Can the Abraham Accords Be This Century’s Magna Carta?
The signing of the Abraham Accords marked an unprecedented step toward both regional and global peace. However, no single, unified agreement was signed by all parties, leaving significant gaps that need to be addressed.
In comparison, the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the King of England, limited royal power and laid the groundwork for modern European human rights and constitutional law. Today, it is expected that all parties to treaties or agreements fully understand, accept, and adhere to the terms they sign.
Fundamental Contradictions in Legal Frameworks
Examining Western international conventions alongside Islamic law reveals important foundational contradictions that complicate unified adherence to the Abraham Accords.
Expansion and Review of the Abraham Accords
Following a ceasefire in Gaza, there is a renewed effort to include more Arab countries in the Abraham Accords. As of November 7, Kazakhstan has joined, reflecting credited efforts by the U.S. Trump Administration and the Israeli government’s military resolve.
Given this expansion, it is crucial to thoroughly review the terms of the original Accords, primarily because there is no one uniform agreement signed by all parties. Michel Calvo highlights this point in his August 5, 2025, paper for the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, titled “Will More Countries Reconsider Their Core Beliefs and Sign the Abraham Accords?”
“Some signed Accords are four pages long, some are one-page declarations, and other versions are not even signed by all participants.”
Conclusion
The Abraham Accords represent a historic move toward peace, yet their fragmented nature calls for a comprehensive reassessment to ensure lasting and inclusive agreements.
Author’s summary: The Abraham Accords mark a historic peace initiative but require thorough review due to fragmented agreements and fundamental legal contradictions among signatories.