Eurasia Press & News
The Abraham Accords: An Introduction
The Abraham Accords, signed on September 15, 2020, in Washington, mark a historic turning point in contemporary Middle Eastern geopolitics. These diplomatic normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states—initially the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, then extended to Morocco and Sudan—break with decades of Arab consensus on the isolation of Israel. This essay analyzes the motivations, implications, and limitations of these agreements in the regional and international geopolitical context. (1)
The Abraham Accords are part of a gradual evolution in Israeli-Arab relations that began with the Camp David Accords (1978) with Egypt and the peace agreement with Jordan (1994). (2) However, they mark a qualitative break by normalizing relations with states that had never been in direct war with Israel.
The name “Abraham Accords” refers to the patriarch common to the three monotheistic religions, (3) suggesting a symbolic and religious dimension that goes beyond the strictly diplomatic framework. This reference reveals a communication strategy aimed at legitimizing these agreements beyond immediate geopolitical considerations. (4)
On this particular point, Muhammad Rafi Khan and Sajid Mehmood Shahzad write: (5)
‘’All Abrahamic religions find their roots in the region of Palestine. So, it also depicts that the deal is directly addressing the chronic issue between Palestine and Israel. As the prophet Abraham represents the parenthood of prophets, the Abraham Accords represent a parent agreement of Israel with two states situated in the Arabian Peninsula. The Abraham Accords sketch a peace pact between the descendants of the Prophet Abraham’s first child and the descendants of the second child. So, both are close relatives not the distant cousins. The name also depicts a correlation between the history of migrations and settlements of the three Abrahamic religions, stretched over thousands of years. The very name has a potential to catch more Arabian states to come forth and join the terms of the parent agreement.’’
The United States under the first Trump administration (January 20, 2017- January 20, 2021) orchestrated these agreements as part of its strategy of “responsible withdrawal” from the Middle East and building anti-Iranian alliances. The US administration used economic and security incentives to convince Arab states to normalize relations with Israel. Israel sees this as an opportunity to break out of its regional isolation and consolidate its international legitimacy. Normalization with influential Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates strengthens its strategic position vis-à-vis Iran and facilitates its regional economic integration. (6)
The United Arab Emirates appears to be the main Arab architect of these agreements. Their strategy is based on three objectives: containing Iranian influence, diversifying their post-oil economy through Israeli technology, and strengthening their status as an emerging regional power. (7) Bahrain is following the UAE’s logic, motivated by security considerations vis-à-vis Iran and its economic dependence on the Gulf monarchies. In return, Morocco obtains US recognition of its sovereignty over Western Sahara, revealing a clear transactional logic in which normalization becomes a diplomatic bargaining chip.
Amr Yossef discusses the regional impact of these accords in the following way: (8)
‘’None of the Arab states joining the accords (both current and prospective) share a border with Israel, nor has any participated in combat against it in any of the seven Arab-Israeli wars between 1948 and 2006 (except for Morocco, briefly, during the October 1973 war). Also, Israel’s political relations with these countries prior to the accords were not the same across the board. Relations ranged from overt hostility (e.g., Sudan) to no relations (e.g., the UAE and Bahrain) to short-term diplomatic relations at the level of liaison offices (e.g., Morocco, 1995–2000). Nevertheless, this series of agreements is historic, as it is only the third instance of normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors (following Egypt, in 1979 and Jordan in 1994) and embodies a rare renunciation of hostility in the conflicttorn Middle East.’’
The Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and certain Arab countries, have complex implications for the Palestinian cause. While these agreements are presented as steps toward peace and regional cooperation, they have also raised concerns about their impact on the Palestinians. Some see the accords as a form of isolation of the Palestinian cause, as they allow Israel to normalize relations with Arab countries without making significant concessions to the Palestinians. The Abraham Accords could weaken the prospect of a two-state solution, a key objective of the Palestinian cause, by normalizing relations with Israel without requiring significant progress toward an independent Palestinian state. (9)
The agreements have created new regional alliances and dynamics, challenging old alliances based on solidarity with the Palestinian cause. The Abraham Accords could lead to increased economic and security cooperation between Israel and Arab countries, which could impact the Palestinians’ ability to pressure Israel for concessions. Some hope that the Abraham Accords could create opportunities for the Palestinians by encouraging economic development and trade with Arab countries. (10)
Palestinians and their allies fear that the accords will only serve to legitimize the Israeli occupation and consolidate Israel’s position without bringing significant progress toward an independent Palestinian state. However, the Arab signatories to the accords assert that these agreements do not diminish their support for the Palestinian cause and that they can even serve as a platform to promote peace and cooperation in the region. (11) The United States, which played a key role in the negotiations, views the Abraham Accords as a positive step toward peace and stability in the Middle East.
In summary, the Abraham Accords have complex implications for the Palestinian cause. Although they are presented as steps toward regional peace and cooperation, they raise concerns about their impact on the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the future of the two-state solution. (12)
Geopolitical and Strategic Dimensions
The Abraham Accords reflect a profound transformation of the geopolitical balance in the Middle East. (13) They crystallize the emergence of two antagonistic blocs: on one side, the Axis of Resistance led by Iran (including Iraq, Hezbollah, (14) and the Yemeni Houthis); on the other, an Axis of Normalization bringing together Israel, the Gulf monarchies, Sudan, Morocco and Egypt under US sponsorship. This bipolarization reflects a priority given to security and economic issues over traditional ideological or religious solidarities. The “Iranian threat” becomes the main unifying factor, relegating the Palestinian question to the background.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Abraham Accords concerns their impact on the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While these agreements formally include the suspension of Israeli annexation plans in the West Bank, this suspension remains conditional and revocable. Arab normalization with Israel significantly weakens the Palestinian position by breaking the Arab consensus on the prerequisite of resolving the Palestinian conflict before any normalization. This development marks the de facto abandonment of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, (15) which made normalization conditional on Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories. (16)
Beyond security considerations, the Abraham Accords open up significant economic opportunities. Israel brings its technological expertise, particularly in the fields of cybersecurity, advanced agriculture, and artificial intelligence. The Gulf states offer their capital and strategic geographical position. (17) This economic cooperation aims to create sufficiently strong interdependencies to make political normalization irreversible, according to a neo-functionalist logic of regional integration. (18)
One of the main challenges of the Abraham Accords lies in the gap between the ruling elites and public opinion. Surveys reveal an erosion of popular support: in the United Arab Emirates, support fell from 47% in 2020 to 27% in 2023, and in Bahrain from 45% to 20% over the same period. (19) In Morocco, (20) normalization contributed to the electoral defeat of the Justice and Development Party (PJD) in 2021, which was punished for endorsing these “treasonous agreements,” as they are popularly known. (21)
On the reaction of some signatory and prospective signatory states of the accords, Shmuel Trigano argues: (22)
‘’ It may be time to take a step back to consider the implications of the new state of affairs ushered in by the Abraham Accords, which changed Israel’s strategic landscape. The Trump era has passed, and subsequent developments encourage such reflection. Bahrain rejected a visit from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu unless he also visited the UAE on the same trip. Saudi Arabia’s King Salman continues to refuse to recognize Israel on the grounds that the Palestinian question must be resolved first. The next in line to the Saudi throne, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, prefers to wait to assess the approach taken by the new US administration—and he is, in any case, well aware that only 30% of the Saudi population responds positively to the notion of commercial exchanges with Israel. These regional states do not necessarily want to reverse the process that has been set in motion, but might prefer to take matters more slowly.’’
