Can the Abraham Accords Be This Century’s Magna Carta?
The signing of the Abraham Accords represents an unprecedented move toward regional and global peace. However, there is no single, unified agreement signed by all parties, revealing significant gaps that need attention.
In contrast, the Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the King of England, was a landmark document that limited royal power and laid the foundation for modern European human rights and constitutional law.
Today, when parties enter contracts, agreements, or treaties, it is expected that all parties fully understand, accept, and commit to the agreed terms. Yet, comparing Western international conventions with Islamic law uncovers fundamental contradictions that complicate this expectation.
With renewed efforts to include more Arab countries in the Abraham Accords after the Gaza ceasefire—and Kazakhstan joining as of November 7, 2025, thanks to the U.S. Trump Administration and the Israel Government’s military resolve—the original Accords’ terms require a careful reassessment.
Michel Calvo, in his Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs paper (August 5, 2025), states: "Will More Countries Reconsider Their Core Beliefs and Sign the Abraham Accords?" He notes that some signed Accords are four pages long, others are one-page declarations, and some versions were not signed by all parties.
This disparity highlights the need for a comprehensive review to establish a clear, universally accepted framework among all signatories.
Summary
The Abraham Accords mark progress toward peace but require thorough standardization and clarity to achieve lasting impact comparable to historic agreements like the Magna Carta.
Would you prefer the summary to be more formal or more conversational?