In July, Drop Site News published leaked internal documents showing Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems pursuing drone and surveillance sales to the United Arab Emirates following the Abraham Accords. The reporting contained no allegation that the discussions violated Israeli law, Emirati law or international law. There was no claim of bribery, corruption or illicit arms trafficking. Indeed, the article acknowledged that the documents did not establish whether the proposed drone sale was ever completed.
Yet the unmistakable implication was that a scandal had been uncovered. But what, exactly, was the scandal? There wasn’t one — unless the real offense was that Israel and an Arab nation were conducting business together.
That is what makes the article significant. It reflects a growing genre of reporting that treats ordinary engagement with Israel as inherently suspicious. Whether the subject is a business investment, a university partnership, a scientific collaboration, a tourism initiative, a defense sale or an intelligence agreement, the conduct itself is rarely extraordinary. The newsworthiness lies in the fact that Israel is involved.
That approach runs directly contrary to the purpose of the Abraham Accords. Their success was never meant to be measured merely by diplomatic recognition or exchanged ambassadors. It was meant to be measured by everyday cooperation becoming routine — Israeli companies doing business in Dubai, Arab investors backing Israeli technology, universities collaborating on research and governments confronting shared security threats.
Opponents of normalization understand that every bit as well as its supporters. Every successful partnership reinforces a simple reality: Israel is not a temporary anomaly but a permanent participant in the political and economic life of the Middle East. Just as important, commercial relationships create constituencies with a practical interest in preserving peace. That is precisely why normalization threatens those who depend on permanent hostility.
This is why so much of this reporting focuses less on misconduct than on association. A defense sale that would attract little notice if it involved France, Britain or South Korea suddenly becomes front-page news because the seller is Israel. The objective is not necessarily to prove wrongdoing. It is to attach controversy to cooperation itself.
This is not the old Arab boycott, but it pursues a remarkably similar objective through different means. Instead of prohibiting engagement with Israel, it seeks to stigmatize it. Instead of government sanctions, it relies on reputational pressure. Governments, corporations, universities, investors, artists and athletes are reminded that engagement with Israel will invite criticism and controversy. The goal is to ensure that cooperation itself carries a reputational cost.
The ultimate success of the Abraham Accords will not be measured by ceremonies on the White House lawn or speeches by political leaders. It will be measured by the day an Israeli company signs a contract with an Arab company — and nobody thinks it deserves a headline. Peace succeeds when it becomes ordinary. Those determined to keep Israel isolated understand that. The real question is whether everyone else does.
