Security expert Col. (res.) Dr. Moshe Elad questions whether the 2020 Abraham Accords—Israel’s landmark agreements with Morocco, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain—are still delivering balanced benefits five years on, in an interview with Maariv on Monday.
“The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, were a historic step and are considered a breakthrough in Israel’s relations with Arab states. On the surface, these are agreements with Morocco, Sudan, the UAE, and Bahrain, and they herald not only diplomatic engagement but also the normalization of ties in every possible field—technology, economy, tourism, security, and agriculture.”
Elad links that breakthrough to a new regional mood in which Arab governments prize prosperity over enmity.
“The agreements Israel signed with the Gulf and African states were the result of a political landscape in which Arab countries sought economic growth, were eager to shed their ingrained hostility toward Israel, and were ready to view their interests from a new perspective.”
That climate, he adds, enables joint action against shared threats—from terrorism to Iran—while tapping Israel’s technological edge. Still, he doubts the goodwill is matched by tangible reciprocity.
“All this is accompanied by strong expressions recognizing Israel’s status and its right to exist. But if we look deeper, we must ask: Are these truly agreements that benefit both sides, or is Israel facing the danger that what it gives is not always reciprocated?”
Extending the formula elsewhere looks far less likely, he cautions.
“What happens if we try to extend this approach? Could the Abraham Accords truly spread to countries like Syria and Lebanon? The picture there is far less optimistic. Both nations have a long history of hostility toward Israel, and political opposition at home would block any attempt to advance peace.”
Even Israel’s long-standing treaties lack popular warmth, he noted. “Look at Egypt and Jordan—states that signed treaties with Israel in the 1970s and 1990s. The agreements still stand, but public support is anything but warm. In Egypt, Israel is still viewed as an enemy. Despite security cooperation against ISIS, the Egyptian public sees Israel as the ‘devil.’”
“In Jordan—the country with one of Israel’s more stable treaties—public attitudes remain cold, not only for political reasons but also because of the population’s entrenched Palestinian identity," he added.
Treaties with Syria, Lebanon may not be effective even if reached
Elad also doubted that signing any pact with Damascus or Beirut would actually yield any tangible benefits.
“Would things improve if we signed accords with Syria and Lebanon? Definitely not. Political realities in both countries leave no room for genuine progress—economic cooperation would be partial and superficial, Israeli tourism wouldn’t get off the ground, and Israel would keep shouldering the burden of being the Middle East’s ‘conscience’ for little in return.”
Elad finished the interview with a blunt bottom line. “In short, the Abraham Accords are indeed an achievement, but the big question is whether we can preserve them and turn them into agreements that truly benefit both sides.”
“You can’t base peace in the Middle East on unilateral conditions. If we genuinely seek peace with Syria and Lebanon, we must be ready to deliver tangible results, not only in security but also economically and culturally. That requires patience, real investment in long-term processes, and, above all, a change in public consciousness in those countries. Otherwise, what began with the Abraham Accords may run into walls of apathy and rejection," he concluded.