By P M Amza –

The recent reports surrounding former U.S. President Donald Trump and his renewed push to expand the Abraham Accords have once again brought Middle Eastern diplomacy into sharp global focus. According to several international media reports, Trump urged key Muslim-majority countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, to join an expanded normalization framework with Israel while broader negotiations concerning Iran and regional security continue to evolve.

Supporters portray the proposal as a bold diplomatic initiative intended to reshape the Middle East under a new framework of strategic cooperation led by the United States. Critics, however, view the initiative differently. They see it as diplomatically mistimed and politically detached from the realities currently prevailing across the region. The strongest reservations, significantly, have emerged not merely from public opinion in the Muslim world but also from governments themselves, many of which continue to insist that meaningful normalization with Israel cannot proceed without credible progress toward resolving the Palestinian issue.

The reactions themselves reveal an important geopolitical reality: the political atmosphere in the Middle East has changed profoundly since the original Abraham Accords were signed in 2020 during the first presidency of Donald Trump.

Early Reactions Reveal Regional Reservations

Initial reactions from several Muslim-majority countries suggest that the proposal is unlikely to receive immediate endorsement despite strong American pressure. Diplomatic signals emerging from the region indicate that many states continue to link any future normalization with Israel to meaningful progress on the Palestinian question.

Saudi Arabia reportedly reiterated its longstanding position that normalization with Israel would require credible and irreversible steps toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. This position reflects not only strategic calculations but also the Kingdom’s wider religious and political responsibilities within the Islamic world.

Pakistan too has consistently maintained that it cannot recognize Israel until a just settlement of the Palestinian issue is achieved. Pakistan’s position remains deeply connected to domestic political sentiment as well as its longstanding foreign policy posture regarding Palestine.

Similarly, political discourse emerging from Turkey and Qatar continues to emphasize the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the need for a sustainable political solution rather than accelerated normalization under current circumstances.

These responses demonstrate that while some regional governments may continue limited pragmatic engagement with Israel through security, intelligence, or economic channels, formal participation in an expanded Abraham Accord framework remains politically sensitive at a time when the Palestinian issue has regained global prominence.

The Original Logic of the Abraham Accords

When the Abraham Accords were introduced in 2020, they represented a major diplomatic shift in Middle Eastern politics. Brokered under the Trump Administration, the agreements led to normalization between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan.

The accords were built upon several strategic assumptions. First, they reflected the growing perception among some Arab states that Iran posed a greater immediate security concern than the unresolved Palestinian issue. Second, they sought to promote economic cooperation, technological partnerships, tourism, and security collaboration between Israel and Arab states. Third, and perhaps most significantly, they attempted to gradually redefine Middle Eastern diplomacy by separating Arab-Israeli normalization from the Palestinian question.

For a period, the strategy appeared successful. Trade expanded rapidly between Israel and some Gulf countries. Tourism increased. Security and intelligence cooperation deepened. Supporters of the accords argued that pragmatic engagement and economic interdependence could produce greater regional stability than decades of confrontation and hostility.

Yet the regional environment that existed in 2020 no longer exists today.

 Gaza and the Return of the Palestinian Question

One of the most significant geopolitical consequences of the Gaza conflict has been the dramatic re-emergence of the Palestinian issue at the centre of Middle Eastern diplomacy. For years, many analysts argued that the Palestinian cause had gradually lost its mobilizing power in regional politics. The Abraham Accords themselves were viewed by some observers as evidence that Arab governments were prepared to move beyond traditional political conditions regarding Palestine.

That assumption now appears increasingly questionable.

The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, combined with extensive global media coverage, has revived emotional and political engagement with Palestine across much of the Muslim world. Large demonstrations, parliamentary debates, diplomatic protests, and growing criticism of Israeli military operations have reshaped political calculations throughout the region.

Governments that may privately favour strategic engagement with Israel now face increasing domestic pressures. Public legitimacy matters deeply in Middle Eastern politics, particularly when humanitarian suffering, religion, identity, and political symbolism become intertwined.

This explains why several Muslim-majority countries continue to insist that normalization cannot meaningfully proceed without at least a credible pathway toward Palestinian statehood.

The Palestinian issue, therefore, has not disappeared from Middle Eastern diplomacy. On the contrary, the Gaza conflict appears to have restored it to the very centre of regional political discourse.

Timing Matters in Diplomacy

Diplomacy is not merely about substance; it is also about timing. Even agreements with potentially positive long-term objectives can fail if pursued during periods of intense political polarization or emotional upheaval.

