Abraham Accords and the Strategic Reshaping of the Regional Order in the Middle East

·        “A colonial peace without the dismantling of colonialism”

·        A research bulletin was published on 22-12-2025 in the Journal of Research in social sciences -JRSS-, in English, issue no. 1 of volume no. 14, pages 51-81, prepared by Dr. Khurram Shahzad Siddiqui, a lecturer in the Department of Strategic Studies at the National Defence University in Islamabad, Pakistan, under the title “Abraham Accords and the Strategic Reshaping of the Regional Order in the Middle East”. Because this study constitutes an important addition to the field of scholarly research—given its focus on the Palestinian experience that is often overlooked in studies concerning the Abraham Accords—and because it offers a comprehensive analysis of the political, economic, and social dimensions of the normalization process, examining its impact on regional stability, the redirection of Arab foreign policies, and the future of the peace process, and because the study criticizes prevailing narratives that portray normalization as a smooth path to peace, I therefore provide below a brief summary of the above research paper.

·        This research paper addresses the Abraham Accords of 2020 as a pivotal shift in Arab–Israeli diplomacy and the strategic reshaping of the broader regional order in the Middle East. Contrary to previous frameworks for peace such as the Camp David Accords (1978), the Oslo process (1993–1995), and the Wadi Araba Treaty (1994), the study argues that the Abraham Accords establish the normalization of relations between Israel and a number of Arab states without addressing the core issues related to the Palestinian question. Instead of linking peace to territorial withdrawal, Palestinian self-determination, or principles of international law, these accords rest on shared threat perceptions—especially regarding Iran—together with economic diversification, security cooperation, and a US-led geopolitical realignment!

·        The article situates the accords within a qualitative and comparative research design, relying on document analysis and critical discourse analysis of official accords, political debates, academic literature, and popular reactions. The central research question revolves around how the Abraham Accords are reshaping the regional order in the Middle East and how they have altered the trajectory of the Palestinian question. The study poses two subsidiary questions: How do the accords differ structurally and politically from previous Arab–Israeli agreements? And what are their implications for Palestinian political rights and the prospects of reaching a just peace settlement?

·        The theoretical framework combines postcolonial theory as the primary analytical lens and settler colonialism theory as a complementary framework. Drawing on the works of Edward Said and Homi Bhabha, the postcolonial approach highlights how the accords reproduce a colonial hierarchy in authority and discourse, presenting Israel as a modern and stable actor while marginalizing Palestinians as a peripheral or disruptive political actor. The rhetoric of peace, pragmatism, and modernization embedded in the accords is interpreted as a discursive mechanism that silences Palestinian demands and normalizes unequal power relations rooted in a colonial history and Western-supported dominance!.... Franz Fanon’s theses on the violence of colonialism and the psychology of domination , further deepen the understanding of the political marginalization of Palestinians within broader structures of structural coercion. His observations help clarify how the peace and normalization framework of the Abraham Accords conceals the continuing structures of uprooting and structural violence. Fanon’s concepts regarding the possibility of the elites of colonized societies collaborating with dominant powers, under the pretext of strategic calculations or material interests, provide an important interpretive perspective for understanding the calculations of the signatory Arab states, where domestic and regional interests often and sharply collide with the aspirations of the Palestinian people.

·        Settler colonialism theory, drawing on the works of Patrick Wolfe and Lorenzo Veracini, deepens this analysis by framing Zionism and the Israeli state as an ongoing settler colonial project based on regional expansion, demographic engineering, and the exclusion of the indigenous population’s presence. From this perspective, the Abraham Accords operate as a diplomatic extension of settler colonialism, normalizing Israel’s regional position while divorcing normalization from any commitment to halt settlement expansion, end the occupation, or recognize Palestinian sovereignty. Thus, normalization does not become a pathway to conflict resolution but a strategy to consolidate and internationalize a settler colonial system!

·        On the comparative level, the article shows that earlier agreements—despite their shortcomings—maintained a minimum linkage between Arab–Israeli normalization and the Palestinian question. Camp David centered on territorial withdrawal, Oslo established the principle of mutual recognition and deferred final status issues, while Wadi Araba took place amid ongoing unresolved Palestinian demands. By contrast, the Abraham Accords represent a clear rupture, with the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, by establishing full diplomatic relations with Israel without any regard for Palestinian rights. As noted above, this shift reflects a deeper change in Arab states’ priorities!, including regime security, economic modernization, and alignment with US regional objectives!

·        The study also addresses the motives of the principal actors. For Israel, the accords bolster its diplomatic legitimacy, reduce international pressure related to the occupation, and consolidate its regional hegemony through security and technological cooperation. For the signatory Arab states, such as the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, normalization provides access to advanced surveillance technologies, economic partnerships, and closer ties with Washington. However, the postcolonial approach sees these incentives as rooted in new forms of dependency that reproduce old colonial relations between Arab regimes and Western power structures!

·        From the Palestinian perspective, exclusion from the negotiation process embodies their Subaltern position within the regional and international systems. Palestinians widely perceive the accords as a betrayal that entrenches the occupation, weakens collective Arab influence, deepens Palestinian political division, and accelerates the erosion of the two-state solution. Popular protests, civil society activism, and official condemnations issued by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian National Authority are interpreted as forms of postcolonial resistance against a “peace” that establishes dispossession rather than dismantling it!

·        The article further argues that the accords have contributed to the decline of international accountability for Israeli policies, alongside the expansion of settlement activity, house demolitions, and forced displacement. By normalizing relations without conditions, the accords legitimize settler colonial practices and close off avenues for effective diplomatic pressure. The result is what the author describes as a “colonial peace without the dismantling of colonialism”—a fragile and exclusionary order that privileges inter-state cooperation at the expense of addressing the structural roots of the conflict!.

·        The study concludes that any stability produced by the Abraham Accords is by its nature fragile and unsustainable. By marginalizing Palestinian rights and entrenching colonial power relations, the accords undermine prospects for achieving a just and lasting peace. The article affirms that true regional stability requires recentralizing Palestinian sovereignty, addressing historical grievances, and adopting a dismantling-of-colonialism framework rather than expanding normalization structures that institutionalize inequality. Without this shift, the Abraham Accords risk deepening polarization, perpetuating violence, and reinforcing the very structures of domination they claim to transcend!