Earlier this month, a group of self-styled progressive organizations—including the Center for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, a group with significant ties to Hamas), the Jewish group If Not Now, and the U.S. Presbyterian Church—petitioned Congress not to support the normalization agreements that Israel has signed with four Arab countries, as well as further peacemaking efforts in this vein. While this view might be extreme, it’s worth noting that, in a bizarre exchange in the early days of the Biden administration, a State Department official appeared reluctant even to use the term “Abraham Accords” to describe these agreements. David M. Weinberg comments on this hostility to good relations between former adversaries:

[Contrary to the claims] of the American “progressive” groups mentioned above, the Abraham Accords are not a Trump-tainted gimmick or a Netanyahu-stained end-run around the Palestinians. Rather, they are an authentic breakthrough for both peace and security in the Middle East; a transformation that evinces staying power and deepens by the day.

To assert that only Trumpian razzle-dazzle and arms deals were the basis for the Abraham Accords, as do [these] partisan grouches, is a complete misread of Emirati, Bahraini, and Moroccan purposes in pursuit of peace with Israel. The leaders of the countries want to redefine the self-understanding and global image of Arab Muslims by blending tradition with enlightenment, anchored in an admirable discourse of religious moderation and broadmindedness.

Affiliating with Israel fits perfectly into this agenda because this is exactly how they view Israel too—as a nation that successfully synthesizes strong ethnic and religious identity with modernity. Therefore, the Abraham Accords are deeply rooted in genuine ideological intentions, as well as urgent security realties, and are locked-in for the long term.

Donald Trump’s recent visit to the Arabian Peninsula, where he was fawned over by Hamas’s patrons in Qatar, made deals with the Saudis but seemingly no progress on diplomatic normalization between Riyadh and Jerusalem, and met with multiple Arab leaders while neglecting Israel—has raised much concern that the president is putting distance between himself and the Jewish state and moreover, that Israel’s regional standing is sliding. These concerns strike me as exaggerated and even overwrought, and in some cases wishful thinking on the part of those who would prefer such outcomes.

To Dan Schueftan too, Jerusalem is in an excellent position both diplomatically, and—as the IDF again ramps up its operations in Gaza—military:

In the regional arena, Israel has already won the war that started on October 7, 2023. While the fighting is not over yet, a confrontation with Iran is potentially dangerous, and there is no sustainable “solution” available in Gaza, the balance of power in the Middle East shifted dramatically in favor of the Jewish state and its de-facto Arab allies.

Since October 7, Israel has devastated in Gaza the only Arab state-like entity controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. The IDF also reduced Hizballah from an intimidating strategic threat, practically in control of Lebanon, to a major nuisance, fighting a rearguard battle for its position in Beirut and in the south. And Israel’s air force exposed the supreme vulnerability of Iran’s most-defended sites.

In Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Rabat, Arab leaders could not afford to infuriate their populaces by openly celebrating the dramatic weakening of their regional deadly enemies and giving Israel the well-deserved credit for inflicting the required blows. However, they know that sustainable Israeli resilience, strategic power, determination, and tenacity in the struggle against common radical enemies are indispensable for their own regional welfare, sometimes even their existence. Whereas America is immeasurably more powerful, Israel, in their experience, is an infinitely more trustworthy and dependable partner in this ongoing struggle.