Three years on from Abraham Accords, is a bigger prize in sight for Israel?

Published

2 years ago

September 15, 2023

admin

The Abraham Accords, when they were signed three years ago today, were a major step forward for peace in the Middle East.

For the first time, four Arab countries – the United Arab Emirates & Bahrain initially, followed shortly after by Morocco and Sudan – agreed to recognise Israel and work together for mutual diplomatic, security and economic benefit.

The success of the Accords has been chequered – new direct air routes have opened up and brought some investment and tourism benefits, academic partnerships have been established, and the earthquake in Morocco last weekend saw the Israeli government immediately offer military search and rescue support to one of their new allies.

There have been bumps along the road though – Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has had a number of invitations to the UAE cancelled this year because of Emirati anger over Israeli force inside Jerusalem’s Al Aqsa Mosque, and many people hoped the pace of mutual benefits would have been faster than the reality.

But now there is a bigger prize looming into focus: a deal with Saudi Arabia.

Alongside the judicial reforms and violence in The West Bank, the diplomatic goings-on between Washington, Jerusalem and Riyadh is now one of the most discussed issues in Israeli media.

A normalisation agreement with one of the major powers in the Middle East would eclipse the Abraham Accords and Mr Netanyahu has made no secret of his desperation for a deal.

“Our hand is extended to all Arab States and certainly to Saudi Arabia which is vitally important,” he told me in an interview earlier this year.

“We have great opportunities to advance the peace in our region, peace between our two countries, the wellbeing of our peoples. I think it would change history.”

Diplomatic wheels are spinning

Whether a deal is close, or even possible, depends on who you speak to, but what isn’t in doubt is that the diplomatic wheels are spinning and there appears to be a desire on all sides to achieve something.

Just last week a senior US delegation travelled to Riyadh for talks on the deal, and they were joined by Hussein al Sheikh, a major figure in the PLO and close ally of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Separately, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken held calls this month with Abbas and Mr Netanyahu, and on Air Force One, en route to Delhi for the G20, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told reporters there is “still work to do” but revealed that “many of the elements of a pathway to normalisation are now on the table”.

More important than the deal itself will be the content of any agreement. Riyadh’s demands reportedly include US help to develop a civilian nuclear programme, delivery of advanced US weaponry and a NATO-style military pact with the US, whereby Washington would commit to defending Saudi Arabia if it was attacked.

In return, Washington is hoping that Saudi Arabia will dampen its growing diplomatic ties with China and Russia and help counter the threat from Iran.

Israel might want a similar pact with its American allies but will view a peace deal with Saudi Arabia as a significant step in strengthening its own security, even though there are already concerns in Jerusalem that a civil nuclear deal for Saudi Arabia will spark a nuclear arms race in the region.

Like the Abraham Accords, it would open up investment and trade opportunities between two of the leading economies in the region, and increase recognition in the Arab world of Israel as a legitimate state.

What a deal could mean for Palestine

The big outstanding question is what a deal might mean for Palestinians. Unlike the Abraham Accords, the Palestinian government has chosen to engage in the process this time in the hope of securing their own future.

Ramallah wants “irreversible” steps to advance its ambitions for statehood, according to reports, which would likely include US-backing to recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations.

The US is encouraging Ramallah to focus its demands on Israel, rather than Washington, and has suggested the idea of transferring parts of Area C in the West Bank (currently under Israeli control) to Area A (under Palestinian control) or Area B (under joint control). It’s unclear how realistic or possible this would be, such is the large presence of Israeli settlements and military zones covering that land.

Either way, speaking to the Pod Save The World podcast a few days ago, Mr Blinken confirmed that “if this process is to move forward, the Palestinian piece is going to be very important,” to the US and Saudis, even if Israel will be hesitant.

The desire for a deal, from all sides, is one thing but there are some obvious and not inconsiderable obstacles standing in the way of an agreement.

Any deal would require the support of two-thirds of the US Senate and a significant number of senators, particularly Democrats, would likely oppose concessions to Saudi Arabia because of concerns over the country’s human rights record, notably the war in Yemen and the 2018 killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Other politicians are likely to resist any commitment that might risk dragging the US military back into the Middle East.

Mr Netanyahu’s right-wing nationalist partners in the coalition have already said they will oppose anything that gives concessions to the Palestinians, and so the embattled prime minister will have to look to opposition leaders to get the deal through the Knesset. It might be that the price of the deal is a collapse of the Israeli government and even the end of Mr Netanyahu’s time as prime minister.

After seeing his domestic opinion polls plummet this year however, and having been on the receiving end of criticism from world leaders, including President Joe Biden, for his attempts to ram through wide-ranging and controversial judicial reforms, it might be a last act of sacrifice he is will to gamble in order to save his legacy.

