Skip to main content
Essay Undergraduate 3,594 words

UAE-Israel Agreement vs. Other Arab Normalization Deals

~18 min read
Abstract

This paper examines how the UAE-Israel normalization agreement, part of the Abraham Accords, differs from the peace treaties and normalization deals established by other Arab states. It compares the UAE's relationship with Israel to the cold peaces maintained by Egypt and Jordan, and to the more politically pressured agreements of Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The paper argues that the UAE's deal is distinguished by mutual economic benefit, popular domestic support, political stability, and genuine diplomatic warmth—factors largely absent from the other agreements. Through analysis of domestic opinion, geopolitical motives, and bilateral cooperation, the paper concludes that the UAE is uniquely positioned to build a lasting and substantive partnership with Israel.

Key Takeaways
  • Introduction: UAE normalization is unique among Arab states
  • Egypt and Jordan: Cold Peace Agreements: Egypt and Jordan signed cold, politically driven peace treaties
  • Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan: Uncertain Normalization: Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan normalized under pressure with internal opposition
  • Why the UAE Is Different: UAE offers stable, mutually beneficial, publicly supported warm peace
  • Conclusion: UAE best positioned for lasting normalization with Israel
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples

What makes this paper effective

  • The paper uses a systematic comparative structure, moving country by country through each Arab state's relationship with Israel before synthesizing the differences in a dedicated section—this makes the argument easy to follow and well-supported.
  • It balances political, economic, and societal dimensions of each agreement, showing that normalization is not simply a diplomatic act but one shaped by domestic public opinion, economic interests, and regime stability.
  • The paper draws on a diverse range of credible sources—news outlets, think tanks, and academic journals—lending authority to its claims about each country's situation.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper demonstrates effective use of comparative analysis as an argumentative strategy. Rather than simply describing the UAE-Israel deal in isolation, the author builds the case for the UAE's uniqueness by systematically examining what other Arab states have done and why those cases fall short. This technique—establishing contrast through direct comparison—allows the thesis to emerge organically from the evidence rather than being asserted without support.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens with a thesis-driven introduction, then devotes two major body sections to comparing other Arab states (Egypt and Jordan in one section; Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan in another, with subsections for each country). A dedicated section synthesizes the comparisons to explain why the UAE is different. The conclusion ties together the main findings. This clear five-part structure suits the comparative argument well and keeps the reader oriented throughout.

Introduction

The UAE is not the only state in the Arab world to have normalized relations with Israel—but its normalization is different from what other Arab countries have done. Egypt and Jordan established peace with Israel decades ago, but it was not the kind of warm peace that the UAE has negotiated. Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have also normalized relations with Israel, but the motives behind their agreements have been questioned by critics. When compared to these other countries, the UAE-Israel Agreement stands apart as unique. This paper explains why that is and what it means for the rest of the Arab world.

Egypt and Jordan: Cold Peace Agreements

Egypt signed its peace treaty with Israel in 1979, while Jordan signed its peace treaty with Israel in 1994. The former was the result of the Camp David Accords, overseen by U.S. President Carter. The latter resulted from two leaders in the Middle East coming together to cement an existing relationship on intelligence matters. Neither peace, however, was viewed with much warmth; rather, each was seen as an outcome of political pressures that necessitated these steps.

Egypt had just acquired a new leader in Anwar Sadat, who was determined to reverse the policies of his predecessor Nasser. Nasser had controlled a command economy in Egypt, which prevented the private sector from developing. Sadat wanted the private sector to grow, and he believed it was in Egypt's best interests to shift from an alliance with the Soviet Union to one with the United States. He therefore instituted the policy of Infitah, which was meant to open up Egypt's economy, and to accomplish this he had to make peace with Israel. Sadat's intention was "not only to transform the economy according to the free-market model, but also to correct the deficiencies of state control and achieve integration with the world economy" (Ates, 2005, p. 134). By choosing peace with Israel, Sadat sought to signal that Egypt was turning over a new leaf. Unfortunately, the economic reforms he intended did not materialize, and Egypt failed to prosper from the new policy. The peace remained somewhat cold, despite the favorable press given to it by the United States during the Camp David Accords.

Since 2013, however, Egypt and Israel have worked more closely on security matters, as they share a common interest in containing Iranian influence in the region—particularly regarding Hamas (Mitchell, 2021). The two countries are also cooperating more closely on energy matters. Still, the Egyptian public largely opposes the normalization of ties between the two countries so long as the Israel-Palestine conflict continues (Mitchell, 2021). Thus, even though the two states' leaders share energy and security concerns, and diplomatic ties have never entirely lapsed even amid the ongoing conflict, the peace remains somewhat cold and lacks the warmth seen in UAE-Israel relations.

The peace between Jordan and Israel has not been much different. It, too, grew from geopolitical necessity. Jordan's King Hussein had been working with Israel's Mossad for years before the peace treaty was signed (Riedel, 2019). At the same time, Israel was holding talks with the PLO, of which Hussein knew nothing (Riedel, 2019). Initially, Hussein was upset by these secret negotiations, but he eventually viewed them as an opportunity, recognizing that "the negotiation of a peace treaty with Israel would also open the way for a rapid restoration of ties with Washington" (Riedel, 2019). Since the Kuwait-Iraq hostilities, Jordan had been lost in the shuffle of geopolitics. Peace with Israel offered a chance to regain some regional leverage. Because Hussein trusted Israel's leader Yitzhak Rabin, the timing seemed right.