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict of 2023-2024 severely tested the strength of the Abraham Accords. The Gaza war rekindled Palestinian solidarity and brought the Palestinian question back to the center of regional debates, complicating normalization for the signatory states. This situation reveals the fragility of agreements based on geopolitical calculations without a solid popular base, particularly when images of destruction in Gaza are widely circulated in Arab public opinion. (23)
The evolution of regional power relations, notably the Sino-Saudi and Iranian-Saudi rapprochement of 2023, calls into question the sustainability (24) of the geopolitical architecture underpinning the Abraham Accords. (25) The emergence of China as a diplomatic player in the Middle East relativizes American hegemony and opens up new strategic options for regional states.
Prospects for Expansion and Deepening
Saudi Arabia remains the major challenge for the expansion of the Abraham Accords. Its normalization with Israel would qualitatively transform the regional landscape, given its status as guardian of Islam’s holy sites and its influence in the Muslim world. However, Saudi Arabia’s conditions remain high: enhanced US security guarantees, access to civilian nuclear technology, and, above all, tangible progress on the Palestinian issue. This last condition reveals that even for Riyadh, completely abandoning the Palestinian issue remains politically untenable.
Several factors limit the extension of the Abraham Accords. The states of the “Shiite Crescent” (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon) remain structurally opposed to any normalization. Algeria and Tunisia maintain pro-Palestinian positions of principle. Even Egypt and Jordan, despite their historic peace agreements, are keeping their distance from further normalization.
The Abraham Accords perfectly illustrate the triumph of political realism over idealism in international relations. The signatory states prioritize their immediate security and economic interests over ideological solidarity or principles of international justice. This development is part of a Westphalian logic of state sovereignty, whereby each state defines its national interests independently of supranational constraints or transnational solidarity. (26)
The Abraham Accords are part of the restructuring of the Middle East security complex. They reflect the emergence of new security polarities that transcend traditional Arab-Israeli divisions in favor of an anti-Iranian axis. This reconfiguration reveals that perceptions of threat are evolving more rapidly than historical solidarity, allowing for spectacular shifts in alliances.
The Abraham Accords undeniably constitute a major geopolitical break in the Middle East. They mark the abandonment of the historic Arab consensus on the isolation of Israel and the emergence of new alliance dynamics based on converging security and economic interests. However, their durability remains contingent on several factors: the stability of the signatory regimes, the evolution of Arab public opinion, developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and regional and international geopolitical realignments.
These agreements reveal the limits of top-down diplomacy in societies where the gap between ruling elites and public opinion remains considerable. They also reflect the growing complexity of the contemporary Middle East, where traditional solidarities are giving way to pragmatic geopolitical calculations. The future of the Abraham Accords will ultimately depend on their ability to generate tangible benefits for the populations concerned and to adapt to regional geopolitical developments, particularly the emergence of new players such as China and the reconfiguration of traditional power relations. (27)
From this perspective, the Abraham Accords appear less as an achievement than as a step in the ongoing restructuring of the Middle Eastern geopolitical system, the outcome of which remains largely open.
The Startling Lack of Cultural and Interfaith Components in the Abraham Accords: Between Symbolic Rhetoric and Substantial Emptiness
Paradoxically named after the patriarch common to the three monotheistic religions, the Abraham Accords reveal a striking contrast between their religious symbolism and their actual content. Despite their evocative name and declarations of intent on interfaith dialogue, these agreements suffer from a glaring deficit in cultural and spiritual substance. There is a fundamental contradiction between the instrumental use of the Abrahamic referent and the absence of genuine mechanisms for intercultural and interfaith dialogue in these geopolitical agreements. (28)
These agreements—called Abraham Accords to emphasize the common heritage of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, whose traditions consider Abraham their ancestor—reveal a purely symbolic use of the religious reference. This designation is primarily a rhetorical device intended to religiously legitimize strictly political and economic arrangements.
The invocation of Abraham as a unifying figure poorly masks the absence of any substantial theological reflection on the convergences and divergences between the three monotheistic traditions. The figure of Abraham is reduced to a mere diplomatic marketing label, emptied of its spiritual depth and complex hermeneutical implications. (29)
While the “Abraham Accords Declaration” (30) promotes interreligious and intercultural dialogue between the three Abrahamic religions and all of humanity, this promotion remains purely declaratory. The texts do not provide for any concrete mechanism, any dedicated institution, or any structured program to develop this supposedly central dialogue. This instrumentalization of interreligious vocabulary constitutes a form of semantic misappropriation in which the concepts of interreligious dialogue are mobilized to endorse geopolitical rapprochements without any authentic spiritual dimension.
Another factor, apart from geopolitics, helps to understand the Abraham Accords: religious radicalization. The agreements bring together an unexpected coalition of countries that claim to speak on behalf of their faith through a specific formulation of fundamentalist ideals. This analysis reveals that, far from promoting genuine open interfaith dialogue, these agreements could instead crystallize an alliance between conservative religious movements. This fundamentalist dimension paradoxically explains the lack of interfaith substance in the agreements: it is less about building bridges between traditions than about consolidating rigid doctrinal positions in the service of geopolitical objectives.
Unlike other historic peace agreements that have created lasting institutions for cultural and educational cooperation (such as the Franco-German Élysée agreements with the Franco-German Youth Office), (31) the Abraham Accords do not provide for any permanent structure dedicated to educational, cultural and interfaith exchanges.
This institutional gap reveals that cultural and spiritual dimensions are perceived as secondary to security and economic issues. The absence of bodies specializing in interfaith dialogue reflects a purely utilitarian conception of these agreements. The agreements do not provide for any educational exchange programs, any reform of school textbooks, or any initiatives to train religious leaders in interfaith dialogue. This absence contrasts dramatically with the scale of the identity and cultural issues in the region. Education, which is crucial for transforming mindsets and overcoming intercommunity prejudices, is completely neglected.
The Abraham Accords, nevertheless neglected essential dimensions for lasting peace: education, culture, and intercultural and interreligious dialogue. In a context marked by historical tensions, notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these aspects are crucial for deconstructing stereotypes and fostering harmonious coexistence, as demonstrated by historical models such as the Convivencia in al-Andalus or the Judeo-Islamic conviviality in Morocco.
