The political prophet Abraham and the soft power of Trump

Among Donald Trump’s foreign policy successes was the historic signing of the Abraham Accords. Between September and December 2020. The accords, signed by the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and Israel, also paved the way for a prospective peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Peace between the two nations remains a key design of the Israeli government and, likely, a priority for the upcoming Trump administration. During a visit to Riyadh in 2023, in the midst of the genocide in Gaza, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law who negotiated the original accords referred to them as “more important than ever.”

Opposition to the state of Israel since 1948 has combined elements of Arab nationalism and Islamic resistance. Rejecting normalization with the Zionist state has existed in the collective mind of the region for decades. The prospect of economic prosperity and political stability has not succeeded in softening the dogmatic barrier against Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy of ‘excessive force’ and ‘displays of power’ failed to subjugate the Middle East. The Abraham Accords presents an alternative approach to paving the way for regional harmony: the introduction of spiritual diplomacy––religion in the service of politics.

The Abraham Accords positions the Prophet Abraham at the center of regional political discourse, weaponizing the soft power of religious tolerance for political gain. The religious shift and subsequent refocus on the personhood of Abraham unifies Muslims, Christians, and Jews under a common ancestry and shared beliefs.

The recontextualization of Abraham’s identity requires a theological accommodation of Islamic and Christian interpretation. The centering of regional political discourse around Abraham is an attempt at introducing a fourth Abrahamic religion: Abrahamism. Both Jews and Muslims display elements of spiritual nationalism, making a restructuring of theological foundations the antidote needed to heal the regional religious schism, and usher in an era of religious commonality.

The Abraham Accords presents an alternative approach to paving the way for regional harmony: the introduction of spiritual diplomacy––religion in the service of politics.

Advancing regional peace by promoting the ‘father of monotheism’ was neither Trump nor Kushner’s devising. In 1985, the late former U.S. President Jimmy Carter wrote ‘The Blood of Abraham,’ where he introduced the terms ‘Abrahamic commons,’ and ‘Abrahamic peace.’ Influenced by the ideas of Christian Zionism, Carter’s Talmudic approach towards history led him to believe the initiation of dialogue surrounding Abraham was the key to religious coexistence in the Middle East. In 2019, the year before the Abraham Accords were signed, a form of Track II diplomacy was implemented, a strategy often used in resolving conflicts between groups with deeply rooted divides. Non-state actors, in this case the Pope and Grand Imam, were brought to Iraq, formerly Ur, the birthplace of Abraham, thereby setting the stage for Abrahamism and regional unity.

As the world prepares for Donald Trump’s return to office, what the second term of the pro-Israel President-elect will mean for the Middle East remains obscure. The regional turmoil of the last fifteen months has led to Arab and Muslim-Americans to abandon the Democrats en masse, with some turning to Trump who has promised to prioritize regional stability. Israelis, equally frustrated with the Biden-Harris administration, celebrated Trump’s victory in the streets of Tel Aviv. Despite supporting the war on Gaza, Biden is considered by many Israelis as ‘too soft’ on Gaza.

Based on Trump’s cabinet nominees, a prioritization of peace in Israel, and for Israel, is likely. The forthcoming Republican government and its advisers will consist of several appointments with connections to AIPAC, and strong ties to Israel. Arabs disappointed by Trump’s blatant bias fail to recall the policies of his former administration: the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and the recognition of the Golan Heights’ annexation. Former Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren has previously described Trump as having “the most pro-Israel record of any President.”

Whatever ‘deal of the century’ brings regional peace, it is Israel’s interests which Trump’s government will seek to promote and protect.

The United States of Abraham

Another proposal surrounding the Abrahamic commons has suggested an opportune geopolitical merger based on the same foundational premise presented by the Abraham accords. A geographical confederation, unified through religious, and ancestral commonality. In 2004, the ‘Abraham Path Initiative,’ (API) was established, commissioning Harvard University to study a proposal which involves retracing modern borders, in favor of a unified, open-border federal state, exemplifying religious tolerance and coexistence. Among the partners of the API is the Harvard Negotiation Project, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, among others. The trail was named the ‘Abraham Path,’ and coincidently, shares the same borders as ‘Greater Israel,’ founder of modern Zionism Theodor Herzl’s proposal for a Jewish homeland which extended from the Euphrates to the Nile. Based on Jewish dogma, it echoes the belief that God promised the land in its entirety to the descendants of Abraham, the Jews.