Yet, 25 years later, the peace between Jordan and Israel remains cold. Ahren and Rasgon (2019) note that between the two states "security cooperation is in good shape, but trade is declining, diplomatic relations are frosty, and the imminent retaking of 'Isle of Peace' symbolizes ties under growing strain." Moreover, the 25th anniversary of the peace came and went without either side commemorating the occasion (Ahren & Rasgon, 2019). In effect, the peace was merely a security arrangement and did little to extend the relationship between the two countries more broadly. The UAE, by contrast, is working closely with Israel on all fronts—tourism, energy, diplomacy, security, technology, and agriculture—establishing a very warm peace in hopes of increasingly warming the entire region.

Essentially, Egypt and Jordan sought to maintain a level of peace with Israel through their treaties, but this peace was a cold one rather than one that elevated the countries or turned a page in the history books. Both still maintain security ties with Israel, but the ingredients for genuine growth are missing. Cooperation exists in some respects, but overall the peace is viewed more as a maintenance project than as a solid foundation for real development.

2 locked sections · 1,400 words
Sign up to read the full analysis
Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan: Uncertain Normalization780 words
The other Arab states that have normalized ties with Israel, aside from the UAE, are Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan—and their motives are all different. Critics argue that Morocco agreed to normalize ties with Israel in…
Why the UAE Is Different620 words
The UAE is in a fundamentally different position from Sudan, Morocco, or Bahrain. For one thing, it has firm control over domestic affairs, and…
Read the full paper →
Plus 130,000+ examples & all writing tools

Conclusion

The UAE stands to benefit significantly from the Abraham Accords, as it is focused on establishing a win-win situation for itself and Israel. It is building toward the future and has the political stability to pursue that goal successfully. The other countries that have either signed the accords or concluded peace treaties with Israel in the past may have done so more out of ulterior or externally pressured motives than out of any genuine commitment to real development. Some of these countries are not even stable enough to capitalize on such a deal, as is the case with Sudan. Others, like Egypt, have leaders who want to make the relationship work but face a public strongly opposed to any normalization. Major cultural barriers remain in most of the other countries. In the UAE, leaders have worked deliberately to prepare the ground and manage opposition so that the deal can take root and flourish. The result is a qualitatively different kind of agreement—one characterized by warmth, mutual benefit, and a credible foundation for long-term cooperation.

References

Abouzzohour, Y. (2020). Morocco's partial normalization with Israel comes with risks and gains. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/12/14/moroccos-partial-normalization-with-israel-comes-with-risks-and-gains/

Ahren, R., & Rasgon, A. (2019). Colder than ever: 25 years on, Israel and Jordan ignore peace treaty anniversary. Retrieved from https://www.timesofisrael.com/colder-than-ever-25-years-on-israel-and-jordan-ignore-peace-treaty-anniversary/

Ates, D. (2005). Economic liberalization and changes in fundamentalism: The case of Egypt. Middle East Policy, 12(4), 133–144.

Batrawy, A. (2021). No longer silent, Gulf Arab citizens express anger at Israel. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/africa-israel-middle-east-8662c35ae1fac682b47cb08b3cbea2ea

BBC. (2020). Morocco latest country to normalise ties with Israel in US-brokered deal. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-55266089

Gramer, R. (2020). Trump to remove Sudan from terrorist list, following behind-the-scenes pressure on Israel. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/19/trump-remove-sudan-terrorist-list-israel-pressure/

Knopf, P., & Feltman, J. (2020). Normalizing Sudan-Israel relations now is a dangerous game. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/09/24/normalizing-sudan-israel-relations-now-is-a-dangerous-game/

Mitchell, G. (2021). Lessons from Israel and Egypt's lukewarm peace. Retrieved from

Reuters. (2020). Bahrain opposition rejects Israel normalisation, calls for resistance. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-israel-gulf-usa-bahrain-cleric/bahrain-opposition-rejects-israel-normalisation-calls-for-resistance-idUSKBN2640G8

Riboua, Z. (2020). How Moroccans reacted to normalization with Israel. Retrieved from

Riedel, B. (2019). 25 years on, remembering the path to peace for Jordan and Israel. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/10/23/25-years-on-remembering-the-path-to-peace-for-jordan-and-israel/

Sherlock, R. (2021). 'An embarrassing time': The challenges for Arab nations that made peace with Israel. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2021/05/14/996503383/an-embarrassing-time-the-challenges-for-arab-nations-that-made-peace-with-israel

TeachMideast. (2020). Relations between Israel and Egypt. Retrieved from

Telci, I. (2020). Analysis: Bahrain in the context of normalization with Israel. Retrieved from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-bahrain-in-the-context-of-normalization-with-israel/1955293

Key Concepts in This Paper
Abraham Accords Warm Peace Cold Peace Arab Normalization UAE-Israel Relations Domestic Opposition Geopolitical Pressure Mutual Benefit Palestinian Cause Regional Stability
Cite This Paper
PaperDue. (2026). UAE-Israel Agreement vs. Other Arab Normalization Deals. PaperDue. https://www.paperdue.com/study-guide/uae-israel-agreement-arab-normalization-comparison-2176830

Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.