Can the Abraham Accords be this century’s Magna Carta?

 As appeared in Arutz Sheva/Israel National News.

 

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215 by the King of England, limited the powers of the King and was the ancestor of modern European thoughts on human rights and constitutional law. 

Today, when parties sign contracts, agreements, or treaties, it is understood and expected that all parties understand, accept, and will adhere to the terms and conventions under which they are signed. A look at Western international conventions versus Islamic law exposes some important foundational contradictions. 

Since now there is a new push to add additional Arab countries to the Abraham Accords after the cease fire in Gaza, (shared thanks going to the U.S. Trump Administration and the Israel Government’s military resolve) the terms of the original Accords do warrant a thorough review.

More Than One Version. The need for this review is that, in fact, there is not one unique agreement that all parties signed onto. Dr. Michel Calvo points out in his very interesting Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (August 5, 2025) paper “Will More Countries Reconsider Their Core Beliefs and Sign the Abraham Accords?” Actually, some signed Accords are four pages, some one-page declarations, and other versions not even signed by all parties. Dr. Calvo gives a few examples:

 

·       The UAE’s document is 4-page treaty on peace, diplomatic relations, and full normalization, with an extensive 3-page annex. This agreement facilitates the establishment of interfaith dialogue and the prevention of hatred and incitement. Yet they continue to consistently vote against Israel in the United Nations. The UAE’s signature was achieved in exchange for the suspension of Israel’s sovereignty plan for Judea and Samaria (a domestic and internal issue) and U.S. military purchases.

·       Morocco’s document does not provide for the establishment of interfaith dialogue or the combating of hatred, incitement to hatred, and discrimination. It does not mention the pursuit of an end to radicalization and conflict. It does not even refer to the Accords. Therefore, it is no surprise that they continue to vote against Israel in the United Nations. Morocco signed after obtaining U.S. and Israeli recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara.

·       Incredibly, in Sudan’s version, Israel is not mentioned in its Abraham Accord document and the U.S. did not sign it. To help obtain Sudan’s signing onto the Accords, was removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror.

On one hand, Dr. Calvo hopes “that these agreements and their possible extension to other Arab and Muslim states will be a significant step to bring to an end the historic and traditional Muslim enmity to and fear of Israel and Jews.” On the other hand, Calvo realistically points out that “a relevant question surrounding the Accords is whether those Muslim states will be able to overcome their inherent Muslim hostility to Israel and Jews. Islam has traditionally considered that the Land of Israel belongs to Islam (Dar al Islam). According to their creed, it is an Islamic land (Waqf) for all generations, and Jews do not have any legitimate right to it.

The Need for Trust. Additionally, can the Western world (the US, Israel, and Europe) trust the Muslim signatories? There are some important Islamic concepts that conflict with Western concepts. Two examples: 1. Dr. Calvo quotes from Majid Khadduri’s book “War and Peace in the Law of Islam” (Johns Hopkins Press, 1955, p. 220) “By their very nature, treaties must be of a temporary duration, for in Muslim legal theory the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are war and not peace.” 2. Additionally, taqiyya, is an Islamic concept that allows lying to confound and defeat enemies through deception. For example, shortly after he signed the Oslo Peace accords, Yassar Arafat gave a speech on May 10, 1994, in a mosque in Johannesburg, where he called for a jihad to liberate Jerusalem (read: destroy Israel and kill the Jews). He suggested that his signing of the peace accords with Israel was only a tactical step that could be reversed. He based this on taqiyya, an Islamic concept that allows lying to confound and defeat enemies through deception.

The “Palestinian” Issue. Another sub-topic of the Abrham Accords, and a concern raised by potential new signers like Saudi Arabia, is to include the “Palestinian” issue. However, their position is very clear, as Dr. Calvo points out.

Saudi Arabia is a member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose Charter states its purpose is: “to support the restoration of complete sovereignty and territorial integrity of any Member State under occupation …” (article 1.4) [OIC’s definition of ‘occupation’ is based on the concept, once Dar al Salam, always Dar al Salam] and “to support and empower the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination and establish their sovereign State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its capital…” (article 1.8), in other words, the destruction of the State of Israel.

Additionally, Dr. Calvo explains that Saudi Arabia also leads the Wahhabi-Salafi movement, that is present in all the Gulf States and many Muslim countries. The Wahhabi-Salafi ideology is similar to that of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore of Hamas, the Islamic State (ISIS), and Iran (and its proxies). This ideology aims to dominate the world (including Europe and the United States) politically and through conversion; and to destroy Israel and to kill the Jews.

An interesting counter point was raised by Mike Huckabee, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, when he told the BBC: "Muslim countries have 644 times the amount of land that are controlled by Israel. So maybe, if there is such a desire for the Palestinian state, there would be some [Muslim country] who would say, we'd like to host it."

The Principles of the Abraham Accords. It is important to recognize that the principles mentioned in the Abraham Accords state that interfaith and intercultural dialogue can advance a culture of peace among the three Abrahamic religions and all humanity (a concept notably absent in the Egypt and Jordan peace treaties with Israel). Thus, all signatories should strive for the goal of seeking tolerance and respect for every person to make this world a place where all can enjoy a life of dignity and hope, no matter what their race, faith, or ethnicity.

Is this worthwhile goal even possible to achieve if the official Muslim documents and foundational charters (mentioned above), or the words of Muslim leaders/officials/imams, clearly demonstrate and support that the Palestinian Authority’s, and by extension Islamic Jihad’s, goals are the destruction of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

How then can Israel, the United States, or even the world, trust the signatories of the Abraham Peace Accords where Israel’s “partners in peace” repeatedly support anti-Israel resolutions in the United Nations, which clearly demonstrate this taqiyya duplicitous stance? Perhaps a retitle of Dr. Calvo’s article could be: “Will More Countries Reconsider Their Core Beliefs and Re-Sign the Abraham Accords?” 

Solution: The Abraham Peace Accords need one new revised document for resigning, so that all signatories can be held to the same ideals. One suggestion to ensure all signatories are truthful and have signed the Accords in good faith, is to revise the Accords to include a condition like this: “By signing this agreement, the signatory government: (a) accepts that international laws and conventions govern these Accords and overrule any contrary Islamic laws (such as taqiyya); (b) accepts the validity of the ancient and modern State of Israel, with its long, continuous history and heritage of the Jewish faith and people. This includes recognizing and accepting of Israel’s sovereignty and borders, including the ancient and modern capital of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, the Golan, Judea, and Samaria”; and in reciprocity, (c) “Israel acknowledges the rights and borders of the Arab state(s) signing below.”

The very signing of the Abraham Accords is an unprecedented step towards regional and worldwide peace, with Muslim and Arab acceptance of Israel and the Jewish people. If the current signers of the Abraham Accords, as well as Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other Muslim states, such as Egypt and Jordan, sign this additional statement it truly would be a step forward towards real peace. It would make the Abraham Accords the equivalent of the Magna Carta of today in laying the foundation for individual, religious, and national freedom and rights.

# # #

 

David S. Levine, MBA. Author of “Revolutions: In Their Own Words – What They Really Say About Their Causes” and the forthcoming book “Prayer: In Their Own Words – Islam-Catholicism-Judaism – What Do They Pray For?” David is a former New York City advertising & marketing executive, and a retired Rutgers University instructor. Follow him on X (Twitter): @DavidsLevine