The Abraham Accords agreements aim to promote cooperation in areas such as trade, tourism, technology, and security, with tangible results: for example, trade between Israel and the UAE reached $2.56 billion in 2022. (32) However, the agreements focus almost exclusively on economic and strategic objectives, ignoring the educational, cultural, and dialogical dimensions that could strengthen people-to-people ties. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not directly addressed by the accords, remains a major source of regional tension, exacerbated by events such as the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. (33) In this context, initiatives such as Seeds of Peace, ROPES and Hand in Hand demonstrate that education and dialogue can reduce mistrust and promote coexistence. The absence of these dimensions in the Abraham Accords limits their ability to create lasting peace, as they fail to address the sociocultural roots of divisions.
The Abraham Accords do not include any educational programs to promote peace or mutual understanding between the populations of the signatory countries. Unlike initiatives such as Hand in Hand, which brings together 2,000 Jewish and Arab students in bilingual schools in Israel, the accords do not fund or encourage joint educational projects. These schools use bilingual (Hebrew-Arabic) curricula to teach the historical narratives of both communities, fostering empathy from an early age. A similar program involving schools in the UAE, Bahrain, or Morocco could teach shared history, such as Jewish-Islamic coexistence in Morocco, where Jews and Muslims shared holidays like Mimouna. The absence of such initiatives deprives the agreements of a key tool for transforming mindsets.
The Abraham Accords do not mention initiatives to promote cultural exchanges, such as festivals, exhibitions, or joint art projects, which could highlight the shared heritage of the signatory countries. For example, Morocco has restored 167 Jewish cemeteries and created the Moroccan Museum of Judaism, efforts that celebrate shared heritage. Events like Mimouna, where Moroccan Jews and Muslims shared meals, could inspire cultural festivals involving the UAE or Bahrain, highlighting shared music, cuisine, or poetry.
The accords provide no framework for interreligious or intercultural dialogue, an essential tool for reducing stereotypes and promoting mutual understanding. Initiatives such as Seeds of Peace organize structured dialogues between young Israelis and Palestinians on sensitive topics such as the Nakba or the Holocaust, fostering empathy. An interreligious forum involving Jewish, Muslim, and Christian religious leaders from the signatory countries could draw inspiration from models such as the interfaith councils in Morocco, which have historically facilitated coexistence. This gap prevents the accords from addressing deep-rooted cultural and religious prejudices.
The absence of education, culture, and dialogue limits the Abraham Accords’ reach in terms of lasting peace. Economic and security exchanges, while important, are not enough to transform public perceptions, often marked by decades of mistrust. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not addressed by the accords, fuels tensions that could be mitigated by educational and cultural initiatives, as demonstrated by the 7,300 Seeds of Peace alumni who form a network of leaders for peace. Without these dimensions, the accords risk remaining an elitist arrangement, disconnected from social realities.
The Abraham Accords: Establishing Programs for Coexistence and Living Together in the Education System
Although the Abraham Accords are presented as a major geopolitical turning point in the Middle East, their transformative potential remains largely untapped in the field of education. Despite declarations of intent on intercultural dialogue, these agreements suffer from a critical deficit in concrete educational programs aimed at promoting conviviality and coexistence.
The “Declaration of the Abraham Accords” promotes interreligious and intercultural dialogue between the three Abrahamic religions and all of humanity, proclaiming freedom of religion. However, this promotion remains purely rhetorical, lacking concrete educational mechanisms and structured pedagogical programs.
This contradiction between stated ambitions and the absence of educational programs reveals a superficial approach that neglects the fundamental role of education in building peaceful and tolerant societies. The agreements merely set out general principles without translating them into operational educational policies.
Unlike other historic reconciliation processes (Franco-German, Sino-Japanese), the Abraham Accords have not created any transnational educational institutions dedicated to intercultural dialogue. This institutional gap reflects a reductive vision that prioritizes diplomatic and economic arrangements at the expense of long-term investment in education. The absence of bodies such as an “Abraham Office for Youth” or an “Abraham University of Cultures” reveals that educational and cultural dimensions are perceived as secondary to immediate geopolitical issues.
The education systems of the signatory countries continue to operate in isolation, without curriculum harmonization or structured educational exchanges. This educational fragmentation perpetuates mutual misunderstandings and limits the possibilities for building a shared regional identity. This situation contrasts with the European experience, where educational exchange programs (Erasmus, Leonardo, Comenius) have helped to create a cross-border European consciousness among younger generations.
Intercultural education encompasses a range of methods for taking ethnocultural, religious, and linguistic diversity into account in learning processes. It aims to develop in learners the skills necessary to live and interact harmoniously in multicultural societies. This pedagogical approach goes beyond simple tolerance to promote genuine mutual understanding based on the recognition of the equal dignity of all cultures. It develops personal and social skills based on human values and peace skills (human, social, intercultural, and civic).
Intercultural education does not merely transmit knowledge about others; it aims to bring about a profound transformation in attitudes, representations, and behaviors. This transformative dimension is particularly crucial in post-conflict contexts or situations of inter-community tensions. The school thus becomes a laboratory for coexistence where children learn in a concrete way to live together beyond their cultural, religious, or ethnic differences. This early experience of diversity is a long-term investment in building peaceful societies.
The Middle Eastern context presents particular challenges for intercultural education: the weight of conflictual memories, the political instrumentalization of religious identities, the polarization of public opinion, and institutional resistance to educational reforms. These challenges require innovative pedagogical approaches that take local sensitivities into account while promoting openness to others. Intercultural education must navigate between respect for cultural specificities and the promotion of universal values of human dignity and justice.
The Franco-German reconciliation process offers an instructive model for integrating education into peace agreements. The Franco-German Youth Office (OFAJ), created in 1963, has organized more than 370,000 exchanges, reaching nearly 9 million young French and Germans. This experience demonstrates the effectiveness of structured exchange programs in transforming bilateral relations. The creation of joint history textbooks, binational teacher training, and shared educational projects have helped to overcome historical antagonisms. The methods developed by the OFAJ could inspire the creation of similar institutions within the framework of the Abraham Accords: bilateral youth offices, school exchange programs, joint teacher training, and intercultural educational projects.
The European experience in intercultural education offers diverse models adapted to local contexts. The “coexistence through education” programs developed by the Council of Europe favor participatory approaches and the promotion of cultural diversity. (34) These programs emphasize the strengthening of academic support programs with peer tutoring and educational guidance, where the adult mentors are people with immigrant backgrounds, thus creating models of success for newly arrived students. The majority of participating schools implement intercultural projects and promote the role of migrant families in parent-teacher associations, thereby creating an inclusive community dynamic.
UNESCO has developed considerable expertise in education for peace and intercultural tolerance. The program “The Road to Peace: Dialogue and Action for Tolerance and Intercultural Understanding” offers proven methodologies for developing intercultural skills. (35)
These approaches emphasize experiential learning, active pedagogy, and community participation. They integrate the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of intercultural learning, recognizing that transforming attitudes requires more than simply transmitting information.
Pedagogical Strategies for Abrahamic Coexistence
The creation of structured school exchange programs between the signatory countries of the Abraham Accords is an immediate educational priority. These exchanges should focus on long-term encounters (semesters of study, sabbatical years) rather than superficial tourist visits. These programs require partial harmonization of curricula, the creation of transnational certifications, and the training of teachers specialized in intercultural support. The goal is to create a generation of young regional citizens who are proficient in several languages and cultures. Exchanges should include concrete community projects where young people work together on shared challenges: environmental protection, technological innovation, social entrepreneurship, or humanitarian action. This project-based approach promotes concrete cooperation beyond cultural differences.
