Can the Abraham Accords be this century’s Magna Carta?
The signing of the Abraham Accords marks an unprecedented step toward regional and global peace. However, there is no single, unified agreement that all parties signed, revealing significant gaps that need attention.
The Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the King of England, limited royal power and became a foundation for modern European views on human rights and constitutional law. In contrast, today’s treaties are expected to be clearly understood, accepted, and adhered to by all signatories.
An analysis of Western international conventions versus Islamic law highlights key foundational contradictions. With renewed efforts to include more Arab countries in the Abraham Accords—especially following the Gaza ceasefire—and Kazakhstan joining as of November 7 (a move attributed to the U.S. Trump Administration and the Israeli government’s military determination), a thorough review of the original Accords is necessary.
Michel Calvo’s paper from the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (August 5, 2025), titled “Will More Countries Reconsider Their Core Beliefs and Sign the Abraham Accords?”, emphasizes that the Accords lack uniformity. Some versions are four pages long, others are brief one-page declarations, and some versions are unsigned by all parties.
“Actually, some signed Accords are four pages, some one-page declarations, and other versions not even signed by all parties.”
This diversity in structure and commitment underlines the need for a cohesive and universally accepted framework to strengthen the Accords' impact.
Author’s summary: The Abraham Accords represent a major peace initiative but require a unified and clear agreement to realize their full potential as a transformative century-defining pact.