“It would be a quantum leap forward,” he told me in June. It certainly would be, but how far is Bibi willing to jump to get it over the line?

World

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

Published

2 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Why do so many from around the world try to cross the English Channel?

While the politicians talk, so many people come from around the world to try to get across the Channel on small boats. But why?

Why make such a perilous crossing to try to get to a country that seems to be getting increasingly hostile to asylum seekers?

As the British and French leaders meet, with small boats at the forefront of their agenda, we came to northern France to get some answers.

It is not a new question, but it is peppered with fresh relevance.

Over the course of a morning spent around a migrant camp in Dunkirk, we meet migrants from Gaza, Iraq, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and beyond.

Some are fearful, waving us away; some are happy to talk. Very few are comfortable to be filmed.

All but one man – who says he’s come to the wrong place and actually wants to claim asylum in Paris – are intent on reaching Britain.

They see the calm seas, feel the light winds – perfect conditions for small boat crossings.

John has come here from South Sudan. He tells me he’s now 18 years old. He left his war-torn home nation just before his 16th birthday. He feels that reaching Britain is his destiny.

“England is my dream country,” he says. “It has been my dream since I was at school. It’s the country that colonised us and when I get there, I will feel like I am home.

“In England, they can give me an opportunity to succeed or to do whatever I need to do in my life. I feel like I am an English child, who was born in Africa.”

He says he would like to make a career in England, either as a journalist or in human resources, and, like many others we meet, is at pains to insist he will work hard.

The boat crossing is waved away as little more than an inconvenience – a trifle compared with the previous hardships of his journey towards Britain.

We meet a group of men who have all travelled from Gaza, intent on starting new lives in Britain and then bringing their families over to join them.

One man, who left Gaza two years ago, tells me that his son has since been shot in the leg “but there is no hospital for him to go to”.

Next to him, a man called Abdullah says he entered Europe through Greece and stayed there for months on end, but was told the Greek authorities would never allow him to bring over his family.

Britain, he thinks, will be more accommodating. “Gaza is being destroyed – we need help,” he says.

A man from Eritrea tells us he is escaping a failing country and has friends in Britain – he plans to become a bicycle courier in either London or Manchester.

He can’t stay in France, he says, because he doesn’t speak French. The English language is presented as a huge draw for many of the people we talk to, just as it had been during similar conversations over the course of many years.

I ask many of these people why they don’t want to stay in France, or another safe European country.

Some repeat that they cannot speak the language and feel ostracised. Another says that he tried, and failed, to get a residency permit in both France and Belgium.

But this is also, clearly, a flawed survey. Last year, five times as many people sought asylum in France as in Britain.

And French critics have long insisted that Britain, a country without a European-style ID card system, makes itself attractive to migrants who can “disappear”.

A young man from Iraq, with absolutely perfect English, comes for a chat. He oozes confidence and a certain amount of mischief.

It has taken him only seven days to get from Iraq to Dunkirk; when I ask how he has made the trip so quickly, he shrugs. “Money talks”.

He looks around him. “Let me tell you – all of these people you see around you will be getting to Britain and the first job they get will be in the black market, so they won’t be paying any tax.

“Back in the day in Britain, they used to welcome immigrants very well, but these days I don’t think they want to, because there’s too many of them coming by boat. Every day it’s about seven or 800 people. That’s too many people.”

“But,” I ask, “if those people are a problem – then what makes you different? Aren’t you a problem too?”

He shakes his head emphatically. “I know that I’m a very good guy. And I won’t be a problem. I’ll only stay in Britain for a few years and then I’ll leave again.”

A man from Sri Lanka says he “will feel safe” when he gets to Britain; a tall, smiling man from Ethiopia echoes the sentiment: “We are not safe in our home country so we have come all this way,” he says. “We want to work, to be part of Britain.”

Emmanuel is another from South Sudan – thoughtful and eloquent. He left his country five years ago – “at the start of COVID” – and has not seen his children in all that time. His aim is to start a new life in Britain, and then to bring his family to join him.

He is a trained electrical engineer, but says he could also work as a lorry driver. He is adamant that Britain has a responsibility to the people of its former colony.

“The British came to my country – colonising, killing, raping,” he said. “And we didn’t complain. We let it happen.

“I am not the problem. I won’t fight anyone; I want to work. And if I break the laws – if any immigrant breaks the laws – then fine, deport them.

“I know it won’t be easy – some people won’t like me, some people will. But England is my dream.”

World

IDF presence in Gaza ‘only issue’ still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Sky News understands

Published

11 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

IDF presence in Gaza 'only issue' still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire, Sky News understands

Only one issue remains unresolved in the push to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, according to Sky sources.

