The Abraham Accords, brokered by the U.S. Under former President Donald Trump in 2020, were hailed as a historic breakthrough in Middle East diplomacy—normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco. Yet five years later, critics warn that any expansion of these agreements risks deepening regional instability by entrenching apartheid-like systems, propping up authoritarian regimes, and perpetuating militarism under the guise of “peace.” With geopolitical tensions rising and domestic pressures mounting in key signatory nations, the question remains: Are the Abraham Accords a model for regional cooperation—or a blueprint for sustained suffering?

The original accords were framed as a counter to decades of conflict, offering economic incentives, security guarantees, and diplomatic recognition in exchange for Israel’s restraint in occupied territories. But analysts now argue that the framework lacks mechanisms to address the root causes of instability: systemic discrimination, political repression, and unchecked military expansion. Without these safeguards, critics say, any new agreements risk becoming tools of oppression rather than pathways to justice.

Dr. Olivia Bennett, Chief Editor of World Today Journal, warns that the current push to expand the accords—particularly with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states—could exacerbate existing crises. “The Abraham Accords were sold as a win-win, but the reality is far more complicated,” she says. “Normalization without accountability only legitimizes regimes that suppress dissent and ignore the needs of their own populations, let alone those of Palestinians.”

The Abraham Accords: A Brief History and Current Risks

The Abraham Accords were announced in Washington on August 13, 2020, following months of secret negotiations. The deal was celebrated as a diplomatic triumph, with Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco quickly following the UAE’s lead. However, critics from the outset questioned whether the agreements would lead to meaningful peace or merely shift the dynamics of conflict.

One of the most contentious aspects of the accords is their lack of Palestinian involvement. While Israel and Arab states agreed to suspend disputes over the Palestinian territories, the absence of Palestinian leadership in the process has left many questioning the accords’ legitimacy. “Peace without justice is not peace,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres in 2021, echoing widespread skepticism.

Since 2020, the accords have led to increased trade, tourism, and diplomatic exchanges. For example, direct flights between Israel and the UAE surged by over 300% in their first year, and joint ventures in technology and energy have flourished. Yet these gains have been uneven. In Sudan, where the accord was signed amid a fragile ceasefire, the economic benefits have yet to materialize for most citizens, while political repression has intensified under the military-led transition government.

Who Benefits—and Who Loses?

The economic disparities under the accords are stark. A 2023 Oxfam report found that while elites in Gulf states and Israel have gained from increased investment and trade, ordinary citizens in countries like Sudan and Yemen have seen little improvement in living standards. Meanwhile, Palestinian communities in the West Bank and Gaza have experienced continued restrictions on movement, settlement expansion, and limited access to resources.

The accords have also accelerated militarization in the region. Israel’s defense industry has seen a boom in arms sales to Gulf states, with reports of expanded joint military exercises and technology-sharing agreements. Critics argue that this only fuels an arms race, particularly as tensions with Iran and its proxies persist.

The Saudi Gambit: A New Front in the Accords?

The most high-stakes potential expansion of the Abraham Accords is with Saudi Arabia. Riyadh has long been a key player in Middle East geopolitics, and normalization with Israel could reshape the region’s balance of power. However, Saudi Arabia’s human rights record—including its treatment of women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and political dissidents—has drawn sharp criticism from international observers.

A May 2025 Amnesty International report highlighted ongoing abuses, including arbitrary detentions, torture, and the suppression of free speech. “Any normalization deal with Saudi Arabia must include concrete commitments to end these practices,” said Amnesty’s Middle East Director. Without such safeguards, the accords risk becoming a tool for legitimizing repression rather than fostering peace.

The Human Cost: Apartheid, Militarism, and Despotism

The core argument against expanding the Abraham Accords is that they fail to address the systemic issues that fuel conflict in the Middle East. Apartheid-like conditions in the occupied Palestinian territories, the militarization of Gulf states, and the repression of dissent in countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE are not resolved by diplomatic agreements—they are often exacerbated by them.

Consider the case of Sudan, where the accord was signed in 2020 amid a civil war. While the deal included a $3 billion investment fund, much of the money has been diverted to military and security forces rather than civilian needs. Meanwhile, the Sudanese people continue to suffer from food shortages, hyperinflation, and political instability. The accord has done little to address these crises, instead providing a veneer of international legitimacy to a fragile and corrupt regime.

Similarly, in the UAE and Bahrain, the accords have coincided with increased surveillance, crackdowns on activists, and restrictions on free speech. A 2024 Human Rights Watch report documented how normalization has emboldened authorities to silence critics, with journalists, academics, and human rights defenders facing arbitrary arrests and long prison sentences.

Militarism as a False Solution

The Abraham Accords have also accelerated militarism in the region. Israel’s defense industry has thrived under the agreements, with new contracts signed with Gulf states for advanced weapons systems. Meanwhile, the UAE and Bahrain have increased their military budgets, investing in drones, cyber warfare capabilities, and naval expansion—often with Israeli and U.S. Support.

This arms buildup has raised concerns about a new regional arms race. Iran, already locked in a proxy conflict with Saudi Arabia and Israel, has responded with its own military expansions, including the development of ballistic missiles and cyber warfare units. The result is a dangerous cycle of escalation, where diplomatic agreements fail to reduce tensions and instead fuel further militarization.

What Happens Next? The Road Ahead for the Abraham Accords

As of May 2026, negotiations for a potential Saudi-Israel normalization deal remain stalled. While both sides have expressed interest in moving forward, key obstacles persist, including:

• Saudi Arabia’s demands for a U.S. Security guarantee in exchange for normalization.
• Israel’s insistence on Palestinian concessions, including a future state, which Saudi Arabia has not yet endorsed.
• Domestic opposition in both countries, particularly among progressive and religious groups.

The next critical checkpoint will likely be the U.S.-sponsored Middle East Peace Summit scheduled for June 15, 2026 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This gathering will bring together regional leaders, international diplomats, and civil society representatives to discuss the future of the Abraham Accords and potential new agreements. Key questions include:

• Will Saudi Arabia join the accords, and what conditions will it impose?
• How will the Palestinian issue be addressed, if at all?
• Will human rights and democratic reforms be included as prerequisites for normalization?
• What economic and security guarantees will be offered to ensure benefits reach ordinary citizens?

A Call for Accountability

The Abraham Accords were never a panacea for Middle East conflicts. At their best, they represented a pragmatic step toward reducing tensions. At their worst, they risk becoming a tool for entrenching oppression, militarism, and inequality. As negotiations continue, the international community must demand that any new agreements include:

• Clear mechanisms for addressing human rights abuses.
• Inclusive representation for Palestinian civil society.
• Transparency in economic benefits to ensure they reach all citizens.
• Commitments to demilitarization and conflict de-escalation.

The alternative—normalization without accountability—is a recipe for sustained suffering. The Middle East deserves better than a fantasy of peace built on the foundations of apartheid, despotism, and militarism.