The Great Gulf Divide: Why Trump’s Abraham Accords Strategy is Hitting a Post-Gaza Wall 

In the wake of the Gaza ceasefire, a fundamental disconnect defines Middle East peace efforts: the Trump administration is aggressively pushing to expand its Abraham Accords, believing that normalizing ties between Israel and Muslim nations is the key to lasting stability.

However, this strategy is colliding with a new, hardened reality from key Arab and Muslim leaders, who, galvanized by public outrage over the war, now insist that credible and irreversible steps toward a Palestinian state are an absolute prerequisite for any further diplomacy with Israel. This has created a stalemate, notably stalling the once-likely normalization with Saudi Arabia and leaving the U.S. vision for a post-war Gaza—including an Arab-led security force—stymied by regional refusal to be seen as enforcing an Israeli-backed order.

The Great Gulf Divide: Why Trump’s Abraham Accords Strategy is Hitting a Post-Gaza Wall 

In the world of high-stakes diplomacy, symbolism often clashes with substance. This conflict was on full display recently when President Donald Trump gathered officials to celebrate Kazakhstan’s accession to his signature Abraham Accords. There was just one awkward detail: Kazakhstan and Israel have had formal diplomatic relations for over 30 years. The announcement, while baffling to many observers, was a potent symbol of the Trump administration’s unwavering faith in a specific recipe for Middle East peace—a recipe that, in the aftermath of Gaza, key Arab leaders are increasingly refusing to follow. 

A month after a fragile ceasefire halted the brutal war in Gaza, a fundamental disconnect is defining the next chapter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States, under Trump, sees the rapid expansion of Israeli diplomatic ties with the Muslim world as the cornerstone of lasting stability. Conversely, Arab and Muslim leaders, their publics seething with outrage over the destruction in Gaza, are drawing a hard line: no further normalisation without credible, irreversible progress toward a Palestinian state. 

This isn’t just a policy disagreement; it’s a collision between two vastly different interpretations of what brings peace, and the events of the past year have widened this chasm into a gulf. 

The Trump Doctrine: Peace Through Integration, Not Palestinian Statehood 

The Trump administration’s philosophy is rooted in a pragmatic, bilateral, and arguably transactional view of diplomacy. The original Abraham Accords of 2020 were a historic breakthrough, normalising relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The doctrine behind them posits that integrating Israel economically and strategically into the region will create a new status quo of shared interests. This web of relationships, the theory goes, will eventually marginalise the Palestinian issue, forcing its resolution on terms more favourable to Israel and its new partners. 

For Trump, the Accords are a legacy-defining achievement. The push to expand them is a central plank of his second-term foreign policy. The administration believes that by adding more nations to this roster—even those with pre-existing ties, like Kazakhstan—it creates a bandwagon effect, signalling that normalisation is the inevitable and desirable future of the Middle East. 

As one official put it, countries are “lining up” to join. The ultimate prize, the lynchpin that would make this vision a reality, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

The Saudi Stalemate: The Crown Prince’s Calculated Retreat 

Before October 7, 2023, a historic Saudi-Israeli normalisation deal was not just possible; it was imminent. brokered by the Biden administration, the outlines were clear: Saudi recognition of Israel in exchange for a U.S. defense pact and assistance with a civilian nuclear program. The Palestinian issue was a concern, but not necessarily a deal-breaker. 

The war in Gaza annihilated that trajectory. 

The graphic images of Palestinian death and suffering, broadcast globally and amplified on social media, have fundamentally altered Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s calculus. Where once the Palestinian cause was a peripheral concern for many young Saudis, the war has ignited a new generation’s consciousness and solidarity. Normalisation with Israel, in this climate, is politically toxic. 

Consequently, the Saudi position has hardened dramatically. Senior Saudi officials now state unequivocally that “a Palestinian state is a prerequisite for regional integration.” This is not a negotiating position; it is a political necessity. Prince Mohammed, who has accused Israel of genocide, cannot ignore the public sentiment at home and across the Arab world. The domestic cost of formal handshakes with Israeli leaders, without the cover of a tangible Palestinian victory, is now prohibitively high. 

As one former senior U.S. official astutely noted, the Crown Prince now has little room to maneuver. In his upcoming meeting with Trump, he can offer little more than an “inshallah” (God willing) on normalisation. The functional, behind-the-scenes intelligence and security cooperation between Riyadh and Jerusalem will likely continue, but the grand public bargain is off the table for the foreseeable future. 

The Domino Effect That Wasn’t: Indonesia and the Muslim World’s Stance 

The administration’s optimism often points to other major Muslim nations, like Indonesia, as potential future signatories. This optimism seems profoundly misplaced. Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, has been clear: it will not establish diplomatic ties with Israel without a two-state solution. Furthermore, an Indonesian official confirmed that Jakarta would wait for Saudi Arabia to move first, acknowledging the Kingdom’s leadership of the Muslim world. 

This creates a circular stalemate. The U.S. hopes Saudi normalisation will trigger a domino effect, but Saudi Arabia (and others) are waiting for a Palestinian state that the current Israeli government vehemently rejects. 

The Ground-Level Gridlock: Gaza’s Unworkable Reality 

The disconnect extends beyond diplomacy into the grim reality of post-war Gaza. Trump’s 20-point peace plan, a vague document at best, has faltered on its most basic practicalities. A key pillar was the deployment of an Arab-led international stabilisation force to secure Gaza. From Washington’s perspective, this was a logical step for regional partners to take responsibility. 

From the Arab perspective, it’s a non-starter. 

“Why would the Arab countries do Israel’s dirty work in Gaza?” asks Hasan Alhasan, a senior fellow at IISS. Sending Jordanian or Egyptian troops into Gaza to potentially fight Palestinian factions would be seen by their publics as an act of collaboration with the Israeli occupation. Jordan’s Foreign Minister, Ayman Safadi, made this explicitly clear: Jordanians are not going to be “policing Gaza.” 

This refusal highlights the core of the problem: the U.S. views peace through the lens of security arrangements and diplomatic recognitions involving Israel. The Arab leaders, pressured by their citizens, view peace through the lens of justice and sovereignty for the Palestinians. These are not easily reconcilable viewpoints. 

A Dialogue of the Deaf 

This fundamental clash was laid bare at the recent Manama Dialogue security conference in Bahrain. U.S. officials, like Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, preached that “the only path to peace is through Jerusalem,” a clear reference to normalisation. Meanwhile, Arab officials in attendance pointed to Israel’s ongoing military actions, its rejection of a two-state solution, and its occupation as the primary obstacles to peace. 

The conversation reached a peak when Khalifa Al Suwaidi, an Emirati researcher, challenged Trump’s envoy Tom Barrack. He pointed out the administration’s flawed “conviction that regional peace equates to having diplomatic relations with Israel,” adding that it “comes across as being the sole metric with which regional peace is measured.” 

This is the heart of the great divide. For the Trump administration, the Abraham Accords are the metric of success. For the Arab world, the only metric that now counts is Palestinian freedom. 

The path forward is fraught. The ceasefire remains tenuous, and without a political horizon that addresses the core aspirations of the Palestinian people, the entire region remains one spark away from another conflagration. The Trump administration’s push to expand the Abraham Accords is not just hitting a wall; it is failing to recognize that the war in Gaza has fundamentally rebuilt that wall, higher and stronger than before, with the bricks of Palestinian suffering and Arab public opinion. No amount of symbolic additions to the Accords can tear it down.