The threat that could blow up the Abraham Accords

Six years after the announcement of the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, Shimon Rafali, Deputy Head of the Institute for Security Policy of the Habithonistim movement (IDSF) and former policy advisor to Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, seeks to look at the Abraham Accords from a different angle. Not just through the ceremony at the White House, the opening of embassies, or economic cooperation, but through the question of what the next generation is learning about the other side.

On the sixth anniversary of the historic announcement, he explains why, in his opinion, the true test of peace lies precisely in the education system, what can be learned from the UAE about the resilience of relations during a crisis, and what lesson Israel should take from this for any future settlement in the region.

Peace begins in the classroom

When you say that peace begins in the classroom, what exactly do you mean?

"You can bring a leader to the negotiating table through interests and pressures. You can establish an embassy by government decision. You can even create security and economic coordination mechanisms. But if the education system continues to teach the next generation that the Zionist entity is an eternal enemy, that its history is fake, that its religion is inferior, and that its very existence is illegitimate, then we have signed an agreement between governments, not built peace between peoples."

And what is different in the UAE in this aspect?

"During my visit to the UAE, I found a broad emphasis on tolerance, coexistence, and the acceptance of other cultures and religions, including a magnificent synagogue in the Abrahamic Family House complex in Abu Dhabi. In studies by the IMPACT-se research institute that examined the Emirati education system, positive changes were also found regarding Judaism and Israel, and the Abraham Accords themselves were integrated into the study materials. This does not mean that all disputes have disappeared, but it teaches that a country seeking to create long-term peace cannot be satisfied with changing its foreign policy. It must gradually create a cultural infrastructure that allows the next generation to accept peace itself as legitimate."

---

The test of crisis

Since 2020, relations between Israel and the UAE have undergone difficult tests. To what extent does this testify to the depth of the agreement?

"Since August 2020, relations between Israel and the UAE have faced tests whose full intensity none of the signatories to the agreement could have known. The October 7 attack, the war in Gaza, and the regional turmoil have created enormous pressure on Israel's relations with the Arab world. The UAE has sharply criticized Israel's policy on various issues.

There were disputes, tensions, and periods when the warmth that characterized the beginning of relations was replaced by caution. But the relations were not severed. The embassies remained open, the channels of dialogue were maintained, and the economic and institutional ties continued to exist. It is precisely the disputes that illustrate the importance of the achievement. Peace is not measured when everything is quiet. It is measured at the moment when the parties are divided, the public is agitated, and the political cost of maintaining relations rises."

In other words, is a crisis the true test of peace?

"An agreement that holds up only in times of quiet is a temporary arrangement. True peace is tested by its ability to survive a crisis. Since the Oslo Accords, huge sums have been invested in building Palestinian institutions. Governance and security mechanisms were established, agreements were signed, and international aid was transferred in huge volumes. The assumption was that building institutions, improving the economy, and political progress would gradually create an incentive for peace.

But for years, studies and reports have pointed to inciting content in the Palestinian education system, including the glorification of 'martyrs', hostile content towards Israel, and a consistent lack of education that recognizes the State of Israel and the Jewish people as legitimate neighbors with a historical connection to the land. The West sometimes sought to build peace from above, while underneath it, mechanisms continued to exist that passed the conflict on to the next generation."

---

The formula for long-term peace

And what is the significance of this for the younger generation?

"You cannot expect a child who has been educated for years to see Israel as an illegitimate entity to become a natural partner for reconciliation at the age of eighteen just because leaders signed a document."

In other words, from your point of view, is this no longer just an educational question but also a security one?

"These are not marginal questions. These are questions of national security. You can defeat an army on the battlefield. You can dismantle a terrorist organization. You can eliminate commanders and destroy infrastructure. All these are necessary for the defense of the state. But a long-term victory also requires preventing the ideology that gave birth to the war from being passed on in its entirety to the next generation."

The Abraham Accords also relied on common interests. How important is this for their ability to hold up?

"The agreements were born out of a recognition of common interests. Israel and the UAE identified common regional threats and understood the advantages inherent in cooperation in the fields of security, technology, trade, energy, innovation, and tourism. Instead of the old perception that the parties must first resolve all disputes and only then begin to cooperate, the Abraham Accords offered the opposite logic: cooperation itself can become an engine of stability."

So what is, in your view, the formula for peace that lasts over time?

"Strength creates deterrence. Interests create feasibility. Education creates resilience.

All three components are necessary. Peace that is not backed by strength may invite aggression. Peace that has no common interests may become an empty document. And peace that is not supported by an educational and cultural infrastructure may collapse when the first crisis arrives."

And what is the lesson from here for the 'day after' in Gaza or for future arrangements in the region?

"In any future discussion about regional arrangements, about expanding the Abraham Accords, about relations with the Palestinians, and about the future of Gaza, the State of Israel and its partners must not repeat the mistake of measuring peace by signatures alone.

Textbooks must also be measured. When the international community invests billions in reconstruction, it should ask not only how many schools were built, but also what is being taught inside them. When new institutions are established, one must examine not only who manages them, but what worldview they are passing on to the next generation."

Six years after that August 13, what do you consider the most important achievement of the Abraham Accords?

"The achievement of the Abraham Accords is not only that Israelis fly to Dubai, that Israeli and Emirati companies do business, and that the Israeli flag flies over an embassy in an Arab country. The more important achievement is the proof of the possibility of creating a different model in the Middle East. A model in which countries do not have to agree on everything to live in peace. A model in which common interests replace the politics of boycott. A model in which tolerance is not just a diplomatic slogan, but a value that a country seeks to pass on to the next generation as well. Leaders can sign a peace agreement in one day. Strength and interests can maintain it during a crisis. But for peace to last for generations, it must be taught in the classroom."