China believes that the Israeli Abraham Accords for peace in the Middle East and Africa, despite achieving diplomatic rapprochement between Israel and some Arab and African states, have failed to achieve comprehensive peace in the Middle East for several fundamental reasons, as outlined in the Chinese diplomatic perspective. The most prominent of these is the neglect of the Palestinian issue. Beijing believes the agreements bypassed the core of the conflict in the region, which is the Palestinian question. China maintains that true peace will not be achieved without a just and comprehensive solution based on the two-state solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Furthermore, China views the Israeli Abraham Accords as reinforcing a “confrontational bloc” mentality. Concerned circles in Beijing view these Israeli peace agreements with suspicion, considering them, from the Chinese perspective, part of an American strategy aimed at isolating certain regional powers, such as Iran, and building targeted security alliances. This approach, from the Chinese perspective, leads to polarization and increased regional tensions rather than easing them. In addition to China’s concerns that the Israeli Abraham Accords prioritize military security over development in the Middle East and Africa, China criticizes the excessive Israeli and American reliance on military force and the logic of “might makes right” as a tool for conflict resolution. In contrast, Beijing proposes an alternative vision based on “peace through development,” calling for inclusive dialogues that leave no one out, as demonstrated in its mediation efforts between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Herein lies the core Chinese perspective: that the Israeli Abraham Accords have been a primary and genuine cause of the continuation, rather than the resolution, of conflicts in the Middle East. Beijing believes that the outbreak of recent conflicts, such as the war in Gaza, has proven that marginalizing Palestinian rights in the name of normalization and peace has not brought the desired stability to the region. Instead, it has exposed the fragility of Israeli and American security arrangements that ignore the historical roots of the conflict.
Accordingly, China believes that the Abraham Accords, despite their role in diplomatic normalization, failed to achieve comprehensive peace because they relied on a security and economic approach and ignored the root cause of the conflict, namely the Palestinian issue. This led to sharp regional polarization instead of stability. The appointment of Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher as Egypt’s Minister of Defense in February 2026 is linked to this context from the official Chinese perspective. Egypt is moving towards strengthening its technological and military partnership with China as an alternative to, or counterbalance to, the traditional American influence associated with the Abraham Accords. This influence, according to China, is aimed at achieving Israel’s technological, digital, qualitative, and military superiority at the expense of all other countries in the region, even those that have normalized relations and are committed to normalization and Abraham Accords agreements with Israel. The United States refuses to provide these countries with advanced military technology to ensure Israel’s continued qualitative military edge in the region.
This is where China’s perspective on the failure of the Abraham Accords to achieve the desired peace lies. Beijing views these accords with suspicion for several strategic reasons, including the Abraham Accords’ disregard for the Palestinian issue. China believes that bypassing Palestinian rights has rendered the Abraham Accords “fragile and weak,” making them vulnerable to collapse in the face of any military escalation (as happened in Gaza). Beijing considers this an obstacle to the stability of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Furthermore, China fears that the Israeli Abraham Accords reinforce polarization and the theory of military axes: Chinese military analysts fear that the Abraham Accords will lead to the formation of military axes that deepen regional divisions rather than unify them, thus threatening China’s trade interests, which depend on openness to all parties without exception, including Iran, the Arab states, and Israel. Here, Beijing views the Abraham Accords as a tool for American hegemony: It sees them as a means to consolidate American influence in the Middle East and Africa, while China prefers “peace through development,” which focuses on infrastructure and the economy rather than building alliances and military blocs.
As for the relationship between the appointment of the new Egyptian Minister of Defense (Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher) and the new Chinese vision in the region in the face of the expansion of more Israeli Abraham Accords for peace, the appointment of Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher (the former director of the Military Academy) on February 11, 2026, reflects a shift in the Egyptian military doctrine in line with the Chinese desire in the region, as he is considered the “architect of the scientific revolution.” Chinese military reports describe him as the “architect of the scientific revolution” within the Egyptian army, which opens the door to deep technological and research partnerships with Beijing that go beyond just “buying weapons” to joint manufacturing and technology transfer. In addition to Egypt’s desire to diversify its arms sources in the face of the American strategy to bolster Israel’s qualitative military edge at the expense of all countries in the region without exception, even those that signed the Abraham Accords with Israel with American assistance, the appointment of Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher, from a Chinese military perspective, represents a new Egyptian strategy to circumvent the political pressures associated with the Israeli Abraham Accords and those related to American arms. This strategy involves deepening Egyptian, Arab, Gulf, and African military ties with other Asian powers, such as China. Israel views this as an attempt to break the qualitative military balance imposed by the American-backed Abraham Accords. The Chinese Ministry of Defense and the People’s Liberation Army consider this a (golden opportunity to localize Chinese military technology in Cairo). From a Chinese military perspective, the new Egyptian Minister of Defense focuses on developing human resources and localizing defense industries, an area in which China has shown a strong willingness to cooperate, especially given Western constraints.
Regarding the impact of the appointment of the new Egyptian Defense Minister, Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher, on Africa and the Middle East from a Chinese perspective, on the African front, China, through partners like Egypt, seeks to present the “port security and counterterrorism” model (as demonstrated in the joint exercises with Mozambique and Tanzania) as an alternative to the security approaches associated with the Israeli Abraham Accords, which included African countries such as Morocco and Sudan. On the Arab front and in the Middle East, the appointment of a new Egyptian military leadership open to Chinese technology, such as Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher, strengthens Egypt’s role as a link in the “multipolar world order” promoted by China. This reduces the effectiveness of the pressures associated with the normalization-for-security approach supported by the United States in the Middle East and Africa, which contradicts the interests of both Egypt and China.
Here, China, in cooperation with the new Egyptian military and defense leadership under Lieutenant General Ashraf Salem Zaher, adopts the principle of limiting Israeli (Mossad) influence in Africa, particularly within the framework of the “Chinese-Egyptian shadow war in Africa.” China is working in coordination with Egyptian sovereign, intelligence, military, defense, and security agencies to curtail Israeli intelligence activity on the African continent, especially in the Horn of Africa and East Africa. This aims to protect vital waterways for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, primarily with Egyptian military assistance, to achieve “Egyptian national sovereignty over waterways with Chinese support.” Beijing is coordinating with Cairo to protect the Suez Canal, Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden from Israeli military movements that could harm its interests. Israel views this as a threat to its intelligence superiority in the region.
Therefore, we can summarize the complete Chinese position on the Israeli Abraham Accords for peace in the Middle East and Africa, facilitated by the United States, and their relation to achieving the regional stability sought by both Egypt and China. China prefers a policy of “supporting mediation, not cancellation”: China favors Egypt playing the role of “regional guarantor” capable of balancing relations between the Palestinian factions and Israel, rather than completely abolishing the Abraham Accords. This was evident in the Chinese media’s praise for Cairo’s role in the Gaza ceasefire negotiations in early 2016, supported by the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate under the leadership of Major General Hassan Rashad. Furthermore, the Egyptian and Chinese intelligence and military visions agree on the “two-state solution” principle: Both China and Egypt remain committed to the necessity of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue and rejecting Israel’s “logic of force,” considering this the only path to true peace. The Chinese and Egyptian visions remain committed to the necessity of reaching a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue and rejecting Israel’s “logic of force.”
Based on the preceding analysis, we can understand the essence of China’s practical and official stance on the Israeli Abraham Accords, supported by Washington. China believes that sustainable peace requires addressing core issues and national sovereignty, not merely trade and security agreements like the Israeli Abraham Accords, which are driven primarily by American interests to achieve their own limited and narrow objectives.
