The term itself says that something is not "normal," which needs to be normalized, or something that was a taboo is converted into permissible. This is the situation of the relations between Arab and "Israel" since the Palestinians' catastrophe (Nakba) in 1948 when the "Israeli" occupation started. Hence, no doubt that this topic is controversial and paradoxical.
The following will discuss a few ideas on the subject:
(1) Where has the normalization process reached after 42 years of the first attempt at Camp David 1978?
In 1978 the Egyptian government forged its official diplomatic relations with "Israel '' brokered by the United States of America's government. On the 20th of January 2000, a brief report at The Economist was published titled "Israelis whom Egyptians love to hate." This report endorsed the negative "Israeli" character portrayed by the Cinema producers in Egypt. "Their women are sluttish schemers. Their men scowling thugs, prone to blood-spilling and to strange guttural barking," the report said. Irrespective of decades of relations, the Egyptians still have their "unwelcoming" attitude to the newly imposed and alien "friend."
In 2016 another study was published where Dr. Abdulaleem, the senior advisor to the Center of Pyramids for political and strategic studies, said, "Egyptians are least interested in any sort of normalization with "Israel ''. The paper mentioned that such a relationship is only at the security apparatus level and few desks at the Egyptian foreign ministry; it is a "cold peace," the report endorsed.
Alzaytouna's study center conducted an opinion poll in 2019 about the popularity of the relations with "Israel" among some Muslim countries. The poll concluded that only 3% among Egyptians, 4% among Pakistanis, 6% among Turkish, and 15% among Indonesians who may welcome some sort of relations with "Israel" (many conditioned it after a just solution for the Palestinians.)
The study stated that such a process has nothing to do with any fair demanded by the Arab nations nor brought any benefit for peace attempts or any economic interests for the nations that the politicians tried to market their causes.
The previous chief of the "Israeli" army Gadi Eizenkot told "Israel Hayom" commenting on the latest agreement signed by the Emirates regime, Netanyahu, and Trump after "Israel" protested over an upcoming contract that Emirates procuring F35 jets from the USA: "in the Middle East (West Asia) your new friends may turn to be your enemy. hence, the "Israeli" surpassing quality power (over the Arabs) is highly essential."
An obvious "Israeli" skeptical mentality and policy towards Arabs prevents any type of so-called normalization.
(2) Money talks, Or something else?
If we agree to the mentioned pragmatic notion, one may expect some economic boost even at the bilateral level between Emirates and "Israel." On the 8th of September 2020, the minister of "Intelligence" of "Israel" Eli Cohen said that "In three to five years the balance of trade between Emirates and us may reach four billion dollars."
First, why should a minister of "Intelligence" announce such economic news?
Second, let us compare this balance of trade with the balance of trade between Emirates and a neighboring country like Iran. In that case, the figure may exceed 13.5 billion dollars. Here one may say that something else other than "Money was talked."
Many analysts refer to such a process as an intense and vital need for the current leaders in "Israel" and the U.S. to re-elected.
Netanyahu is facing corruption trials against him, and many riots and rallies are in the street against him that may qualify the situation for a fourth government election. On the other hand, Trump faces a series of fiascoes at different levels; his government's disastrous approach to the COVID- 19 pandemics that rendered millions of casualties, the racial discrimination, and the people in the street protesting to police behavior against the civilians.
Bibi and Trump initiated such a process to safeguard their own endangered political future. In conclusion, one cannot bet on the viability of such a deal.
Other analysts see this deal to jeopardize the security and stability of the region.
Some "Israeli" commentators have accused Netanyahu of forging new relations with "countries that have no geopolitical importance like Bahrain and Emirates but at the same time are neighbors to Iran," which may lead to more escalation and expected violence in the region.
(3) Finally, what such normalization can benefit the Palestinians as the victims who are supposed to wait for the fruits of peace out of this deal? On the contrary, all the Palestinians, irrespective of their political affiliations, have refused and denounced this deal.
Even those who tried the peace process since Oslo 1993 and where so-called peace partners have unequivocally rejected this deal described by the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and his Fateh party as "betrayal."
Other Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who gathered lately in Beirute, announce their utmost discontent against the deal and consider it as a "reward for the "Israeli" criminals on their crimes."
The General secretaries of all Palestinian parties who convened in Beirut protested against the deal and called upon the Arab League to denounce it.
In conclusion, the so-called "Just solution" to the Palestinian issue cannot be achieved through such shortcuts of normalizations between Aran and "Israel." The Palestinians are the only side to decide their own destiny and no one else.