A Critical Analysis Of A Toxic Effect
By: Hichem Karoui
- Publisher : Global East-West (GEW)
- Publication date : April 22, 2026
- Language : English
- Print length : 339 pages
A Provocative Critique of Modern Middle Eastern Diplomacy.
The 2020 Abraham Accords represented a radical departure from decades of Arab-Israeli diplomacy. By establishing formal ties between Israel and several Arab nations without a resolution to the Palestinian conflict, these agreements fundamentally reshaped the region’s power dynamics.
Hichem Karoui’s The Abraham Accords and the Marginalisation of the Palestinian People offers a scholarly yet accessible critique of this transformation. Karoui argues that the “transactional peace” championed by the Trump administration and Israeli leadership has prioritized military and economic cooperation over the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Through a series of detailed case studies, the book illustrates how the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco moved toward normalization, often in exchange for specific geopolitical favors, while leaving the Palestinian cause in a diplomatic vacuum.
Key Themes Explored:
- The erosion of the “Land for Peace” paradigm.
- The role of Iranian influence in forging new Arab-Israeli security alliances.
- The disconnect between Arab regimes and grassroots public opinion.
- The impact of Israeli “outside-in” strategy on Palestinian agency.
- The future of Palestinian resistance and the search for a new path to liberation.
This book provides a vital counter-narrative to the mainstream celebration of the Accords, highlighting the “toxic” consequences for those most impacted by the ongoing occupation. It is an indispensable guide to the complexities of the contemporary Middle East.
Available in various editions and formats on:
Universal Link (Apple, Smashwords, Noble & Barnes, Kobo, and other retailers)
Amazon:
Hardcover : https://a.co/d/0a0bDU3G
Paperback: https://a.co/d/0bHKMZf8
Kindle: https://a.co/d/0bqf83Mr
Preface: The Historical Arab Consensus
We are going, first, to follow the history of the Arab consensus regarding Israel and especially the role of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, which is a diplomatic landmark based on the classical Arab model of conflict management.
The Arab consensus on the Israeli-Palestinian problem has changed significantly over the years, which has resulted in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (API). This effort marked a turning point in Arab politics, as it offered a detailed peace under the condition of the total withdrawal of the Israeli forces in the occupied lands and the creation of Palestinian statehood.
Before 2002, there was a range of cohesiveness and internal disunity among Arab states regarding their response to Israel, and to a great extent, this was due to the changing geopolitical realities. The API also allowed the Arab League to unite around a two-state model, which placed it in the role of lobbying the Palestinian state in the global community.
The Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 is commonly viewed as a direct reaction to the stalemate of the earlier peace efforts and the current violence of the Second Intifada. It was an expedient policy to overcome a decades-long stalemate to offer a unified Arab diplomatic policy to replace the disjointed responses of the previous decades.
We will also discuss the ideological, political and geopolitical underpinnings of the Arab consensus and evaluate the impact of its contingency on Palestinian self-determination on regional diplomacy until the introduction of the Abraham Accords. Palestinian self-determination has been one of the foundations of Arab ideological consensus. This principle serves as a negative benchmark in Arab interactions with Israel and has a powerful impact on the regional politics and relations between Arabs.
Through a close examination of these developments, it could be concluded that despite the Arab consensus having historically offered a platform through which solidarity and diplomacy could be achieved, it has lately faced unprecedented challenges due to the changes in the geopolitical dynamics. The Abraham Accords are a good example of how traditional discourses about the Palestinian cause and Arab unity have been redefined and forced the observers to re-evaluate the role of Arabs in the quest for peace and stability in the region.
The ‘Land for Peace’ Framework and Early Negotiations
The Land for Peace model was a diplomatic principle that was supposed to end one of the longest conflicts in the history of modern times, the Israeli-Arab conflict. Based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 passed in the year 1967, the construct required Israel to leave the territories it had occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War in exchange for peaceful recognition and security guarantees by its Arab neighbours.
The rational idea behind this paradigm was to come up with a working channel to end hostilities and create stability in the region by settling hostilities by negotiation as opposed to fighting. It argued that compromise over territory would give rise to trust and open spaces for further diplomatic interactions, but that long-term peace required a solution to practical problems of land and sovereignty.
The Land for Peace formula was shaped at the diplomatic level, at the reconciliation of Israeli security interests and that of the Arabs on the need to have territorial integrity and national self-determination. It was not just a physical event of reconciliation but also a symbolic event of coexistence. Early diplomatic efforts were an expression of partial hope that territorial concessions would convince Arab nations to officially acknowledge Israel and condemn aggression. Notably, this framework experienced a normative shift in the diplomacy of the Middle East, as states were forced to negotiate directly and compromise over nationalist demands that were not negotiable before. The concept of regional stability was thus seen as being dependent on the political will and concessions.