The proposed government of the Abrahamic Federation would be run by an Israeli-Turkish delegation, with Gulf countries funding the project. Similar research was conducted at the University of Florida, concluding that the way to achieve the elusive ‘peace in the Middle East’ was the unification of 18 countries, to create a federal state or union.

But today's conflict in the Middle East is no longer between the Gulf states and Israel, which share no borders. It is Israel’s continued occupation of the Shebaa Farms, the illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, and its occupation of the West Bank, and recent occupation of Gaza which remain the true source of regional instability. These quarrels have already been addressed by the United Nations, through Resolution 242 and 338, which were both drafted to resolve the territorial disputes between Israel and its neighbors. To claim the Abraham Accords will resolve all regional conflict side-steps the territorial feud between Israel and its immediate neighbors, which are at the root of the conflict.

Can the Abrahamic Accords substitute the United Nations as a reference to solve territorial conflict with Israel? Or is it suggesting that the region acquiesce to Israel, subsisting on religious harmony as opposed to legal vindication? Can religious law substitute international law?

The political precedent established by the adoption of international peace treaties based on religious narratives has the potential to destabilize the international order. Asking signatories of the accords to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist based on religious right, and a theological regional presence dating back thousands of years, is problematic. While fraternity and comradery in themselves may be ideal values, what prevents other nations from adopting similar approaches to ancient territorial claims?

Unless the world wishes to introduce the selective application of international law, then the right to reclaim territory based on ancestral roots and an elaborated theological foundation would need to be applied widely and diversely. Under this new geopolitical norm, the Vatican may stake its own historical and biblical claim to Jerusalem. Yet the Muslim world is unlikely to reconquer Andalusia, and a renewal of the Ottoman caliphate would be equally unwelcomed, meaning that the deployment of religious legitimization for the reconquering of territory is being applied exceptionally and sparsely to justify the actions of Israel alone.

Abrahamism is a melting pot, where nationalism fades and a unified religious identity emerges. Muslims display the same spiritual nationalism exhibited by Jews, allowing a conflation between theological claims, with biological and regional ancestry to appear reasonable, even logical. In the case of Israel, the narrative shift towards Abraham aligns seamlessly with the discourse utilized by Zionism since its earliest days. Abraham’s value to the political agenda of Israel is immeasurable, and has been since the early 20th century. Jews were promised Greater Israel through Abraham, tracing their Middle Eastern roots through his lineage. Even the borders of Greater Israel are traced through the steps of Abraham, his movements becoming the blue-print of the promised Jewish state.

In the case of the looming regional conflict between Israel and Iran, it’s unlikely that Abrahamism extinguishes the Judeo-Islamic struggle which has set the region ablaze. Since the days of Khomeini, Iran considers wilayat al-Fakih to be the sole legitimate religious mandate. Convincing the Iranian regime to adopt the ‘religious mandate of Abraham,’ allowing it to trump that of the Prophet Muhammed, is unlikely. If Iran is not brought into the new regional fold, and Abrahamism is to be applied sparingly across the region, then we ultimately enter a new era of wilayat Muhammed versus wilayat Ibrahim.

Trump’s approaching return, and Netanyahu’s continued premiership in Israel has reset the stage for the Abraham Accords. The political scene resembles that of 2020, with the same players sitting at the helm. The resumption of Trump’s Middle East plan will almost certainly involve a revival of the Abraham Accords, and so a man who lived and died four thousand years ago will be resurrected, and placed center stage of the political arena. In the 21st century Middle East, religious dialogue shifts the existing political paradigm.

Abrahamism is a melting pot, where nationalism fades and a unified religious identity emerges. Muslims display the same spiritual nationalism exhibited by Jews, allowing a conflation between theological claims, with biological and regional ancestry to appear reasonable, even logical. In the case of Israel, the narrative shift towards Abraham aligns seamlessly with the discourse utilized by Zionism since its earliest days. 

Will the long-awaited ‘peace in the Middle East’ emerge through Abrahamism? If it does, who claims its adoption? The larger theological foundational concessions required to accommodate Abrahamism will befall Arabs and Muslims who will have to adopt a new religious perspective in service of peace with Israel.