Intense negotiations are taking place in Qatar in parallel with key talks in Washington between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Two sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have told Sky News that disagreement between Israel and Hamas remains on the status and presence of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza.

The two sides have bridged significant differences on several other issues, including the process of delivering humanitarian aid and Hamas’s demand that the US guarantees to ensure Israel doesn’t unilaterally resume the war when the ceasefire expires in 60 days.

On the issue of humanitarian aid, Sky News understands that a third party that neither Hamas nor Israel has control over will be used in areas from which the IDF withdraws.

This means that the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – jointly run by an American organisation and Israel – will not be able to operate anywhere where the IDF is not deployed. It will limit GHF expansion plans.

It is believed the United Nations or other recognised humanitarian organisations will adopt a greater role.

On the issue of a US guarantee to prevent Israel restarting the war, Sky News understands that a message was passed to Hamas by Dr Bishara Bahbah, a Palestinian American who has emerged as a key back channel in the negotiations.

The message appears to have been enough to convince Hamas that President Trump will prevent Israel from restarting the conflict.

However, there is no sense from any of the developments over the course of the past day about what the future of Gaza looks like longer-term.

Final challenge is huge

The last remaining disagreement is, predictably, the trickiest to bridge.

Israel’s central war aim, beyond the return of the hostages, is the total elimination of Hamas as a military and political organisation. The withdrawal of the IDF, partial or total, could allow Hamas to regroup.

One way to overcome this would be to provide wider guarantees of clear deliverable pathways to a viable future for Palestinians.

But there is no sense from the negotiations of any longer-term commitments on this issue.

Two key blocks have been resolved over the past 24 hours but the final challenge is huge.

The conflict in Gaza erupted when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Some 20 hostages are believed to remain alive in Gaza.

Israel has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry, which does not distinguish between combatants and civilians.

World

Trump applying ‘heavy pressure’ on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

Published

11 hours ago

July 9, 2025

admin

Trump applying 'heavy pressure' on Netanyahu to end war in Gaza

US President Donald Trump is putting “heavy” pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza, two sources close to the ceasefire negotiations have told Sky News.

One US source said: “The US pressure on Israel has begun, and tonight it will be heavy.”

The source, who is not authorised to speak publicly, was referring to the White House dinner on Monday night between Trump and Netanyahu.

A second Middle Eastern diplomatic source agreed that the American pressure on Israel would be intense.

Netanyahu arrived in Washington DC in the early hours of Monday morning and held meetings on Monday with Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state and national security adviser.

The Israeli prime minister plans to be in Washington until Thursday with meetings on Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Trump has made clear his desire to bring the Gaza conflict to an end.

However, he has never articulated how a lasting peace, which would satisfy both the Israelis and Palestinians, could be achieved.

His varying comments about ownership of Gaza, moving Palestinians out of the territory and permanent resettlement, have presented a confusing policy.

Situation for Palestinians worse than ever

Over the coming days, we will see the extent to which Trump demands that Netanyahu accepts the current Gaza ceasefire deal, even if it falls short of Israel’s war aims – the elimination of Hamas.

The strategic objective to permanently remove Hamas seems always to have been impossible. Hamas as an entity was the extreme consequence of the Israeli occupation.

The Palestinians’ challenge has not gone away, and the situation for Palestinians now is worse than it has ever been in Gaza and also the West Bank. It is not clear how Trump plans to square that circle.

Trump’s oft-repeated desire to “stop the killing” is sincere. Those close to him often emphasise this. He is also looking to cement his legacy as a peacemaker. He genuinely craves the Nobel Peace Prize.

In this context, the complexities of conflicts – in Ukraine or Gaza – are often of secondary importance to the president.

If Netanyahu can be persuaded to end the war, what would he need?

The hostages back – for sure. That would require agreement from Hamas. They would only agree to this if they have guarantees on Gaza’s future and their own future. More circles to square.

Was White House dinner a key moment?

The Monday night dinner could have been a key moment for the Middle East. Two powerful men in the Blue Room of the White House, deciding the direction of the region.

Will it be seen as the moment the region was remoulded? But to whose benefit?

Trump is a dealmaker with an eye on the prize. But Netanyahu is a political master; they don’t call him “the magician” for nothing.

Trump makes decisions instinctively. He can shift position quickly and often listens to the last person in the room. Right now – that person is Netanyahu.

Gaza is one part of a jigsaw of challenges, which could become opportunities.

Diplomatic normalisation between Israel and the Arab world is a prize for Trump and could genuinely secure him the Nobel Peace Prize.

But without the Gaza piece, the jigsaw is incomplete.