Saudi-Israeli Normalisation: Bargain Without Peace

Hafsa Arslan | Middle East Fellow

Image sourced from Furkan Ceylan via Pexels.

The Abraham Accords have steadily transformed the Middle East through economic and diplomatic shifts, yet they remain a key factor behind regional fragmentation. The agreements, signed in 2020, established Israel’s diplomatic normalisation with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan and were framed as a breakthrough for the region’s diplomatic evolution. However, in practice, the agreements ignore a fundamental factor of true regional reconciliation that has dominated regional politics for half a decade: Palestine.

Normalisation within the Abraham Accords refers to the recognition of diplomatic relations between Israel and the signatory Arab states. Saudi Arabia has yet to formally sign the accords, but as its relations with Israel edge toward normalisation, clearly defining the terms of that normalisation is essential. Far from delivering regional peace, recent events see the normalisation process co-opted by the United States’ (US) transactional and pro-Israel form of diplomacy. This shift heightens regional instability and entails the wholesale exclusion of civilians living under Israeli occupation from important diplomatic discussions.

Therefore, Saudi Arabia should use its role in the normalisation process to re-anchor diplomatic relations in international law that advances an end to Israel’s illegal occupation across the region. Only with the inclusion of concerns held by occupied voices, namely, Palestinian populations, can regional stability be secured.

Fragility of the Abraham Accords

The Abraham Accords are the most recent attempt in a long history of normalising Arab-Israeli relations. However, the accords in their current form have major repercussions for occupied peoples because they are a significant driver of the region's systemic detachment from the Palestinian genocide. The UAE justified its participation in the Accords by claiming they halted Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. In reality, however, Israel has continued to expand settlements and military operations in Gaza, with a recent bill for annexation passing the Knesset in a preliminary vote this October. This underscores the fragility of Arab states’ geopolitical reasoning in the face of Israel’s continued actions.

This current normalisation process has set a precedent wherein Gulf states reap the benefits of economic, technological, and security ties powered by Israel, while avoiding confronting its illegal occupation. The US’ diplomatic agenda further focuses on building and leading a regional architecture that incentivises Gulf states with security guarantees and economic diversification. For the leaders of these states, their calculations have favoured these benefits over the inclusion of Palestinian voices. 

Such fragility will only further undermine international and domestic legitimacy, which are already straining under the weight of war crimes in Gaza. Gulf states have so far resisted public pressures to cut ties with Israel, yet the responding influx of protests has revealed the enduring strength of Palestinian solidarity. Normalisation widens the legitimacy gap between the Gulf and their publics, emphasising its fragility and the necessity of stabilisation through future agreements that centre on credible Palestinian inclusion.

A Polarised Region

Normalisation has fractured regional diplomacy. On one side of the divide are the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, which are dependent on Israel’s trade, tourism and security. Conversely, Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon oppose formal engagement with Israel. Between the divide sit Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, which navigate regional tensions. This fragmentation reflects a deep split within the Arab world: normalisers, supported by the Western narrative for modernisation, and rejectors, who are labelled as traditional holdouts. If normalisation continues to spread in the current environment, it risks eroding and further fragmenting the regional diplomatic agenda among Arab neighbours.

Riyadh holds significant symbolic and diplomatic weight, as the leader of the Gulf, custodian of Islam’s holy sites, and founder of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. Decisions made in the city will shape the way that other Arab states engage in normalisation and how international partners perceive this process. Thus, Saudi Arabia holds the key to amending regional polarisation and reducing Washington’s involvement in the region, while prioritising Palestinian voices.

Normalisation into Justice

If normalisation is to foster stability rather than division, it must be redefined. Saudi Arabia’s admittance to the Abraham Accords would result in additional legitimacy to the process and restore Arab agency that has been outsourced to the United States. The kingdom is also the head of the Arab League, an organisation of 22 Arab states, that could facilitate a regional challenge to the normalisation of Israel’s illegal occupation. Saudi Arabia must continue to leverage its participation to demand tangible outcomes for Palestinians. Any progress that neglects this, as the Abraham Accords currently do, will not yield a safer and more secure region.

Saudi Arabia’s stalling of normalisation talks in order to achieve tangible outcomes reflects a collective stance: normalisation must be contingent upon Palestinian inclusion. As the only Arab state with significant capabilities to bridge Gulf pragmatism with regional Arab legitimacy, Saudi Arabia holds the power to transform the transactional nature of normalisation.

Redefining the framework will send an international message that peace should not come at the expense of the Palestinian people and their occupied territories. The war in the Gaza Strip has demonstrated that regional peace built on exclusivity is, in fact, an illusion that will collapse under pressure.

This does not mean normalisation should be abandoned; instead, it must be refined into a framework that is dependent on the future of Palestinian rights. Saudi Arabia has the means to opportunistically transform normalisation from a transactional diplomacy to a treaty rooted in collective peace, accountability and inclusion.

Hafsa Arslan is the Middle East Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. She is a final-year Curtin University student, pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce (Honours) in Economics and a Post-graduate Diploma in International Security. She is a two-time New Colombo Plan scholar, having completed an internship in South Korea in early 2025 and a study tour in Japan, focusing on the intersection of economic and geopolitical dynamics in the Asia-Pacific.

With her lived experience across the Indo-Pacific, particularly the Middle East, Hafsa has developed a strong interest in the region’s political and cultural landscape, exploring its complexity separate from its mainstream identity. Through this fellowship, she has combined her passion for cultural nuance and equity-driven policy discourse to create diverse perspectives for the region.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.