Can the Abraham Accords Be This Century’s Magna Carta?
The signing of the Abraham Accords marked an extraordinary milestone toward regional and global peace. Yet, these agreements are not uniform: each participating nation accepted different versions, leaving significant gaps that remain unaddressed.
The Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the King of England, once limited royal authority and paved the way for modern concepts of human rights and constitutional law. By contrast, the Accords exhibit varied interpretations and commitments among signatories, reflecting differences in governance and legal traditions.
In contemporary diplomacy, it is assumed that all parties to a treaty share mutual understanding and consent to its terms. However, comparing Western conventions with Islamic law reveals essential contradictions that complicate unified application.
Following the recent ceasefire in Gaza, there has been renewed momentum to expand participation. As of November 7, Kazakhstan has joined the Abraham Accords, with acknowledgment given to the U.S. Trump Administration and the Israeli government’s persistence for making this possible.
These developments highlight the pressing need to reexamine the original terms, given the absence of a single, cohesive agreement binding all signatories.
Michel Calvo, in his paper “Will More Countries Reconsider Their Core Beliefs and Sign the Abraham Accords?” published by the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs on August 5, 2025, notes that some signed versions span four pages, others are one-page declarations, and some remain unsigned by all participants.
Author’s Summary
The Abraham Accords signal progress toward peace but require a structured review to align diverse signatories and reconcile incomplete agreements.