The development of integrated curricula on the cultural heritage shared by the signatory countries would make it possible to overcome national divisions. These programs would emphasize mutual influences, historical exchanges, and shared contributions to regional development. The study of common culinary, architectural, musical, and literary traditions would reveal the historical interconnection of regional cultures beyond current political borders. This heritage-based approach promotes a positive appreciation of cultural diversity. History programs should adopt multi-perspective approaches, presenting historical events from different national and cultural points of view. This approach develops critical thinking and historical empathy in learners.
Teacher training is critical to the success of intercultural education programs. This training should integrate the theoretical, practical, and reflective dimensions of the intercultural approach. Teachers must develop specific skills: facilitating intercultural debates, resolving conflicts in the classroom, adapting teaching methods to cultural diversity, and evaluating intercultural learning. This training requires practical internships in multicultural environments. (36)
The creation of a regional network of teachers specializing in intercultural education would promote the exchange of best practices and the collaborative development of teaching resources. This network could organize annual conferences, specialized publications, and action research projects. (37)
The creation of an Abraham Office for Education (AOE) would serve as the central institution for coordinating intercultural educational programs. This transnational organization would be responsible for developing, financing, and evaluating joint educational initiatives. The AOE would be structured around several specialized departments: school and university exchanges, teacher training, curriculum development, educational research, and program evaluation. This structure would enable a systemic and professional approach to intercultural education. The AOE would be funded by contributions from member states, supplemented by partnerships with the private sector and international organizations. This financial diversification would guarantee the institution’s autonomy and sustainability.
The creation of a network of pilot schools in each signatory country would allow for the testing and evaluation of intercultural educational innovations. These schools would benefit from additional resources and enhanced educational support. These pilot schools would develop bilingual or trilingual programs (Arabic, Hebrew, English), transnational educational projects, and regular exchanges of teachers and students. They would serve as educational laboratories to test innovations before they are rolled out more widely. A rigorous evaluation of pilot projects would enable the identification of best practices and the adaptation of approaches to local contexts. This experimental approach would reduce institutional resistance and promote the gradual adoption of innovations.
The creation of an Abraham University of Cultures (AUC), located on several regional campuses, would be the institutional culmination of intercultural education programs. This university would develop academic programs specializing in intercultural studies, intercommunity mediation, and regional cooperation. This institution would train future regional elites in mutual understanding and cross-border cooperation. It would also develop research programs on regional intercultural challenges and innovative solutions. The AUC could organize intensive summer programs, international conferences, and specialized academic publications. It would serve as an intellectual reference for intercultural education policies in the region.
Innovative Pedagogical Approaches
The pedagogy of the intercultural project emphasizes learning through collaborative action on shared concrete challenges. This approach goes beyond traditional lectures to engage learners in transformative experiences. Projects could focus on common regional issues: sustainable development, technological innovation, heritage preservation, and social entrepreneurship. This approach simultaneously develops technical and intercultural skills. The evaluation of these projects would integrate individual and collective dimensions, prioritizing cross-disciplinary skills (communication, cooperation, creativity) over factual knowledge. This evaluative approach encourages collaboration rather than competition. (38)
The integration of community service programs into curricula promotes civic engagement and intercommunity solidarity. Students work together on socially useful projects that benefit local communities. These programs develop empathy, social responsibility, and understanding of community issues. They also create lasting links between educational institutions and communities, promoting the social anchoring of intercultural education.The evaluation of these experiences emphasizes critical reflection on social engagement and personal development. This approach trains responsible citizens who are committed to building the common good.
The innovative use of digital technologies can multiply the possibilities for intercultural educational cooperation. Collaborative platforms, virtual classrooms, and online projects make it possible to overcome geographical and financial constraints. These tools facilitate daily exchanges between partner classes, remote collaborative projects, and the creation of virtual learning communities. They also make it possible to document and share innovative educational experiences. The integration of virtual and augmented reality opens up new possibilities for cultural immersion without physical travel. These technologies can simulate authentic cultural environments and promote intercultural empathy.
Evaluation and Indicators of Success
The evaluation of intercultural education programs requires specific methodologies that measure changes in attitudes, representations, and behaviors. This evaluation goes beyond traditional knowledge tests to incorporate affective and behavioral dimensions. Assessment tools include attitude surveys, behavioral observations, reflective portfolios, and peer evaluations. This multidimensional approach allows for a detailed understanding of educational impacts. Longitudinal evaluation is particularly important for measuring the lasting effects of intercultural programs. Following up with former participants makes it possible to assess the long-term impact on their personal and professional paths.
The development of robust indicators requires the articulation of quantitative data (participation rates, academic success, continuation of studies) and qualitative data (testimonials, case studies, ethnographic analyses). Quantitative indicators include: number of exchanges completed, participant satisfaction rates, improvement in language skills, and changes in academic results. These data enable operational management of the programs. Qualitative indicators explore personal transformations: development of empathy, changes in perceptions of others, and capacity for intercultural mediation. These data reveal the depth of the transformations brought about.
Assessing societal impact requires longitudinal studies that measure changes in intercommunity relations in the societies concerned. This macro-social assessment complements the individual educational assessment. Societal indicators include: changes in public opinion prejudices, reduction in intercommunity incidents, development of economic and cultural cooperation, and emergence of intercultural leaders. This societal assessment justifies public investment in intercultural education by demonstrating its benefits for social cohesion and regional stability. It also serves as an advocacy tool for program development.
Challenges and Obstacles to Overcome
The implementation of intercultural education programs often faces institutional and political resistance. National education systems traditionally prioritize the transmission of national identity over intercultural openness. This resistance requires institutional change strategies that involve policy makers, education officials, and local communities. A gradual, consensual approach promotes the adoption of innovations. Training institutional leaders on intercultural issues is a necessary prerequisite for the evolution of systems. This training must demonstrate the practical benefits of intercultural education for overall educational performance.
The development of intercultural education programs requires considerable financial investment: teacher training, development of teaching resources, organization of exchanges, and creation of specialized institutions. These budgetary constraints require innovative financing strategies: public-private partnerships, international cooperation, project-based financing, and economic valuation of educational outcomes. Demonstrating the educational and social return on investment of intercultural programs facilitates the mobilization of funding. This demonstration requires rigorous evaluations and effective communication with decision-makers. (39)
On the nature of intercultural education to offer, Luisa Conti writes: (40)
‘’A dialogic attitude towards what is perceived as unfamiliar, or different is a core component of intercultural competence. However, this openness is often obstructed by deep-seated prejudices, rooted in racism and other ideologies of hierarchical valuation. Addressing these biases is essential, yet an essentialist understanding of cultural identity remains a major obstacle, as it oversimplifies identities and reinforces divisions. In contrast, an intersectional perspective allows for a deeper understanding of the complex matrix of power relations in which also all students and teachers are embedded. When grounded in intersectionality, Intercultural Education provides an ideal framework for fostering an inclusive transformation of education, actively engaging with the ‘inter’, facilitating dialogue while challenging discriminatory structures. By ensuring that everyone is acknowledged and valued and by employing (digital-based) methodologies to foster participatory learning environments, this framework becomes a powerful driver of change and responds to the call of SDG 4.7, positioning education as a key force for social transformation.’’
