The Abraham Accords: How it Differs Fundamentally from Traditional Peace Treaties
The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East is undergoing rapid transformation as the Abraham Accords continue to expand beyond their initial signatories. These developments have raised significant questions in the Arab world regarding the true nature of the Accords and the distinctions between this framework of normalization and the traditional peace treaties historically signed between warring states.
Notably, with countries such as Kazakhstan moving into a “semi-member” status, and Saudi Arabia becoming effectively engaged in the process without an official signature, the Accords have evolved into a broad regional architecture that is redefining political, economic, and security alliances.
First: The Abraham Accords Are Not a Peace Treaty—They Are a Comprehensive Normalization Framework
Unlike traditional peace agreements—such as Egypt–Israel (Camp David, 1979) or Jordan–Israel (Wadi Araba, 1994)—the Abraham Accords were not established between parties in active conflict.
The Arab states that signed them (the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) had no direct wars or military confrontations with Israel.
Therefore, the Accords serve as a normalization agreement, not a peace treaty ending a war.
Second: The Accords Introduce a Multi-Layered System of Normalization
The Abraham Accords represent one of the most wide-ranging frameworks ever introduced in the region, extending far beyond political diplomacy. Supported strongly by the United States, the Accords aim to form a new regional coalition based on shared interests.
1. Political Normalization
• Exchange of ambassadors and opening of embassies
• Regular ministerial meetings
• Direct coordination on regional issues
2. Economic Normalization
• Joint investments in agriculture, energy, water technologies, and digital transformation
• Market access for Israeli companies
• Large-scale projects in transportation, AI, smart farms, and electricity interconnection
3. Security and Defense Cooperation
• Intelligence and cybersecurity partnerships
• Participation in military exercises in some cases
• Integration into U.S.-led regional defense arrangements
4. Social and Cultural Normalization
• Educational programs between universities
• Media and cultural cooperation to promote acceptance narratives
• Student exchanges and cultural events
5. Scientific and Technological Partnerships
• Joint research projects in medicine, space, desalination, and AI
• U.S.-funded platforms that connect researchers and tech innovators
Through these dimensions, the Accords operate as a comprehensive normalization initiative, not simply a diplomatic step.
⸻
Third: Key Differences Between the Abraham Accords and Traditional Peace Treaties
Traditional Peace Treaties:
• Signed after wars or direct military conflict
• End hostilities and establish secure borders
• Based on the principle of “land for peace”
• Include prisoner exchanges and detailed security arrangements
The Abraham Accords:
• No war existed between the parties
• Aim to establish economic and political partnerships
• Do not include territorial compromises
• Treat the Palestinian issue as a secondary or symbolic item
The contrast highlights that the Accords represent a new strategic philosophy, not a continuation of past peace models.
⸻
Fourth: Countries Entering the Accords Indirectly or Without Official Signature
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan has not formally signed the Accords, but it has become a practical participant through:
• Economic cooperation with Israel
• Participation in U.S.-backed regional initiatives linked to the Accords
• Engagement in shared technological and energy projects
This places Kazakhstan in a “semi-member” position within the broader framework.
Saudi Arabia
While Saudi Arabia has not signed officially, it has entered the Accords’ orbit through:
• Opening its airspace to Israeli flights
• Participating in regional energy and connectivity projects mapped within the Accords
• Quiet security and intelligence coordination
• Joint discussions with the U.S. and Israel regarding post-war arrangements for Gaza
These steps mean Saudi Arabia is already part of the Accords in practice, even as it reserves the right to make a political announcement at the appropriate moment, particularly regarding its conditions for progress on the Palestinian issue.
⸻
Fifth: Regional Impact of the Abraham Accords
1. Formation of a New Regional Bloc
The Accords create a new alignment that links the Middle East with Central Asia under American sponsorship.
2. Shifting the Centrality of the Palestinian Cause
The traditional Arab position of “no normalization before a solution” has shifted toward “normalization first, then negotiations.”
3. Reconfiguring Regional Power Dynamics
With the effective involvement of Saudi Arabia, the region now contains:
• States that normalize fully
• States that reject normalization
• States navigating a middle ground
4. Strengthening Israel’s Economic and Political Position
Israel gains direct access to Arab markets, energy corridors, technology networks, and strategic infrastructure projects.
⸻
Conclusion
The Abraham Accords mark a new phase in the modern history of the Middle East. They are not peace agreements, because they do not end a war; instead, they are a comprehensive normalization platform designed to integrate Israel into the political, economic, and security structures of the region.
With semi-members like Kazakhstan and practically engaged powers like Saudi Arabia, the Accords have grown into a broad geopolitical framework with the potential to reshape regional alliances, the future of the Palestinian question, and the balance of power across the Middle East for decades to come.
