EditThe Abraham Accords: time for an EU reset
Many in Europe have seen the Accords as a Trump rather than an American initiative and have framed their response accordingly
The position across the 27 member states towards the approach promoted in the Abraham Accords varies widely, writes Dick Roche.
EUalive’s columnist Dick Roche is a former Irish Minister of State for European Affairs. His columns can be found here.
Over the 77 years since its establishment Israel’s relationship with the Arab world has been defined by hostility and war. Following the Six-day War the Arab leaders signed the Khartoum Resolution putting a cordon sanitaire around Israel :there would be no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with Israel.
The first breach in that fence came in 1979 when Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty at the White House witnessed by President Carter It was breached again in 1994 when Jordan and Israel signed a treaty, brokered by the Clinton Presidency, ending the state of war that had existed between the two nations since 1948.
Over a quarter of a century later another breach appeared when, on 15 September 2020, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel signed the Abraham Accords, arrangements brokered by President Trump, at the White House. Three months later, in December 2020 Morocco became the fourth country to sign the Accords. The following month Sudan formally signed the Accords at a ceremony at the US embassy in Khartoum. Because of political instability Sudan has still to formalise its arrangements. The fact that it signed off on the Abrahams Accord in Khartoum has some historic significance.
Outside the Middle East Kosovo and Kazakhstan have, with US encouragement, formally signed the Accords.
The aim of the Accords
Named after the Patriarch Abraham, revered by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the Accords aim to promote peaceful coexistence, built on a shared heritage, across the Middle East. The Accords Declaration commits signatory nations to maintain and strengthen peace in the Middle East based on mutual understanding and co-existence, promotes respect for human dignity and freedom including religious freedom and encourages efforts to promote interfaith and intercultural dialogue amongst the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity.
The Declaration further commits signatories to seek tolerance and respect for every person, supports science, art, medicine and commerce in order “to inspire humankind maximize human potential and bring nations closer together, end radicalization and conflict” and, perhaps most poignant given the horrors that have been playing out in Gaza to “provide all children a better future”.
Different countries – different views
At the White House ceremonies President Trump spoke of the Accords as changing the course of history and marking a new dawn for the Middle East. In signing the Accords, the leaders of Israel, the UAE and Bahrain were, President Trump suggested, “choosing cooperation over conflict, friendship over enmity, prosperity over poverty, and hope over despair.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu hailed the signing as a historic moment for regional peace, security, and prosperity that would lead to expanded cooperation, deliver economic benefits, and lay the foundation for a wider peace in the Middle East.
The United Arab Emirates Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed characterised the Accords as “a historic achievement” delivering a positive impact with reverberations that would be reflected on the entire region. He suggested “every option other than peace would signify destruction, poverty, and human suffering”. He added “ the Accords will enable us to continue to stand by the Palestinian people, and realize their hopes for an independent state within a stable and prosperous region.”
The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, Abdullatif bin Rashid Al-Zayani, saw the signing of the Accords as “ a moment of hope and opportunity for all the peoples of the Middle East” a first step “to bring about the lasting peace and security our peoples deserve”. He said that achieving “ a just, comprehensive and enduring two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will be the foundation – the bedrock – of such peace”.
Egypt and Jordan, which already formalised relations with Israel through peace treaties cautiously welcomed the Accords as strengthening regional stability.
The Palestinian leadership, seeing Arab solidarity as critical to sustaining pressure on Israel, viewed normalisation without statehood as the collapse of that solidarity. In Gaza, Hamas denounced the Accords as a betrayal, a “stab in the back” and a legitimisation of Israeli occupation. Iran labelled them a “betrayal of the Muslim world”, an American-Israeli attempt to encircle Iran strategically. Iran responded by ramping up support for Hamas Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Houthis. Analysts suggest that the murderous 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas and associated groups were aimed at disrupting talks on the Accords between Saudi Arabia and Israel. That suggestion has been vigorously denied by Iran.
Reactions varied elsewhere. Algeria, Iraq, and Kuwait flagged opposition, emphasizing solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Turkey criticized the deals but later moderated its position.
Saudi Arabia’s position on the Accords has been particularly closely watched. The official Saudi position links any formalisation of relations with Israel to its 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, to Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and to a just solution for Palestinian refugees.
