What did they expect, an honorary citizenship?

Turkey (recognition 1949), Egypt (recognition 1979), Jordan (1994), UAE (2020) and the delegation included the foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia and Qatar along with the Secretary General of the Arab League. I think that they expected to be able to exercise their performance of their offices and visit a territory with an official legal status as being under international jurisdiction.

The objection was over "“Israel’s decision to ban the delegation’s visit to Ramallah (on Sunday) to meet with the president of the State of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas,”

Obviously, the five ministers voicing their objection did so on behalf of the delegation. Even if a single country represented in that delegation does not recognize Israel, no objections referring to a "delegation" have any standing.

It was five members of the delegation representing their respective government within the delegation. Five people putting their names under one statement. Their mission was to represent the interests of their respective governments.Three of those people represented the states that don't recognize Israel.

A delegation is typically thought of as a group of people who are designated to carry a task or tasks. It can be one time or an ongoing thing. It doesn't matter that 3 of them haven't recognized Israel. They were not going to Israel as near as I understand they would come in from Jordan. In any case it was stupid on Netanyahu's part to do this since just recently Abbas put forth the proposal for all of the camps in Lebanon and Syria to disarm. A smart man would have realized that much of what he was complaining about was being put forward for a solution and so allowing a small amount of breathing room would be seen by the Europeans etc. as being willing to work toward that disarmament. But instead he plays the horse's backside, like always, and gives credence to those who say he is out to completely take over the West Bank and to force more Palestinians to leave.

As far as the camps in Lebanon and Syria it also gives credence to those who say that a voluntary disarmament is not what Netanyahu wants. People feel he wants to do it by force with casualties. Force and destruction are all he knows and he and Smotrich, Ben-Givr etc. are doing massive long term damage to Israel and tying the label of rogue state to Israel for many decades to come. They may achieve their aims of expansion etc. but the world will not forget how it was done. Nor will any of that expansion bring peace to Israel. The future seeds of violence have been sown.

But apparently, some semantics are more equal than others.

Or peace with Egypt. Or the UAE and Bahrain's commitment to the Abraham accords.

Israel under Netanyahu is set on eliminating Palestinians from "The Land of Israel" - at any cost, even to Israel itself.

Crazy...

Is it a one-way appeasement of one party by another in the face of a provocation?

I can't seem to find it in a dictionary.

And, in the face of this provocation, how important is peace to Egypt? Or commitment to the Abraham accords to Bahrain?

For some crazy reason I thought normalization is a reciprocal process. You must forgive me, I am not that well-versed in newspeak.