The initial set of negotiations after Resolution 242 was the exploratory talks and diplomatic overtures aimed at resolving the conflicting territorial claims and Arab aspirations. These preliminary discussions were marred by the fact that neither of the two wanted to give up claims that have been enshrined in the identity of each country. However, the gradual evolution was in the form of back-channel diplomacy and multilateral forums, and this represented the change in attitude from outright rejection to careful involvement.
As an example, the ultimate readiness of Egypt to negotiate with Israel in the late 1970s was a watershed moment, and it led to the Camp David Accords. The rationale of this accord was to put into practice the principle of Land for Peace by ensuring that Israel withdrew out of the Sinai Peninsula while recognising a right for Israel to exist on the territories allowed to it by the UN in 1947, not beyond. These events marked a revolution in the history of diplomacy, and it demonstrated that even in the face of historic animosity, compromised settlements over territory could be reached through negotiation.
The complexity of Israeli territorial security and Arab political goals was also raised through the early peace efforts. Though the Arab states had a common goal of opposing the Israeli occupation of part of their territories, they still held divergent opinions on the Palestinian issue and the level to which they could give in on territory.
The Palestinian national aspirations, which were mostly marginalised in the initial discussions, complicated the process of the accomplishment of full peace. However, these attempts laid the groundwork for further diplomatic activity, as they preconditioned the creation of the negotiation procedures and mechanisms of trust-building.
They emphasised the need to use patient, gradual diplomacy that took into account historical grievances that were deep-rooted but sought to come up with a practical solution to the disputes. The pre-Oslo Accords setting was therefore an indication of a reserved involvement, where the Land for Peace structure was a blueprint and many substantive issues were not addressed.
A knowledge of these formative processes offers a crucial insight into the reasons why other agreements, such as the Oslo Accords, did not succeed without major challenges. The focus on territorial exchange as a precondition of peace, which the framework made a priority, influenced the policy choices and popular expectations, yet it could not consider the wider aspects of conflict, including Palestinian self-determination and the rights of refugees.
These omissions were more noticeable as the diplomatic process continued to unfold and the flaws of a model that was largely based on interstate arrangements and lacking in Palestinian agency became clear. The discussion of the origins and development of the Land for Peace framework therefore throws light on the complicated connection between the concession of territory and political recognition within Middle Eastern diplomacy.
Further, it shows how the preemptive talks set up the long-term patterns of dialogue and conflict that have remained relevant to the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace efforts in the region.
Palestinian Reliance on Regional Arab Solidarity: The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative
The historical dependence of the Palestinians on Arab regional unity has been the foundation of their diplomatic and political policy. Palestinian actors have been trying to gain the support of Arab states in their self-determination and statehood since the middle of the twentieth century. This was a turning point in the history of Palestine, as the formation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the 1960s brought together the fragmented Palestinian groups under a single national identity and at the same time sought the support of the Arab governments. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria were also key players in a sequence of diplomatic actions that aimed at establishing the Palestinian issue as a part and parcel of the wider Arab agenda. The Arab League has always anticipated the Palestinian rights in its political discourse, which promotes unity against Israeli occupation.
This historical commitment to Arab unity was also codified in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which provided a plan of regional normalisation subject to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. The move highlighted the unity of the Arab position that any peace process should put the Palestinian aspirations first. During the process of different peace talks, Arab states have not only acted as proponents of the Palestinians but also as mediators, often working towards helping the Palestinian groups and Israeli leaders to engage in dialogue. This dependency on regional partners has traditionally given Palestinians some sort of leverage, allowing them to place their situation in a larger framework of regional upheaval.
The abandonment of the Arab consensus, such as the Abraham Accords, is a major challenge to traditional Arab and Palestinian approaches. The normalisation deals with the United Arab Emirates (launched in September 2020) and then with Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco is a radical decoupling of Arab-Israeli relations with the Palestinian agenda. It is a De Facto abandonment of Palestine. In contrast to the previous political processes, these agreements do not make normalisation dependent on a settlement of the Palestinian conflict. The agreements effectively weaken the diplomatic leverage that Palestinians have had in the past by sidelining their problems. The conventional Arab model group, as the one which used to value solidarity as the key to effective negotiations, has been radically changed. These changes have brought about sentiments of abandonment and betrayal of the Palestinian people that would led to the Gaza genocide.
Table of Contents
Read two full chapters from the book (Chapter 1 and Chapter 8)
Fullscreen Mode