The Saudis have, however, shown a willingness to be pragmatic. Saudi Arabia is believed to have agreed to Bahrain’s joining the Accords. In 2022 Saudi Arabia opened its airspace to Israeli overflights, an important development in ties between Jerusalem and Riyadh. It has increasingly viewed Israel as a strategic partner in limiting Iranian influence.
In addition to the political considerations formalising relations with Israel whether by signing the Accords – or an ‘Accords-like’ arrangement – would deliver significant benefits for Saudi Arabia giving it access to Israeli defence industries, links to Israeli investors and technology companies. Given the US President’s enthusiasm for the Accords, Saudi Arabia could also expect positive responses from the Trump administration for ‘coming on board’.
If Saudi Arabia were to join the Accords or their equivalent it would inevitably open the way for other nations in the region to follow suit – Oman and Syria are seen as particularly likely to do so.
The visit of the Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa to the White House this month raised speculation about Syria signing the Accord. When asked in a Fox News interview about that prospect President al-Sharaa made the point that Syria’s situation is different to that of the countries who had signed: “Syria has borders with Israel, and Israel occupies the Golan Heights since 1967. We are not going to enter into negotiation directly right now. Maybe the United States administration with President Trump will help us reach this kind of negotiation. ” President al-Shara’s response was well short of an outright no.
The EU position
Initially the EU welcomed the Accords. In 2022 Commissioner Oliver Varhelyi speaking at an event to mark the second anniversary of their signing referred to the Accords as “ a new regional paradigm” that supports peace, shared prosperity, stability and security. More recently such enthusiasm has been notable by its absence. Overall, the EU position on the Accords has rested somewhere between ‘equivocal’ and “unenthusiastic”.
Many in Europe have seen the Accords as a Trump rather than an American initiative and have framed their response accordingly. Some within the EU felt and possibly hoped that the Accords would ‘fade away’ when President Trump’s first term came to an end.
The reality is they have not faded away. Indeed, they have proven to be surprisingly resilient. The Biden administration which initially downplayed the Accords favouring regional diplomacy gradually embraced and built on them. While Biden’s approach was less ‘Trumpist’, it represented continuity making the Accords a durable part of U.S. Middle East policy.
The Accords’ durability has been further demonstrated by their surviving the seismic impact of the horrific 7 October attacks and the brutal Gaza war that followed. While Israel’s relentless pursuit of the war in Gaza and individual actions such as the bombing of Doha – has created difficulties and produced a downturn in opinion polls in Arab states for normalization with Israel they have not led to the withdrawal of any signatory. Indeed, some Gulf states have shown more diplomatic restraint than many EU states.
The durability of the Accords poses a dilemma for the EU. For decades the EU has centered its policies in relation to Israel and Palestine on the principle of a two-state solution. In June 1980 the then nine EU Member states at a European Council held in Venice adopted the Venice Declaration. It essentially established the framework around which EU policy for dealing with the problems in the Middle East has been built. The two-state solution was and remains at the heart of that framework.
Forty-five years on, the question the EU faces is: should it stick with a policy that has not produced the hoped for outcomes as the only viable framework around which peace can be built or should it broaden its policy to incorporate support for the Accords as part of a wider policy mix? Logic would seem to support the latter.
The challenge will be to find a consensus for broadening the EU approach. The position across the 27 member states towards the approach promoted in the Abraham Accords varies widely. Some members support normalisation while affirming support for Palestine, a second group views the Accords as a new model for diplomatic conflict resolution and a third group distrusts the approach fearing it would undermine EU commitment towards the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The Abraham Accords have been described as symbolising a realignment in Middle Eastern diplomacy. They have recast the decades-long consensus amongst Arab nations that peace with Israel is predicated on Palestinian statehood. The Accords have replaced ideological resistance with pragmatic cooperation. By formalising relations between Israel by signing the Accords, Arab states have ushered in new possibilities for trade, security, and cultural exchange, while redefining the parameters of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. There is no good reason why the pragmatic approach that has been taken by the Arab States that have signed the Accords should not now be followed by the EU.
Caption: President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas (R) and US President Donald Trump pose during the greetings ceremony before the family picture at the Gaza Peace Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, 13 October 2025. EPA/YOAN VALAT / POOL
Updated: November 13, 2025 - 06:40
