Peace in the Storm: Why the Abraham Accords Survive Where Others Failed

Five years after their signing, the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab nations persist through regional warfare and political upheaval—a diplomatic anomaly that challenges conventional wisdom about Middle East peace agreements.

The Unconventional Peace That Endures

The Abraham Accords, signed in September 2020, normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Unlike previous peace initiatives that crumbled under pressure, these agreements have weathered the October 7 Hamas attacks, the subsequent Gaza war, and mounting regional tensions. Mozah Alkindi, a prominent Emirati voice on the accords, attributes this resilience to a fundamental difference: these agreements were “chosen by the people, for the people,” rather than imposed from above.

This bottom-up approach marks a departure from traditional Middle Eastern diplomacy, which historically relied on top-down negotiations between leaders with limited public buy-in. The accords facilitated immediate people-to-people connections through business partnerships, cultural exchanges, and tourism—creating stakeholders beyond government halls. When conflict erupted in Gaza, these civilian networks didn’t disappear; instead, they adapted, with some channels even facilitating humanitarian aid delivery.

Beyond Survival: The Metrics of Success

The numbers tell a compelling story. Trade between Israel and the UAE alone exceeded $2.5 billion in 2022, up from virtually zero before normalization. Over 500,000 Israeli tourists visited Dubai in the accords’ first two years, while Emirati students began enrolling in Israeli universities. These aren’t just statistics—they represent thousands of personal relationships and economic interdependencies that create natural constituencies for peace.

Even more remarkably, public opinion polling in participating Arab states shows sustained or growing support for normalization, despite the Gaza conflict. This contrasts sharply with the Egyptian and Jordanian peace treaties, where cold diplomatic relations never translated into warm public acceptance. The difference lies in tangible benefits: job creation through joint ventures, access to advanced technology and medicine, and expanded educational opportunities.

The Strategic Implications

The accords’ resilience carries profound implications for future Middle East diplomacy. Traditional peace processes assumed that Israeli-Palestinian resolution must precede broader regional normalization. The Abraham Accords flipped this sequence, betting that regional integration could create conditions for eventual Palestinian statehood negotiations. While critics argue this sidelines Palestinian concerns, proponents like Alkindi suggest that demonstrating peace’s benefits builds momentum for comprehensive solutions.

This model also reflects shifting regional priorities. Shared concerns about Iran, economic diversification needs, and technological advancement have created common ground that transcends historical grievances. The accords represent a new Middle Eastern pragmatism—one where national interests sometimes override ideological positions.

The Test Ahead

Yet challenges loom. Saudi Arabia’s potential normalization, once seemingly imminent, has stalled amid the Gaza war. Palestinian frustration continues to simmer, and Iranian opposition remains fierce. The true test may come not from external conflicts but from internal pressures: whether the next generation of leaders in these countries will maintain their predecessors’ pragmatic approach.

As the Middle East navigates an uncertain future, the Abraham Accords stand as both achievement and experiment. They’ve proven that peace agreements can survive regional warfare—but can they eventually help end it?