Taking cultural and religious sensitivities into account is a major challenge in contexts marked by inter-community tensions. Intercultural education must navigate between respect for particularities and the promotion of universal values. This navigation requires a detailed knowledge of local contexts and the adaptation of pedagogical approaches to specific sensitivities. Consulting with religious and cultural communities promotes acceptance of programs. The development of ethical charters and protocols for intercultural dialogue can provide a framework for interactions and prevent misunderstandings. These tools reassure communities that their specificities will be respected while promoting openness.
The Abraham Accords represent a historic opportunity to transform regional relations through intercultural education, but this opportunity remains largely untapped. The development of ambitious educational programs for conviviality and coexistence requires a long-term vision, substantial investment, and sustained political will.
This educational transformation requires moving beyond a purely geopolitical approach to agreements in order to integrate their educational, cultural, and spiritual dimensions. Intercultural education is not a mere embellishment to diplomatic arrangements, but rather a prerequisite for their sustainability and popular legitimacy.
International models of reconciliation through education demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach in bringing about lasting change in relations between peoples. Adapting these models to the Middle Eastern context requires educational creativity, cultural sensitivity, and political commitment.
Investing in intercultural education is the best investment for the future of the region. It trains tomorrow’s citizens in cooperation rather than confrontation, mutual understanding rather than prejudice, and joint construction rather than division. The Abraham Accords will only fully realize their transformative potential by becoming true “Abraham Educational and Cultural Accords” that make schools the privileged laboratory for peaceful coexistence and intercultural conviviality. This transformation remains possible, but it requires making education, intercultural and interfaith dialogue the strategic priority of these historic agreements.
Convivencia in Cordoba under Abd al-Rahman III: an analysis of the dynamics of interreligious coexistence
Convivencia, (41) a term introduced by historian Américo Castro in 1948, (42) refers to the coexistence of Muslim, Christian, and Jewish communities in Islamic Spain (al-Andalus) between the 8th and 15th centuries. (43) This period, often idealized as a model of interreligious tolerance, reached its peak under the reign of Abd al-Rahman III (912-961), the first Umayyad caliph of Cordoba. Under his rule, Cordoba became a major political, cultural, and intellectual center, where interactions between the three communities produced a dynamic and prosperous society. However, the concept of Convivencia is subject to debate, with some historians, such as Eduardo Manzano Moreno, considering it an idealized myth, while others, such as María Rosa Menocal, (44) highlight concrete examples of interreligious collaboration.
In 912, Abd al-Rahman III inherited an emirate on the verge of dissolution, facing internal rebellions and external threats, notably from the Christian kingdom of Asturias and the Fatimid Caliphate in Ifriqiya. By proclaiming the caliphate in 929, he consolidated his power, transforming Cordoba into a cultural and political metropolis. His policy of religious tolerance, although pragmatic, aimed to integrate Jewish and Christian communities to strengthen the stability and prosperity of the caliphate. This approach fostered a coexistence that, although imperfect, allowed for meaningful interactions between the three religious groups.
One of the pillars of Convivencia under Abd al-Rahman III was the freedom of worship granted to Jews and Christians, known as dhimmis (protected non-Muslims). They were able to practice their religion, maintain their institutions, and organize their communities. Jews, for example, built magnificent synagogues, while Mozarabic Christians preserved their churches, as evidenced by the coexistence of places of worship in Cordoba. This freedom, although subject to legal restrictions such as the dhimmi tax, allowed non-Muslim communities to flourish.
Jews and Christians played key roles in the administration and economy of the caliphate. A prime example is Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (Ḥasdai ben Isaac ibn Shaprut (915–970)), (45) a Jew who served as Abd al-Rahman III’s personal physician, diplomat, and translator of Greek texts. He also organized the Jewish community effectively, strengthening its cultural and political influence without compromising its religious principles. (46) Similarly, Mozarabic Christians, such as Bishops Racemund and Rabbi ibn Zayd, held important positions, sometimes serving as ambassadors to Constantinople, illustrating their integration into the Caliphate’s diplomacy.
Both Jews and Christians contributed significantly to Cordoba’s economy. Jews, in particular, held positions in commerce, finance, and administration, participating in the management of customs and port dues. Their expertise helped enrich Arabic libraries and support the Caliphate’s economy, which included 100,000 shops and houses in Córdoba under Abd al-Rahman III. (47)
Under Abd al-Rahman III, Cordoba became a leading intellectual center in Western Europe, attracting scholars, poets, and artists from throughout the Islamic world and beyond. This cultural flourishing is a key example of Convivencia, as it relied on collaboration between Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
Jews played a crucial role in translating Greek philosophical and scientific texts into Arabic, enriching the libraries of the caliphate. Centers for Talmudic study were established, and Jewish poets, such as Dunash ben Labrat, contributed to Hebrew literature while drawing inspiration from Arabic poetry. These exchanges made Cordoba a crossroads of learning, where the three communities shared knowledge. (48)
Mozarabic Christians also participated in Cordoba’s intellectual life. (49) Their role in diplomacy, like that of Bishops Racemundo and Rabbi ibn Zayd, demonstrates their integration into spheres of power. Their participation in cultural life, although less documented than that of the Jews, testifies to the active coexistence of the three communities.
The coexistence fostered an environment of intense intellectual debate and critical thinking. Jews, Christians, and Muslims collaborated in fields such as medicine, philosophy, and science, making al-Andalus scientifically fertile. For example, the influence of the Iraqi musician Ziryab, although he lived under Abd al-Rahman II, endured, enriching the musical and culinary culture of Cordoba. Under Abd al-Rahman III, this tradition of cultural exchange intensified, attracting Eastern scholars thanks to the patronage of the caliph.
