“We Are Cousins. Our Father Is Abraham…”: Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism with the Abraham Accords

Key Findings:

The article examines the multifaceted impact of the Abraham Accords on reshaping perceptions of Israel, countering antisemitism, and fostering interfaith dialogue. It spotlights the historic significance of the Accords in normalizing diplomatic ties between Israel and Arab nations, highlighting the unprecedented warmth and enthusiasm displayed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain towards Israel. This warmth is evidenced through gestures such as social media outreach, initiatives like the Abraham Accords Institute for Peace, and the Warm Peace Movement, all aimed at establishing people-to-people connections between Israelis and Arabs.

The Abraham Accords offer an alternative to the historical anti-normalization sentiments among Arab states towards Israel, and their rejectionist model in which Jews are depicted as modern-day foreign, colonial interlopers with no legitimate historical or religious attachments to the land of Israel. The Holy Basin in Jerusalem is explicitly mentioned in the agreement, which offers a foundation for fostering an inclusive vision around religious freedom and respectful interfaith activities. The Accords thus affirm Judaism’s Middle Eastern roots and support the view that a Jewish sovereign presence in the Arab region is a “natural and desirable condition” in contrast to the extremist Islamist view—endorsed by Iran and its

proxies—that Zionism is an eternal enemy of Islam.

The Egyptian and Jordanian treaties were agreements between governments that focused to varying degrees on closing the book on military conflict with Israel, even as the Palestinian issue remain unresolved and normalization between their societies remained uncertain. Despite the passage of decades since the signing of the agreements with Egypt and Jordan, genuine “people-to-people” ties have not come to fruition.

In Egypt and Jordan, large Arab nationalist and Islamist factions have made a warm peace based on models of tolerance and coexistence difficult. Nor have Egyptian or Jordanian political leaders been willing to address hostile anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric that has been openly disseminated in the media and educational systems. The negotiated agreements in both these cases created durable and robust security mechanisms for avoiding war but were not transformational, thus limiting the extent to which they improved relations between the populations of these countries. Additionally, these previous peace agreements did not reference the faith-based traditions of the signatory parties, instead relying on a “conventional liberal-secular” model that promoted universal values and norms.

By contrast, the Abraham Accords differ from these prior peace agreements by emphasizing people-to-people relations, and support for relations built on trust, mutual understanding, and affinity, and not only on common security and economic needs and interest. Israel’s Sephardic-Mizrahi Jewish heritage forms a “natural bridge to peace” between Jews and Arabs. The UAE, with its hundreds of nationalities, is well-situated to undertake such an approach given that it had committed to creating an exemplary model of tolerance in region years before the Abraham Accords. For example, the UAE built a Hindu temple and the Abrahamic Family House on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi, a complex that includes a mosque, church, and synagogue. The UAE also hosted the pope and 700 religious figures at a Conference on Human Fraternity in February 2019, signing the agreement of Human Fraternity for World Peace. This ethos, which rejects radicalism and seeks to promote the principle of religious freedom and diversity and a tolerant, pluralistic vision of Islam, is also supported by the media and educational system.

Simultaneously, the article juxtaposes these positive developments with a concerning trend in the United States. Despite warming relations between Israel and Arab nations, there has been a noticeable shift in discourse about Israel, especially within American academia. Efforts to delegitimize Israel, often tinged with antisemitic undertones, have grown. These efforts target Jewish-Zionist individuals and organizations, attempting to exclude them from progressive causes and redefine Jewish identity without a connection to Zionism or Israel.

The improved relations between Muslims and Jews, underpinned by the Accords, stand as a testament to challenging rhetoric that delegitimizes relationships with Israel. Ultimately, the Accords should be championed as a catalyst for fostering cross-religious dialogue, and their potential in countering antisemitic discourses worldwide should be emphasized.