After years of diplomatic anticipation, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is publicly distancing Riyadh from joining the Abraham Accords unless key conditions are met, especially a clear roadmap to Palestinian statehood. What once looked like a near‑certain historic breakthrough in Middle East peace now appears unlikely, with complex political, social, and regional forces reshaping the possibilities.
Why the Saudi Normalization Deal Unraveled
For much of the last decade, a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel was seen as the crown jewel of the Middle East peace process following the 2020 Abraham Accords involving the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. But that momentum slowed dramatically after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing conflict that reshaped public opinion and regional priorities.
In late 2025, during a high‑profile visit to Washington, Saudi Arabia secured landmark U.S. concessions, including enhanced military cooperation, Major Non‑NATO Ally status, and civilian nuclear cooperation. Importantly, the U.S. dropped its longstanding requirement that Riyadh recognize Israel as part of the package, a move that signalled normalization was no longer essential for Saudi strategic gains. From Riyadh’s perspective, the kingdom received security and economic benefits without sliding into a politically sensitive diplomatic commitment.
Yet the geopolitical backdrop matters deeply to the kingdom. The Saudi leadership has long insisted that any normalization with Israel must be tied to significant progress on Palestinian statehood, including a two‑state solution based on the 1967 borders and East Jerusalem as the capital. This position aligns with Riyadh’s support for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and remains a cornerstone of official Saudi foreign policy.
Saudi Public Opinion and Domestic Politics
One factor often overlooked is the force of public opinion within Saudi Arabia and the broader Arab world. Surveys over the past two years indicate that support for normalization without addressing Palestinian rights has declined significantly. According to Arab Barometer data, large majorities across the region oppose formal ties with Israel absent progress on the Palestinian issue. In Saudi Arabia, Riyadh leadership reportedly conveyed to U.S. policymakers that public sentiment strongly resists recognition of Israel without a credible path to Palestinian sovereignty.
In the current environment, many Saudis view normalization with suspicion due to ongoing conflict, civilian casualties, and mistrust of negotiating partners. This domestic resistance presents a challenge for any leader, including Mohammed bin Salman, who must balance long‑term strategic interests with internal political realities.
The Palestinian State Condition
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly reiterated its stance that normalization cannot proceed without meaningful steps toward Palestinian self‑determination. Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan underscored this point during public statements, noting that an independent Palestinian state is essential for lasting peace in the region. The kingdom emphasizes that diplomatic relations should be predicated on justice and political rights rather than tactical arrangements.
This condition reflects broader Arab League expectations and echoes statements by Saudi leaders over the years, asserting that the future of the Middle East must be built on a foundation that includes a sovereign Palestinian state. Saudi Arabia’s insistence remains firmly connected to long‑held positions on international law, regional stability, and peacebuilding.
Broader Regional and Strategic Dynamics
The Middle East today is a web of shifting alliances, competing ambitions, and legacy conflicts that make simple diplomatic breakthroughs rare. While Saudi Arabia has not abandoned efforts to support peace, rising regional tensions, public opinion, and political complexity have altered the calculus for Riyadh.
Reacting to recent Israeli policies, the Saudi cabinet recently rejected Israeli land designation decisions in the West Bank, arguing they undermine peace prospects and violate Palestinian rights, reinforcing Saudi Arabia’s alignment with broader Arab concerns. This stance reflects Riyadh’s sensitivity to regional solidarity on Palestinian issues and its leadership role within the Arab world.
Furthermore, deep regional dynamics, including competition with other Gulf states such as the UAE, play into Riyadh’s diplomatic approach. While the UAE has normalized ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords, Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to join the same framework signals differences in regional strategy and priorities.
What This Means for the Abraham Accords
The Abraham Accords were once hailed as a blueprint for peace and expanded cooperation across the Middle East. However, the expected inclusion of Saudi Arabia — the most influential Arab state — would have been transformative. Its absence underscores that normalization requires more than strategic alignments and security deals; it demands political solutions that address long‑term grievances.
Israeli and Western leaders, including former U.S. officials, had posited that Saudi recognition could be attainable if linked to countering shared regional threats like Iran. Yet without tangible progress on the Palestinian front, Saudi Arabia remains cautious, preferring to leverage its diplomatic capital for lasting outcomes rather than short‑term agreements.
Looking Ahead
At this moment, Saudi Arabia’s normalization with Israel is not imminent. Riyadh continues to press for conditions it sees as central to regional peace, principally a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood. This stance reflects a balancing act between strategic cooperation with the West, domestic public sentiment, and its role as a leader in the Arab and Muslim world.
Saudi Arabia’s continued engagement in peace efforts does not mean the door is closed forever, but it does mean that any future agreement will require substantial political movement on the Palestinian question. History shows that meaningful diplomatic breakthroughs rarely occur without addressing core grievances at the heart of longstanding conflicts.
