Can the Abraham Accords Be This Century’s Magna Carta?
The signing of the Abraham Accords marks an unprecedented move toward peace in the Middle East and beyond, yet it lacks a single, unified agreement embraced by all involved parties. This gap requires careful attention.
Historical Context and Expectations
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. In contrast, modern treaties and agreements are expected to be clearly understood and accepted by all signatories.
Challenges in the Abraham Accords Framework
An examination of Western international conventions alongside Islamic law reveals key foundational differences. With renewed efforts to include more Arab nations in the Abraham Accords following the Gaza ceasefire, and Kazakhstan joining as of November 7, 2025 (noteworthy thanks to the U.S. Trump Administration and Israel’s military commitment), the original terms of the Accords need thorough reassessment.
Michel Calvo, in his Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs paper (August 5, 2025), highlights that "some signed Accords are four pages, some one-page declarations, and other versions not even signed by all parties."
This inconsistency means there is no single agreement uniting all participants, which complicates the Accords' role as a foundational treaty akin to the Magna Carta.
Conclusion
The Abraham Accords represent a historic step, yet their varied formats and lack of unanimous agreement suggest the need for a clearer, universally accepted framework to ensure lasting peace.
Author’s summary: The Abraham Accords are a historic peace initiative but require a unified and clearly accepted agreement to achieve the lasting impact comparable to the Magna Carta.