Here is a list of specific examples illustrating Convivencia in Córdoba under Abd al-Rahman III:
Critical analysis: limitations and controversies
Although Convivencia is often presented as a model of tolerance, it was not without tensions. Dhimmis were subject to legal restrictions, such as the dhimmi tax, and social discrimination. Episodes of violence, such as the martyrs of Cordoba in the 9th century, show that coexistence could be conflictual. Furthermore, some historians, such as Eduardo Manzano Moreno, argue that Convivencia is an exaggerated concept, reflecting modern aspirations for tolerance rather than historical reality. (50)
However, the examples cited above demonstrate that, under Abd al-Rahman III, coexistence was significant enough to allow for fruitful collaborations. This tolerance was often pragmatic, aimed at strengthening the caliph’s power and economic prosperity. Convivencia should therefore not be seen as perfect harmony, but as a complex dynamic influenced by political, economic, and social factors. (51)
Convivencia in Cordoba under Abd al-Rahman III represents a key moment in the history of al-Andalus, where Muslims, Christians, and Jews coexisted in a context of relative tolerance. Figures such as Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, institutions such as synagogues and churches, and intellectual exchanges bear witness to this collaboration. However, this coexistence was marked by restrictions and tensions, and the concept of Convivencia remains a subject of debate. Examining these examples, it is clear that Convivencia was both a historical reality and a partially idealized concept, reflecting the complexities of Andalusian society in the 10th century. (52)
Judeo-Islamic Convivencia in Morocco: a historical and contemporary analysis
Judeo-Islamic conviviality in Morocco refers to the historical and cultural coexistence between Jewish and Muslim communities, which spans more than 2,800 years. (53) This phenomenon, marked by social, economic, and cultural interactions, has shaped Moroccan identity, integrating Amazigh, Arab, and Jewish elements. Although often celebrated as a model of tolerance, this conviviality has also been marked by tensions, particularly under the influence of the political upheavals of the 20th century.
Jews have been present in Morocco since ancient times, with archaeological evidence found in the Roman ruins of Volubilis. Their presence, which predates the Arab conquest of the 7th century, is part of a Judeo-Amazigh cultural substratum, (54) where the two communities developed common practices. After the arrival of Islam, Jews were granted dhimmi status, guaranteeing them legal protection but imposing restrictions such as the jizya tax and dress codes. This status, although unequal, allowed for structured coexistence.
Starting in the 15th century, Moroccan sultans established mellahs, or Jewish quarters, such as in Fez in 1438 and in Marrakesh between 1557 and 1563. (55) Unlike European ghettos, mellahs were not only places of isolation, but also spaces for economic and cultural exchange. Jews practiced trades such as commerce and crafts, interacting regularly with Muslims, for example in commercial transactions or loans. (56)
In 1492, Morocco welcomed around 40,000 Jews expelled from Spain and Portugal, 20,000 of whom settled in Fez. This migration strengthened the Jewish community, which contributed to Morocco’s economic and cultural development, while integrating elements of Andalusian culture into Moroccan society.
Jews and Muslims shared similar religious practices, such as circumcision, fasting (Yom Kippur for Jews, Ramadan for Muslims) and concepts of social justice (tzedakah and zakat). Religious terms had linguistic similarities, such as Torah being called ash-Sharîca or al-Kitâb in Arabic. Jews spoke Arabic and Amazigh dialects, incorporating elements of local culture into their poetry, music, and magical rites.
Culinary exchanges were particularly significant. Dishes such as pastilla, b’stilla, and dafina were shared, with women playing a key role in passing on recipes. For example, dafina, a Jewish Shabbat dish, was often cooked in Muslim ovens. These interactions reflect the deep integration of the two communities. Joint celebrations strengthened ties. Jews distributed food during Ramadan ftour, and Mimouna, a Moroccan Jewish holiday, saw Muslims wish the Jews a happy celebration and joint hem in the merry-making and festivities.
European influence, beginning in 1830, introduced notions of minority rights, increasing Jewish community awareness but also tensions, particularly in Tetouan under Spanish occupation. The French protectorate (1912-1956) modernized Jewish communities, but also created distances with Muslims, exacerbated by Zionist ideas and UN Resolution 181 in 1947, followed by the creation of Israel in 1948. The Jewish population, estimated at between 215,000 and 300,000 before World War II, fell to around 3,000 at present.
Organizations such as the Moroccan Jewish Heritage Foundation, created in 1997, preserve synagogues and 167 Jewish cemeteries. The Museum of Moroccan Judaism, founded by Simon Levy and directed by Zhour Rehihil, exhibits artifacts and raises awareness among younger generations. The Mimouna Association, (57) initiated by El-Mehdi Boudra, promotes Jewish heritage through events such as “Jew for a Day” (2008) and conferences on the Holocaust).
Under King Hassan II (1961-1999), Morocco played a role in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, such as the proposal for the Sadat-Begin meeting in 1977. The 2011 constitution, (58) under Mohammed VI, recognizes cultural plurality, including Hebrew heritage. Since 2010, 167 Jewish burial sites have been restored.
Younger generations in Morocco are often unaware of the historical Jewish presence, and Jewish history is absent from school textbooks.
Judeo-Islamic conviviality in Morocco is a remarkable example of interfaith coexistence, rooted in a history spanning more than two millennia. Despite challenges, including inequalities in dhimmi status and post-1948 tensions, cultural exchanges, modern initiatives, and government support reflect a rich heritage and an ongoing commitment to preserving this coexistence. This dynamic, remains a relevant model for intercommunity dialogue.
Education for peace in the Middle East: planting the seeds of conviviality
The Middle East, a region marked by historical and contemporary conflicts, notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is a complex terrain for promoting peace. Education, by targeting younger generations, offers a promising avenue for “planting the seeds of conviviality,” a concept that evokes harmonious and respectful coexistence between diverse communities, inspired by historical models such as Convivencia in Islamic Spain. By promoting dialogue, mutual understanding, and intercultural skills, educational initiatives seek to transform mindsets and lay the foundations for a more peaceful society.
The Middle East is a region where tensions, particularly between Israelis and Palestinians, are rooted in struggles over land, identity, security, and justice. These conflicts, exacerbated by events such as the Nakba (1948) or the occupation, have created deep divisions. In this context, peace education (59) aims to break down stereotypes and encourage coexistence. Educational initiatives build on this idea, bringing together young people from communities in conflict to teach them how to engage in dialogue and understand each other’s perspectives. In this regard Mahatma Ghandi (1967, p. 371) says: “If we are to teach real peace in this world, and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with the children.” (60)
“Conviviality” in this context refers to active coexistence, where cultural and religious differences are respected and valued. Inspired by historical examples such as Jewish-Islamic coexistence in Morocco or Convivencia in al-Andalus, the educational approach of conviviality seeks to create spaces where young people can learn to live together, developing personal relationships and deconstructing prejudices.
Seeds of Peace (61)
Founded in 1993 by American journalist John Wallach, Seeds of Peace is a non-governmental organization that organizes summer camps in Maine, USA, for teenagers from conflict regions, including Israel, Palestine, Egypt, and Jordan. Since its inception, more than 3,000 young leaders and several hundred educators from the Middle East have participated in these camps, which also include delegates from Iraq, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Yemen.
The program begins with a three-week intensive camp, where participants engage in structured dialogues on sensitive topics such as the history of the Zionist movement, the Holocaust, the Nakba, the occupation, fear of violence, and racism. These discussions, facilitated by trained counselors, allow young people to confront their prejudices and explore the roots of the conflict. At the same time, recreational activities such as canoeing, swimming, and group challenges promote the creation of personal bonds. Intercultural and interfaith activities reinforce mutual understanding, while computer classes and art projects encourage creativity.
Seeds of Peace is not limited to summer camps. The organization offers local programs throughout the year, notably through its Center for Coexistence in Jerusalem, which opened in 1999. These programs provide advanced training for former participants, preparing them to become leaders in their communities. For example, leadership seminars and dialogue activities continue to support Seeds former participants in their efforts to promote peace.
