Is Israel trying to impose Abraham Accords in West Bank?

The revelation that a man claiming tribal authority in Hebron has proposed the creation of an autonomous "emirate" aligned with Israel - including full recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and entry into the Abraham Accords framework - has sparked outrage across Palestinian society.

Wadih al-Jaabari, a Jerusalem-based Israeli citizen, reportedly submitted the proposal to Israeli Economy Minister Nir Barkat, with the backing of four other unnamed figures.

The move is being viewed by many as an attempt to fragment Palestinian political identity and bypass national leadership through soft power - a potential internalisation of the Abraham Accords inside the occupied West Bank.

Who is Wadih al-Jaabari, and what did he propose?

A Wall Street Journal report revealed that Wadih al-Jaabari and four others had delivered a letter to Israeli officials proposing that Hebron secede from the Palestinian Authority and form a tribal-led emirate.

The group pledged recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and advocated for integration into the Abraham Accords. In exchange, they requested economic incentives such as increased permits for Palestinian workers.

Al-Jaabari is a Jerusalem resident not a Hebron one, and holds Israeli identification. He reportedly held several meetings with Nir Barkat in recent months to present the plan. The WSJ did not name the other signatories, stating only that they were senior figures from Hebron.

Palestinian families and leadership reject the plan

The response from the Hebron-based Jaabari family was immediate and unequivocal. In a statement, the clan declared:

"We, the Jaabari clan, declare our full disavowal, condemnation, and denunciation of the actions of one individual who is unknown to the clan and is not a resident of Hebron (Khalil al-Rahman)."

The statement added that the family had sacrificed "hundreds of martyrs, wounded, and prisoners on the soil of Palestine", and that this remains its firm position "now and in the future", regardless of the circumstances faced by the Palestinian people.

According to Nafez al-Jaabari, a member of the Higher Presidential Commission for Tribal Affairs and a family representative, the statements issued in the WSJ report were part of a deliberate attempt to undermine Hebron’s national identity:

"The aim of these statements is a direct attack on Hebron's families and a distortion of their national image," he said to The New Arab's Arabic edition Al-Araby Al-Jadeed.

He added that Wadih al-Jaabari is not recognised by the family and that he was accompanied by four others known to local institutions, in addition to 17 unnamed individuals whose identities are now being investigated by Palestinian security services.

"The family in Hebron, and wherever it is present inside or outside Palestine, is fully committed to Islamic and national principles and to the rights of our people to self-determination and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital on all our national soil."

Nafez al-Jaabari also noted that the plan had drawn concern even from within Israeli intelligence circles, warning it could lead to uncontrollable instability. He added that the family had formally informed Wadih al-Jaabari of their position:

"You represent only yourself, and we disavow your words and your actions."

A soft-power strategy of annexation?

While the figure behind the proposal may appear marginal, the fact that it was presented to a senior Israeli minister—and framed within the logic of the Abraham Accords—has raised broader questions. Is this simply a fringe initiative or part of a broader Israeli strategy?

Israeli officials, particularly those on the right, have long sought ways to bypass the Palestinian Authority and replace it with local governance structures. These approaches often aim to fragment the Palestinian national movement into tribes, municipalities, or economically dependent enclaves.

Nir Barkat, the recipient of the proposal, is among the leading proponents of such strategies, previously arguing that Palestinian society should be engaged at the community level rather than through national institutions.

By presenting Hebron as a candidate for the Abraham Accords, the proposal reframes Israeli occupation as something manageable through economic co-optation and tribal collaboration - a form of soft annexation dressed in the language of peace and development.

Normalisation without sovereignty?

The swift and widespread rejection of the Hebron "emirate" proposal underscores how deeply entrenched Palestinian opposition to normalisation remains, particularly when it bypasses justice and national representation.

The Jaabari family’s statement, supported by Palestinian officials and other clans, demonstrates the limits of divide-and-rule tactics within a politically conscious society.

But the episode also signals a new frontier.

If the Abraham Accords are no longer just a regional framework but a tool for remaking the internal dynamics of occupied Palestine, the stakes are not just diplomatic - they are existential for Palestinians.