Peace with a neighbour, normalization with a distant state: what is the difference?

Two kinds of agreement

The peace treaty with Egypt (1979) and the peace treaty with Jordan (1994) ended a state of war between neighbouring states. They had to settle questions of land, borders, security and water¹².

The Abraham Accords (2020) established relations with states that have no border with Israel and never fought it³⁴. The documents themselves differ from one another: a full treaty with the UAE, a declaration and a joint communiqué with Bahrain, and a three-way declaration with Morocco. With Sudan no bilateral agreement was signed at all⁴.

The comparison, row by row

Why peace with a neighbour you fought is harder

When neighbouring states have fought each other, the agreement has to undo the results of the war. It has to decide who holds which land, where the border runs, how many forces may be stationed near it and who monitors that. For Egypt this meant withdrawal from all of Sinai and the evacuation of settlements⁷¹⁰. For Jordan it meant delimiting a border and sharing water⁶².

On top of that come the memory of war and the cost at home. A public that lost sons in war finds a concession harder to accept, and a leader who signs takes a personal and political risk. Egypt was suspended from the Arab League¹⁶, and 23 deputies in Jordan's parliament voted against the treaty¹⁸.

In normalization between distant states most of these questions do not exist. There is no land to return and no border to draw, which is why it was possible to go from a first statement to a signing in about a month¹⁵¹². Each kind delivers something different. A peace treaty with a neighbour removes the threat of war on the border, even when relations between the peoples stay cold. Normalization quickly opens trade, flights and cooperation³¹, but it does not settle a dispute over land, because no such dispute stood between the parties.

What they all have in common

In every case a decision by leaders was needed, and in every case there was a mediator: an American president signed as witness to the treaty with Egypt, the treaty with Jordan and the treaty with the UAE¹²¹². And in every case each side received something concrete. Egypt received Sinai and Israel received peace¹. Jordan received an agreed border and water². The UAE received the suspension of annexation and Israel received full relations¹⁵.

And in every case the signing was only a beginning. What decides whether an agreement lasts is what happens afterwards: the treaties with Egypt and Jordan have survived decades and severe crises, but political relations are at a low point⁴⁰³⁴. The Abraham Accords survived the war in Gaza, but public support for them in Morocco collapsed⁴²¹.

What this can teach about a future Israeli–Palestinian agreement

It is the hardest kind

An Israeli–Palestinian agreement would have to settle land, borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and mutual recognition all at once. In the treaty with Egypt only some of these were on the table, and in the Abraham Accords almost none.

The hard issues were put off again and again

Oslo I deferred Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security and borders to permanent-status negotiations⁴¹. That is part of the explanation for why no permanent agreement has been reached to this day.

Answers have already been drafted

The Clinton Parameters of December 2000 proposed an outline for all these issues together. No agreement was signed⁴².

There is no old border to go back to

With Egypt and Jordan the treaties rested on an international boundary line from the Mandate period¹⁶. Between Israel and the Palestinians there is no such agreed line, and the border itself is part of the negotiation.

The cost at home is likely to be high

Even in the easier agreements leaders paid a price¹⁶¹⁸. An agreement that touches every core issue is likely to stir sharper opposition on both sides. This is an observation, not a prediction.