The Abiding Relevance of the Abraham Accords

And Why Their Name No Longer Captures Their Scope

In a world where troubling news abounds, Tysons Interfaith is dedicating 2026 to highlighting “What’s Going Right.”  Whether it is individuals, organizations or nations working to improve the lives of others and to build a just and peaceful future for all of us, there is always good news to be found.

We hope the following blog post will bring you encouragement and inspiration to make a positive difference in your own corner of the world.

Contributed by Michael Goldberg, The Baha’i Community (Written with help for AI)

When the Abraham Accords were signed in 2020, their headline seemed simple: diplomatic normalization between Israel and a few Arab states. But as the geopolitical landscape evolves, that label – “Arab–Israeli” – no longer captures what the Accords have become. According to a recent op-ed in the Jerusalem Times titled “Abraham Accords are no longer Arab-Israeli accords”, the framework has outgrown its original identity: it’s evolving into a new paradigm of regional cooperation that extends far beyond the traditional Arab–Israel divide.

At its heart, the Accords were always meant to be more than a bilateral ceasefire or a one-off diplomatic gesture. They were envisioned as the foundation for a shared future built on diplomacy, commerce, security, and cultural exchange. In just five years, that vision has expanded in ways few predicted – turning the Accords into a “blueprint for a new world order,” one where former divisions fade and constructive collaboration becomes the norm.

A striking example of this expanded scope is the recent inclusion of Kazakhstan in 2025 – the first non-Arab, non-Middle Eastern country to formally join. With that accession, the “Arab–Israeli” formula simply no longer applies. The Accords are becoming a broader “coalition of cooperation,” increasingly defined by shared interests rather than shared ethnic or cultural identity. As some commentators put it: the Accords are now a platform where nations define themselves not by who they fight, but by what they build together.

It’s a transformation with both symbolic and strategic weight. Symbolically, it signals that Middle East peace and cooperation no longer depend solely on historic alliances or regional identities – but on common values and common goals: security, development, and integration. Strategically, it expands the potential membership of the Accords far beyond the Arab world: any country that values regional stability, trade partnerships, and diplomatic openness could become part of this emerging network.

That said, the road ahead is anything but smooth. The Accords have survived war, regional upheaval, and deep political tensions. But their future – and the future of any expanded coalition – depends on whether participating countries remain committed to diplomacy over polarization. The ongoing war in Gaza, for instance, has tested many of these relationships and has shaken public sentiment across the region.

Still, none of the signatory states has withdrawn. The basic architecture remains intact. Economic cooperation, security coordination, and diplomatic channels continue – though momentum has slowed. Moreover, some analysts believe that once conflict subsides – and once a credible diplomatic roadmap for the larger region re-emerges – the Accords’ expansion could resume.

In that sense, the renaming (or re-conception) of the Accords is more than semantic — it reflects a tectonic shift. It suggests that peace and partnership in the 21st century Middle East (and beyond) are less about historic divisions and more about pragmatic cooperation. The Accords are no longer simply an “Arab–Israeli” phenomenon: they are a budding multilateral alliance, one defined by shared purpose and mutual benefit.

Whether they will endure – and whether more countries will join – remains uncertain. But as the article argues, their evolution offers a path forward: one in which identity gives way to interdependence, fear gives way to collaboration, and old paradigms give way to new possibilities.

This blog post is the expressed opinion of its writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Tysons Interfaith or its members.