With a network of more than 7,300 alumni across the Middle East, South Asia, Europe, and the United States, Seeds of Peace has created a community of young leaders capable of influencing their societies. A notable example is Naama Levy, a former participant who was captured during the attack on October 7, 2023, and released in 2025, illustrating the commitment of Seeds in difficult contexts. Although the long-term impact remains difficult to measure, participants’ testimonials highlight the importance of these experiences in humanizing “the other” and deconstructing stereotypes.
Hand in Hand: Center for Jewish-Arab Education in Israel (62)
Hand in Hand is a network of six bilingual and bicultural schools in Israel, founded in 1998, which welcomes Jewish and Arab children in cities such as Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Kfar Saba, Wadi Ara, and Galilee. With more than 2,000 students, this network is the largest of its kind in Israel, offering an integrated education that promotes equality, inclusion, and peace. (63)
Hand in Hand’s educational approach is based on the idea that learning together in an inclusive environment allows children to develop a more nuanced and compassionate view of each other. Students study in Hebrew and Arabic, learning the historical and cultural narratives of both communities. The program uses innovative pedagogical models, such as project-based learning, place-based education, and problem-based learning, to encourage critical thinking, independent research, and creativity. The education department develops curricula tailored to multicultural themes, and teachers, both Jewish and Arab, receive specific training to manage these mixed environments.
Since 2012, Hand in Hand has created a community department that organizes events throughout the year for Jewish and Arab families, thereby strengthening community ties. These activities, such as festivals and workshops, aim to build an inclusive community that supports the growth of the schools.
Hand in Hand has grown from 50 students in 1998 to more than 2,000 today, demonstrating the viability of integrated education in a deeply divided society. The schools, such as the one in Jerusalem led by Efrat Meyer (Jewish) and Engie Wattad (Arab Muslim), are models of coexistence, where children learn to navigate complex contexts while developing inter-community friendships. The organization plans to expand to all mixed Jewish-Arab cities in Israel, thereby strengthening its potential impact.
ROPES
ROPES (Regional Organization for Peace, Economics & Security) (64) is a regional NGO founded in 2017, inspired by the Arab Peace Initiative, whose objective is to catalyze the construction of a post-conflict Middle East through the creation of trilateral educational and environmental partnerships between Israelis, Palestinians, and young leaders from Arab countries. Through academic exchange programs (modeled on Erasmus+), youth summits, webinars, and podcasts, ROPES aims to foster intercommunal reconciliation and lay the foundations for inclusive peace.
During a pilot seminar in 2022 in Dubai, the organization brought together Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab students for eight to ten days of dialogue, reflection on shared historical narratives, and practical workshops, strengthening mutual trust. Today, its alumni network includes diplomats, journalists, parliamentarians, and entrepreneurs from Israel, the Palestinian Territories, and ten Arab countries, working together to translate these connections into lasting socio-economic transformations.
Through direct engagement with the younger generation, ROPES offers an innovative, bottom-up approach to regional peace, anchored in the sectors of education, the environment, and leadership—an emerging model that complements traditional diplomatic peace initiatives such as the Abraham Accords.
In 2025, ROPES continued its commitment to Morocco through its trilateral educational program, designed to promote cooperation between young Israeli, Palestinian, and North African leaders. In February, the organization organized cultural visits (for example, to the Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca), followed by an 8- to 10-day immersive seminar bringing together university students from the MENA region. These exchanges included workshops on historical narratives, trust building, active listening, and the future of conflict resolution. This educational program aims to break down stereotypes, strengthen empathy, and instill a culture of peace in the region’s future mediators.
ROPES’ programs are structured around three major strategic axes:
Human rights advocacy on the ground: ROPES operates directly in sensitive areas, particularly in the West Bank, to protect Palestinian populations against illegal land expropriations, settler violence, and arbitrary restrictions. Protective presence programs, legal support, and olive harvest assistance are implemented to support vulnerable farmers.
Advocacy and human rights education: A fundamental component of ROPES’ programs is civic education. The organization leads workshops for students, teachers, and the general public to raise awareness of human rights principles, Jewish ethics, and social justice. It also publishes public statements to influence government policies.
Poverty alleviation and social justice: ROPES manages initiatives that benefit marginalized populations within Israel, particularly by supporting Arab Israeli citizens and disadvantaged groups. These programs include legal assistance for access to social rights and decent housing.Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam (65)
Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam (“Oasis of Peace”) is an intentional village founded in 1970 where Jews and Arabs live together in Israel. It houses a bilingual school and a Peace Education Center, welcoming students and visitors for workshops on coexistence.
The school offers bilingual instruction and activities that promote intercultural dialogue. The Peace Education Center organizes workshops for school and community groups, using methods such as theater and discussions to address conflict. The village itself serves as a living model of coexistence, with Jewish and Arab residents sharing common institutions.
Neve Shalom has inspired other initiatives and attracted thousands of annual visitors, but its small size (approximately 300 residents) limits its influence. It remains a powerful symbol of what living together can accomplish in a context of conflict.
Other significant initiatives
Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP): (66) This coalition brings together more than 170 civil society organizations, including Hand in Hand, working to promote cooperation, justice, and peace. ALLMEP supports educational initiatives by amplifying the voices of peacemakers and increasing their collective impact.
Mar Elias Peace Study Center: (67) Located in Ibillin, Israel, this center offers scholarships and interfaith educational programs to train future peacemakers, particularly in Arab communities (Christian, Muslim, and Druze). It provides a rare space where mixed populations can meet and get to know each other.
MidEast Web: (68) This platform lists educational initiatives such as the Hope Flowers School, which promotes coexistence and democracy, and Crossing Borders magazine, written by and for young Palestinians, Israelis, and Jordanians, which promotes intercultural dialogue.Dialogue and mutual understanding
Initiatives such as Seeds of Peace emphasize structured dialogue, allowing participants to confront divergent historical narratives. For example, discussing the Nakba or the Holocaust in a safe setting helps to humanize the “enemy” and deconstruct stereotypes. These dialogues are complemented by informal activities that foster authentic personal relationships.
Hand in Hand takes a unique approach by integrating bilingual education from an early age. By learning each other’s languages and cultures, children develop natural empathy and a nuanced understanding of differences. This approach is particularly effective in “planting the seeds of friendship” because it intervenes early in the formation of identities.
Both organizations involve communities beyond the students. Hand in Hand organizes events for families, while Seeds of Peace supports its former participants through local programs. This community engagement reinforces the impact of the initiatives by creating support networks for peace.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, exacerbated by events such as the attack on October 7, 2023, creates a difficult environment for educational initiatives. Political and social tensions can limit the scope of these programs, with some criticizing their inability to influence national policies.
Although Seeds of Peace and Hand in Hand have a significant impact, their scale remains limited relative to the total population of the Middle East. For example, Hand in Hand reaches only 2,000 students, a modest number in a country of several million people. The sustainability of these initiatives depends on funding and political support, which are often uncertain.
