its economic ties with Israel. The UAE also seeks to strengthen its security cooperation with Israel and the United States.

• Bahrain: Bahrain views the Abraham Accord as a way to improve relations with Israel and to promote regional cooperation. Bahrain is a close ally of Saudi Arabia and is likely to have consulted with Saudi Arabia before signing the Accord.

• Palestine: The Palestinian leadership condemns the Abraham Accord as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause. The Palestinians fear that the Accord will weaken their position in future negotiations with Israel.

• Iran: Iran strongly opposes the Abraham Accord and views it as a threat to its security. Iran could take steps to undermine the Accord and to destabilize the region.

• Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia has not yet normalized relations with Israel, but it is believed to have tacitly supported the Abraham Accord. Saudi Arabia shares concerns with Israel and the UAE about Iranian influence in the region.

• United States: The United States brokered the Abraham Accord as part of its broader strategy to promote regional stability and to counter Iranian influence. The United States sees the Accord as a major diplomatic achievement and hopes that it will lead to further normalization agreements between Israel and Arab countries.

  Advertisement

Future Outlook: Uncertainties and Possibilities

The future outlook for the Abraham Accord is uncertain. While the Accord represents a significant diplomatic breakthrough, it also faces several challenges.

The success of the Accord will depend on several factors, including the ability of Israel and its Arab partners to implement the agreements, the reaction of Iran and other regional actors, and the progress made on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is possible that the Abraham Accord could lead to further normalization agreements between Israel and other Arab countries. This could create new opportunities for economic cooperation and security cooperation in the region. However, it is also possible that the Accord could be undermined by regional instability and the lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The Abraham Accord is a complex and multifaceted development that has the potential to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East. Its long-term impact remains to be seen.