The Big Question Behind the Headlines
U.S. President Donald Trump is once again championing the Abraham Accords — the normalization agreements brokered during his first term between Israel and several Arab states, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Now, with a second term underway, Trump is pushing to expand them further, with Saudi Arabia as the coveted next signatory.
But a growing chorus of analysts, diplomats, and regional observers is asking a harder question: have the Abraham Accords actually brought peace to the Middle East, or have they made the region's most volatile conflicts worse?
What the Accords Were Supposed to Do
When the deals were first announced in 2020, they were heralded as a historic breakthrough — Arab countries formally recognizing Israel in exchange for diplomatic and economic benefits. The logic was that broader regional normalization would create shared economic interests and reduce hostility.
Proponents pointed to growing trade, tourism links, and military cooperation between Israel and its new partners as evidence the framework was working.
The Counter-Argument: Did They Sideline Palestinians?
Critics — and there are many — argue the Accords fundamentally bypassed the Palestinian question. By normalizing relations without requiring any meaningful concessions on Palestinian statehood or settlements, the deals effectively rewarded Israel while removing Arab states' most significant diplomatic leverage.
The result, some analysts contend, was a strategic environment in which hard-line Israeli governments felt emboldened to pursue more aggressive policies in Gaza and the West Bank — contributing to the conditions that preceded the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and the devastating war that followed.
The Canadian Angle
For Canadians, this isn't an abstract geopolitical debate. Canada has long held a formal position supporting a two-state solution — a stance that puts Ottawa somewhat at odds with the Accords' framework, which critics say entrenches the status quo rather than advancing Palestinian self-determination.
Canadian foreign policy under multiple governments has repeatedly called for a negotiated peace based on international law, and Ottawa has faced pressure from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian constituencies as the Gaza conflict has ground on. How Canada navigates the Trump administration's renewed push to expand the Accords — and whether to publicly endorse or distance itself from that framework — will be a key diplomatic test.
What Comes Next
The push for Saudi normalization with Israel remains stalled, complicated by the Gaza war and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's insistence on a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood as a precondition. Whether Trump's dealmaking instincts can thread that needle — or whether he'll press ahead with a deal that papers over the Palestinian issue — remains the central question.
For those hoping the Accords represent a genuine architecture for regional peace, the optimistic read is that expanded normalization eventually creates the conditions for a broader settlement. For sceptics, the worry is that each new deal only deepens a framework that has already proven it can coexist with — and perhaps enable — large-scale war.
The answer matters not just for the Middle East, but for how Canada and the broader international community choose to engage with U.S.-led peace initiatives going forward.
Source: CBC Radio's Frontburner. Listen to the full episode at CBC.ca.
