The Abraham Accords (AA), signed in 2020, were hailed by their architects as a masterstroke of regional diplomacy, promising economic integration and security stability. Yet, from the vantage point of justice and international law, the Accords represented a significant geopolitical pivot: a formal, multilateral abandonment of the principle that Arab normalization with Israel must be conditioned on ending the illegal military occupation and recognizing Palestinian rights. By prioritizing security alliances and commerce over the foundational issues of self-determination, the Accords did not usher in a new era of peace; they arguably solidified a framework of Israeli impunity, dramatically deepening the crisis of Palestinian governance and ultimately contributing to the conditions that resulted in the widespread atrocities documented in Gaza.
The Architecture of Betrayal: Normalizing Illegal Hegemony
The strategic shortcoming of the Abraham Accords lies in its calculated dismantling of the decades-long diplomatic consensus encapsulated by the Arab Peace Initiative (API). The API established a clear, principled formula: full Arab recognition of Israel only in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state. The AA unilaterally severed this principled link, substituting land for peace with a transactional model of security and commerce.
This pivot was, inherently, an endorsement of Israeli hegemony. It provided a diplomatic shield, allowing Israel to maintain and accelerate its decades-long, systematic oppression of the Palestinian people. International legal bodies, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have definitively ruled Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) to be unlawful. Moreover, the continuous expansion of Israeli settlements is widely recognized as a war crime, violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into occupied territory. By signing the Accords, the Arab states effectively normalized relations with a state that, according to comprehensive findings by major human rights organizations, enforces an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination described as the crime of apartheid against the Palestinian people. The Accords, in this context, were not a peace treaty but a document of regional acquiescence to sustained injustice.
The Apex of Impunity: Failure to Avert Genocide
A critical test of the Abraham Accords’ efficacy as a stability paradigm was the eruption of catastrophic violence post-October 7, culminating in events that the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry in 2025 concluded met the criteria for genocide in the Gaza Strip. The Commission found that Israeli authorities and security forces have had, and continue to possess, the genocidal intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza, citing sufficient evidence of three prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm; and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.
The context of this ultimate crime—the illegal military occupation, the apartheid system, and the inhumane blockade on Gaza—was precisely the context that the Abraham Accords chose to ignore and insulate. The Accords provided the diplomatic cover that arguably emboldened the Israeli government to believe it could operate with impunity, knowing its core regional partners prioritized strategic ties over accountability for international law violations. The systematic creation of uninhabitable conditions, including the deliberate rejection of critical humanitarian aid such as water purification tablets, directly aligns with the genocidal act of
Fragmentation and Validation: The Shock to Palestinian Politics
The signing of the Accords sent a profound shockwave through the internal Palestinian political landscape, prompting a rare moment of unity in condemnation from the bitter rivals, Fatah and Hamas. Both factions rejected the agreements as a fundamental betrayal of the national cause.
For the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), the Accords represented a significant challenge to its authority. By demonstrating that Arab states were prepared to bypass Ramallah and resolve the regional conflict without PA consent, the agreements severely diminished the PA’s regional and international relevance. Already crippled by a profound crisis of domestic legitimacy—with the Palestinian Legislative Council non-functional since 2010—the PA was left isolated and paralyzed, unable to effectively negotiate a new reality.
Conversely, the Accords profoundly validated the hardline resistance narrative championed by Hamas. The diplomatic abandonment confirmed the resistance movement’s core argument: that the path of negotiation and diplomacy, exemplified by the defunct Oslo process, is ultimately ineffective and that Arab regimes prioritize self-interest over the Palestinian people. The Accords were explicitly cited by a Fatah Central Committee member as “one of the reasons” for the pivotal October 7 attack, confirming that the diplomatic shift successfully empowered the kinetic resistance strategy over the political one. Scholars argue that the denial of self-determination under prolonged military occupation provides the legal basis for Palestinians to resist, including through armed struggle, after non-violent means have been systematically exhausted.
Reasserting Justice: The Path Beyond Normalization
The crisis forced by the genocidal campaign in Gaza has severely discredited the Accords’ model of stability-without-justice. Key regional actors are now unified in demanding an “irreversible pathway to Palestinian statehood” as a prerequisite for any further normalization. Furthermore, the recent coordinated wave of recognition of the State of Palestine by nations like the UK, Canada, and Australia demonstrates an international diplomatic maneuver to contain Israeli extremist ambitions, particularly annexation, and exert pressure for a political resolution.
However, no true and lasting peace can be achieved until the international community moves beyond symbolic gestures and addresses the foundational injustices that the Abraham Accords deliberately ignored. Foremost among these is the Palestinian Right of Return (RoR), which remains the “historic kernel” of the conflict and is supported by UN General Assembly Resolution 194. The continued denial of the RoR is intrinsically linked to the maintenance of Israel’s institutionalized apartheid system. The pivot must now be toward accountability. Global diplomatic engagement must re-evaluate political or financial support for the occupation and apartheid system. Future regional architectures must be strictly contingent upon Israel’s adherence to international legal rulings, dismantling the settlements, and providing verifiable steps toward genuine Palestinian self-determination, including a mechanism to resolve the Right of Return. Only a political framework rooted in justice, accountability, and the non-negotiable rights of the Palestinian people can ultimately dismantle the architecture of oppression that the Abraham Accords sought to normalize.
