Share:
President Trump’s renewed call for Arab and Muslim-majority countries to join the Abraham Accords should not be dismissed merely as an American diplomatic demand. It raises a larger question for the Middle East: should states continue to reject a framework for recognition and negotiation, or should they enter it to pursue a more stable regional order?
The issue is not whether one agrees with Trump’s politics. Nor is it whether the Abraham Accords, in their present form, are perfect. No peace agreement is. The more useful question is whether refusing to engage has produced better results. For decades, the region has seen repeated wars, economic disruption, civilian suffering, political polarisation and widening mistrust. A different approach deserves consideration.
The Abraham Accords were designed as a framework for normalising relations between Israel and Arab or Muslim majority states. They began in 2020 with the UAE and Bahrain, followed by Morocco and Sudan in different forms. Their purpose was to open direct channels in diplomacy, trade, aviation, tourism, security cooperation, technology and cultural exchange.
The name “Abraham Accords” is significant as Prophet Abraham is a patriarchal figure in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Jews trace their sacred lineage through Abraham; Christians honour him as the father of faith, while Muslims revere him as Prophet Ibrahim, the father of many Prophets and the builder of the Ka‘bah in Makkah. The name, therefore, points to a shared spiritual ancestry. It suggests that the three Abrahamic traditions, despite their differences, are not strangers to one another.
The Abrahamic idea does not erase political disagreements, nor does it settle territorial disputes. But it offers a different starting point: dialogue between Jews, Christians and Muslims is not an artificial American invention, but something rooted in a much older civilisational relationship.
The countries that joined the Accords did so not out of sentiment. They acted because they believed the older avoidance model was not beneficial to anyone. For long, many states assumed that refusing formal relations with Israel would strengthen the Palestinian cause. That position carried emotional force, particularly across the Arab and Muslim public sphere. But the practical results have been limited. Non-recognition did not lead to the creation of a Palestinian state or prevent recurring wars. This is the difficult reality that must be faced. A position can be morally expressive and still politically ineffective. Condemnation may be necessary, but condemnation alone does not create leverage. For countries that want to affect outcomes, engagement can achieve much more than a lack of it.
The better argument, therefore, is that the Abraham Accords should be accepted so that countries can come together for dialogue and positive action. This is particularly relevant for countries that have made clear that normalisation must be linked to a credible Palestinian settlement. However, this position should not become contingent to engagement with the Accords. While mutually acceptable conditions are ideal, if major Arab and Muslim-majority states enter the process with an engagement mindset, they can influence the broader regional peace architecture in the future.
The ongoing confrontation between the United States, Israel and Iran has underlined the cost of regional instability. Even countries that are not direct combatants are affected by conflict. From large companies to ordinary people, everyone is bearing the consequences. Iran, Israel, the Gulf states and the wider region all face the dangers of further escalation. The lesson is not that every dispute can be solved quickly. It is the absence of dialogue that makes every crisis harder to contain. This is where the Abraham Accords can be useful. They are a mechanism through which states can speak, negotiate, trade, disagree and still avoid total rupture. That is not a small achievement in a region where the alternative has often been silence followed by escalation.
Peace agreements are rarely born in ideal conditions. They usually emerge when societies are tired of the costs of conflict but remain divided over justice, memory and power. The real test is whether such agreements can be improved over time. The Abraham Accords should be judged not only by what they are today, but by what they could become if more countries entered the process with a serious approach.
The Abrahamic name will carry real meaning only if it is used to reduce suffering, widen recognition, protect civilians and create a path toward justice.
There is also an ethical dimension to this question. No religious or moral tradition should be used to justify endless conflict when a path to reduced suffering is available. In Islamic history, the Treaty of Hudaybiya offers an important example. In the sixth year after the migration to Madinah, the Prophet of Islam set out with his companions to perform Umrah. They were stopped by the Quraysh at Hudaybiya, outside Makkah. After difficult negotiations, the Prophet accepted a Treaty that many of his companions initially found unfavourable. The Prophet accepted what appeared to many companions to be a one-sided peace agreement because it prevented bloodshed, created space for dialogue, and made a stronger, more lasting outcome possible. What seemed like a short-term concession became, in time, a strategic turning point.
This example is relevant not because today’s politics can be simplistically compared with seventh-century Arabia, but because it shows that peace can be morally serious even when imperfect. A negotiated pause or a limited agreement may create possibilities that confrontation cannot. The preservation of life is not a minor objective. It is central to any humane political order. For that reason, the debate around the Abraham Accords should move beyond slogans. It should not be framed as a choice between Palestine and peace, or between recognition and justice. The real challenge is to build a strong, long-lasting framework, but it will require seriousness from all parties.
Countries that refuse to join should ask what their refusal has achieved so far. It has only kept them outside the room where future arrangements are negotiated, it may reduce rather than increase any influence. A state can be more effective when it has diplomatic access, economic leverage and a recognised role in shaping outcomes.
The Abraham Accords should therefore be expanded, not romanticised. They should be improved, not rejected. A better version would include a clear path towards future reconstruction commitments, protections for holy sites, regional non-aggression arrangements, and cooperation in energy, water, artificial intelligence, education, health, and infrastructure. Such a framework would not solve every problem immediately, but it would offer the region a practical alternative to recurring confrontation.
This is where President Trump’s call touches a genuine strategic issue, whatever one thinks of his style or politics. The Middle East cannot remain indefinitely trapped between symbolic rejection and repeated escalation. A wider Abraham Accords framework could create a regional platform where difficult questions are negotiated rather than left to the battlefield.
But for that to happen, the Accords must evolve. They cannot be limited to only one party’s acceptance in the region. They must also address Palestinian rights and Arab and Israeli security concerns. They must show that Israeli security and Palestinian freedom are not mutually exclusive. They must demonstrate that regional prosperity cannot be built on permanent exclusion. They must prove that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the construction of conditions in which people can live with the prospect of pursuing developmental opportunities.
For Arab and Muslim-majority countries, joining such a process need not be an act of surrender. It can be an act of responsibility. It can give them a seat at the table where future borders, security guarantees, reconstruction plans and political commitments are discussed. Remaining outside may preserve the language of resistance, but it does not always provide the tools needed to change reality.
Countries should not join the Abraham Accords merely for ceremonial normalisation. They should join to make the framework stronger, fairer and more connected to the unresolved regional issues.
The Abraham Accords are not the final answer to the Middle East’s problems. But they may be one of the available instruments through which a better answer can be built. The Abrahamic name will carry real meaning only if it is used to reduce suffering, widen recognition, protect civilians and create a path toward justice.
The region has spent too many years moving from one crisis to another. Refusal has not delivered peace. War has not delivered justice. The time has come to test a different approach: engagement with conditions, recognition with responsibility, and peace as a practical route toward stability.