Some historians and analysts argue that the idea of “conviviality” may be idealized, masking structural inequalities and persistent tensions. For example, Hand in Hand schools operate in a deeply segregated society, where interactions between Jews and Arabs remain rare outside of these educational settings.
Education for coexistence in Israel-Palestine: a path to coexistence
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, rooted in territorial, identity, and historical claims, has created deep divisions between Israelis and Palestinians, marked by events such as the Nakba (1948), successive wars, and recent violence, notably the attack of October 7, 2023. (69) In this context, education for coexistence aims to promote peace by bringing together young Jews and Arabs (Palestinian citizens of Israel or the West Bank/Gaza) to learn to understand each other and coexist. Inspired by historical models such as convivencia in al-Andalus or Jewish-Islamic conviviality in Morocco, educational initiatives such as Hand in Hand, Seeds of Peace, ROPES and Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam seek to deconstruct stereotypes and foster empathy.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict pits two national narratives against each other: that of the Israelis, based on the return to an ancestral homeland and the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, and that of the Palestinians, marked by the Nakba (exodus of 700,000 people) and the ongoing occupation of the Palestinian territories. These divergent narratives fuel mutual mistrust, reinforced by segregated educational systems, where 99% of Israeli schools are segregated between Jews and Arabs. Recent violence, such as the Hamas attack in 2023 and subsequent Israeli reprisals, has exacerbated tensions, making living together difficult.
In this context, education for living together seeks to create spaces where Jews and Arabs can dialogue, learn each other’s languages and cultures, and develop personal relationships. As UNESCO has noted, education is a powerful tool for promoting peace by teaching tolerance and respect for differences (UNESCO).
Structured dialogues, such as those of Seeds of Peace, allow participants to confront divergent narratives in a safe setting. By discussing the Nakba or the occupation, young people learn to recognize the pain of others, reducing stereotypes. These interactions are reinforced by informal activities that create authentic personal connections.
Hand in Hand and Neve Shalom use bilingual education to teach Jewish and Arabic languages and cultures from an early age. This approach fosters natural empathy and an understanding of historical narratives, preparing children to navigate a divided society. These initiatives involve families and communities to expand their impact. Hand in Hand organizes interfaith festivals, while Neve Shalom serves as a community model. This commitment strengthens support networks for peace.
The Israeli education system is almost entirely segregated, with 99% of schools separate for Jews and Arabs (Hand in Hand). Initiatives like Hand in Hand remain exceptions, reaching a minority of students. Violence, such as the October 7, 2023 attack, exacerbates mistrust and makes dialogue difficult. Hand in Hand schools, for example, must manage heightened tensions during periods of conflict.
Some researchers, argue that the concept of living together is sometimes idealized, masking structural inequalities and persistent tensions. Educational initiatives alone cannot address the systemic problems of conflict. With only 2,000 students for Hand in Hand and 7,300 participants for Seeds of Peace, these programs reach a fraction of the population. Their impact depends on their ability to scale up, which requires funding and political support that are often uncertain.
Summary Table
Education for coexistence in Israel-Palestine, through initiatives such as Hand in Hand, Seeds of Peace, and Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam, provides valuable spaces for dialogue and mutual understanding. Drawing on approaches such as bilingual education, structured dialogues, and community engagement, these programs plant the seeds of peaceful coexistence. However, their impact remains limited by school segregation, political tensions, and the limited scale of their activities. For these initiatives to truly transform society, they must be supported by inclusive national policies and a collective will to overcome divisions. By investing in the education of young people, Israel and Palestine can lay the foundations for a future where coexistence becomes a sustainable reality.
Conclusion: Reworking the Abraham Accords to Integrate Educational, Intercultural and Interfaith Aspects
The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020, redefined diplomatic relations in the Middle East by normalizing ties between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. However, their focus on economic (70) and security dimensions neglects a crucial aspect for lasting peace: education and intercultural and interreligious conviviality. Drawing inspiration from historical models such, a reworking of the Accords could incorporate educational and cultural initiatives to promote mutual understanding and harmonious coexistence.
On the future of the Abraham Accords, Mahmood Monshipouri, Manochehr Dorraj, and John Fields, argue in an article entitled ‘’The Gaza War and the Future Of the Abraham Accords’’ published in the Middle East Policy: (71)
‘’The Abraham Accords of 2020 represented new political dynamics in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalized relations with Israel without demanding a path toward Palestinian statehood. In the short term, the accords increased trade and cooperation on technology, but the larger security project of containing Iran remained a mission unaccomplished. Still, President Joe Biden, until his last days in power, tried desperately but failed to forge a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. We argue that the initial success of the Abraham Accords was achieved when Israel was wedded to maintaining the status quo. However, the destruction of Gaza, Israel’s expansion into the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria, and its major military confrontations with the Yemeni Houthis and Iran have inflamed Arab public opinion and escalated the costs of normalization for any regional state. The Biden administration’s unwillingness to restrain the Netanyahu government and President Donald Trump’s imperial designs on Gaza also raised alarms in regional capitals, which now see any moves toward expanding the Abraham Accords as daunting, at best.’’
Integrating an intercultural and interreligious dimension could take several forms. First, educational programs, such as Seeds of Peace-inspired summer camps or bilingual schools similar to Hand in Hand and Ropes intercultural exchanges, could bring together youth from signatory countries for dialogues on sensitive topics, such as shared history or religious narratives. These initiatives would foster empathy and the deconstruction of stereotypes, as the experience of more than 7,300 Seeds of Peace alumni demonstrates. Second, cultural exchanges, such as joint festivals or art projects, could highlight shared heritages, similar to the Moroccan Mimouna, where Jews and Muslims share celebrations. Third, the creation of interfaith councils or shared pilgrimages to sacred sites would reinforce shared values, such as social justice. Finally, government support for projects such as the restoration of religious sites or the creation of museums, such as the Moroccan Museum of Judaism, could anchor these efforts in a sustainable policy.
However, this reorganization faces major challenges. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remains a source of regional tension, limits the scope of intercultural initiatives, as it is not directly addressed by the Abraham Accords. Moreover, the political commitment of signatory countries can be hampered by divergent national priorities or polarized social contexts. Finally, the lack of widespread education on shared history in schools in the countries concerned risks marginalizing these efforts.
Despite these obstacles, integrating the educational, intercultural and interreligious aspects into the Abraham Accords offers a unique opportunity to “plant the seeds of conviviality.” By building on proven models and mobilizing governments, civil society, and younger generations, these agreements could evolve from a diplomatic framework into a true catalyst for lasting peace, where respectful coexistence becomes a tangible reality. Thus, rooting conviviality in relations between signatory nations could transform the Middle East into a space of dialogue and unity, honoring the lessons of the past while building a common future. (72)
Unfortunately, the future of peace in the region does seem bleak for the moment after the October 7 unfortunate events, unless an Abrahamic miracle takes place to bring peace to the region and sow seeds of conviviality in the heart the MENA peoples and their leaders.
