With Donald Trump back in office, the Abraham Accords and the future of Israel-Arab normalisation are once again in the spotlight. Despite Trump’s initial success in brokering the accords, which led to normalised relations between Israel and a few Arab countries, there remains a critical and contentious issue that these agreements sidestepped: the question of Palestinian statehood. Many Arab nations have since stressed that a sustainable path to regional peace and full normalisation with Israel hinges on a resolution to the Palestinian issue — a condition Trump would likely have to confront.
Arab governments that have normalised relations with Israel, or considered doing so, face pressure from their citizens who largely support the Palestinian cause. Leaders in the region increasingly voice that the Abraham Accords, while economically and strategically beneficial, lack long-term viability without addressing the Palestinian question. For example, Saudi Arabia, a key potential player in expanding the accords, has consistently tied normalisation to Palestinian statehood, indicating that without genuine progress toward a two-state solution, formal relations with Israel are off the table.
If Trump were to pursue expanding the Abraham Accords, he might face pressure to influence Israeli policy toward meaningful engagement on Palestine. However, Trump’s strong pro-Israel stance could make such pressure difficult to execute. In his previous term, his administration supported Israel’s sovereignty claims over disputed areas, including the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank, without pushing for Palestinian concessions. This approach won him favour in Israel, but left Arab countries and Palestinian leaders skeptical about U.S. neutrality on the issue.
Adding complexity, Israel’s own internal dynamics reveal a society increasingly divided on the Palestinian question. While some Israeli leaders, including those in previous governments, have signalled openness to peace talks, a significant segment of the Israeli public remains hesitant about Palestinian statehood, largely due to security concerns. Even when Israeli leaders have shown willingness, they often face domestic political obstacles that make it difficult to advance meaningful negotiations.
So, how might Trump navigate these dynamics? Trump could choose to emphasise the economic benefits of the Abraham Accords, advocating a “peace through prosperity” approach in the hope that improved relations might, over time, foster trust. This economic-first strategy might gain some support, especially from nations already engaged with Israel economically. However, without a parallel diplomatic effort toward Palestinian statehood, this approach is unlikely to satisfy the fundamental concerns of the broader Arab world.
Alternatively, Trump could attempt to balance his pro-Israel stance by encouraging incremental steps toward Palestinian self-governance or economic autonomy. While this may fall short of full statehood, it could signal a gesture toward addressing Palestinian rights. However, this strategy risks being seen as a superficial fix, especially if Palestinians and Arab nations feel that it lacks genuine commitment to long-term resolution.
Ultimately, Trump’s strategy would likely need to acknowledge the centrality of the Palestinian issue for the Arab world to achieve any meaningful expansion of the Abraham Accords. Without addressing this foundational issue, normalisation efforts may stall, and the broader Arab-Israeli relationship will likely remain tense. Expanding the accords while ignoring Palestine might achieve temporary gains, but it could also deepen regional divides and limit the accords’ potential as a true peace-building instrument.