This is where the current push to expand the Abraham Accords appears particularly problematic.

At a time when Israel faces criticism not only from Muslim-majority countries but also from segments of Europe, international human rights organizations, university movements, and even parts of the American political establishment, efforts to aggressively promote normalization inevitably appear disconnected from prevailing regional sentiment.

Several Western governments that traditionally maintained strong support for Israel have themselves expressed growing concern regarding humanitarian conditions in Gaza. International debates concerning ceasefires, civilian casualties, humanitarian access, and recognition of Palestinian statehood have intensified considerably in recent months.

Against this backdrop, pressing Muslim-majority countries to formalize diplomatic relations with Israel risks creating the perception that Palestinian grievances are being politically sidelined precisely when they have regained international visibility.

This is why the current initiative may be viewed not simply as controversial, but untimely.

Strategic Cooperation and Formal Normalization Are Different

An important distinction often overlooked in international discussions is the difference between strategic cooperation and formal normalization.

Many countries in the Middle East already maintain varying degrees of indirect engagement with Israel through security channels, intelligence contacts, economic interactions, or third-party diplomatic mechanisms. Such pragmatic engagement has quietly existed for years.

Formal participation in the Abraham Accords, however, carries far greater symbolic significance. It involves public political recognition and visible diplomatic association at a time of heightened emotional sensitivity across the region.

Countries such as Saudi Arabia face especially delicate calculations. Saudi Arabia occupies a unique position within the Islamic world due to its custodianship of Islam’s two holiest mosques. Domestic public opinion, broader Islamic sentiment, and regional leadership considerations inevitably influence its diplomatic decisions.

Likewise, Turkey and Qatar maintain complex regional roles requiring them to balance strategic interests with strong public positioning on Palestine.

The assumption that all these countries can simply be brought under one normalization framework through political pressure or economic incentives underestimates the complexity of Middle Eastern political realities.

Transactional Diplomacy and Its Limits

The language reportedly associated with the proposal also deserves attention. Suggestions that regional actors must either accept a “great deal” or risk returning to confrontation reflect a highly transactional approach to diplomacy.

Transactional diplomacy may produce rapid agreements under certain circumstances, particularly where economic or security incentives dominate political calculations. However, Middle Eastern politics often involves issues that transcend material considerations. Religion, historical memory, identity, legitimacy, and symbolism remain deeply embedded within regional political behaviour.

The Palestinian issue, especially after Gaza, cannot easily be reduced to a purely transactional diplomatic arrangement.

This does not mean normalization will never expand in the future. Regional politics constantly evolves, and strategic realities may eventually produce new diplomatic configurations. However, durable agreements generally require political legitimacy and public acceptance, not merely elite-level strategic calculations.

Diplomatic sustainability matters as much as diplomatic achievement.

A Region in Transition

The Middle East today is undergoing profound geopolitical transformation. The region is increasingly shaped by overlapping dynamics: competition with Iran, great-power rivalry, energy security concerns, technological cooperation, domestic economic reforms, and rapidly evolving public opinion.

Within this environment, countries are seeking greater strategic autonomy rather than automatic alignment with any external power. Even close American partners increasingly pursue diversified foreign policies balancing relations with Washington, Beijing, Moscow, and regional actors simultaneously.

The current debate surrounding the Abraham Accords therefore reflects something larger than Arab-Israeli normalization alone. It reflects the broader tension between strategic statecraft and public legitimacy in an era of rapid geopolitical change.

Conclusion

Peace agreements and regional cooperation should always be encouraged where possible. The Middle East has suffered from decades of war, instability, sectarian conflict, and geopolitical rivalry. Dialogue, diplomacy, and economic cooperation remain essential components of any sustainable regional order.

However, diplomacy cannot be divorced from political reality.

The present moment is defined by deep anger across much of the Muslim world over the humanitarian situation in Gaza and renewed international attention to the Palestinian question. In such an environment, aggressively promoting expansion of the Abraham Accords risks appearing less like visionary diplomacy and more like a diplomatic misreading of regional sentiment.

The issue is therefore not whether normalization itself is inherently undesirable. Rather, it is whether normalization pursued amid widening regional and international isolation can achieve genuine legitimacy and long-term sustainability.

In diplomacy, timing often determines success as much as strategy. The current push for expanding the Abraham Accords may ultimately be remembered not for its ambition, but for its failure to recognize the political realities of the moment. ENDS

*The author is Sri Lanka’s former Ambassador to the EU, Belgium, Türkiye and Saudi Arabia and former Additional Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.