BEIRUT—President Joseph Aoun, in his address to Pope Leo
However, in today’s West Asian geopolitical context, where religious language is routinely weaponized to mask strategic realignment, this phrase cannot be read as innocuous or apolitical.
Rather, it was widely accepted as a rhetorical signal reflecting the ideological underpinnings of the so-called “Abraham Project.” This project is one of reshaping the region through normalization, security consolidation, and erasure of historical memory under the guise of interreligious harmony.
The problem is not the symbolic figure of the Prophet Abraham himself, who is at the center of the region’s spiritual and cultural consciousness. Rather, it is the political economy of terms like “children of Abraham” and “Abrahamic coexistence” that is deeply intertwined with the strategic framework promoted by Washington and Tel Aviv since 2019.
In this context, such terms carry an unmistakable ideological charge. It signals the acceptance of a narrative that reframes the fate of West Asia around a supposedly shared religious heritage rather than sovereignty, justice, and the right of peoples to resist occupation.
Critics argue that even the banner of “peace” under which these phrases are promoted is not innocuous. In the region, “peace” has long served as a diplomatic guise used to purge coercive political intentions.
Under the guise of peace, occupations are rebranded as security agreements. Structural advantages are restructured as partnerships. And the deprivation of the entire nation is reconfigured as reconciliation.
“Abrahamic peace” therefore becomes part of a larger semantic structure, a sacralized vocabulary that erases victimhood and justifies a geopolitical order built on obedience rather than justice.
The problem is therefore not just the phrase “sons of Abraham” but the entire language system created to neutralize resistance while introducing new regional hierarchies.
The circulation of “Children of Abraham” today is similar to Imam Ali’s warning about “words of truth used in falsehoods” – noble words deployed to sanctify unjust realities.
What matters is not the beauty of the slogan, but the nature of its application: whether it empowers the oppressed or justifies the corrupt.
The collapse of the story becomes even clearer when compared to the Quranic archetype of the Prophet Joseph. Joseph’s brothers, literally sons of Abraham, betrayed him, abandoned him, and only repented when they confronted their wrongdoings.
If betrayal can emerge from the heart of Abraham’s family, calling out “Abraham” today cannot gloss over the transgressions committed by regimes and powers that speak in his name.
The modern political inheritors of this rhetoric—those who occupy, displace, ethnically cleanse, rape, distort scripture, and desecrate the sacred—stand in direct contradiction to the Abrahamic legacy of righteousness.
Therefore, the true children of Abraham are those who follow his ethical path, not those who quote the name of geopolitical engineering.
Since the 2020 Abraham Accords, the “Age of Abraham” has been touted as a new horizon of tolerance and interreligious dialogue. However, the reality on the ground tells a completely different story.
This agreement normalized relations between the Israeli occupying entity and a small number of Arab states, while intentionally excluding Palestine from the equation.
The principle that peace must follow a just solution to the Palestinian question has been completely abandoned. Instead, regularization was pitched as a gateway to investment, development, and modernization.
Empirical results disprove these promises. Democracy did not materialize. No economic miracle occurred. Stability did not appear. And the non-oil states that accepted the deal fell deeper into authoritarianism, financial crisis, and internal divisions. Sudan is one example!
Viewed through this lens, Aoun’s phrases do not simply suggest coexistence. It inadvertently places Lebanon within a discourse created to legitimize Israel’s regional integration while ignoring Lebanon’s ongoing violations of sovereignty.
Citing the words of the “sons of Abraham,” Mr. Aoun reiterated a vocabulary created to portray the resistance movement as an obstacle to the fabricated “peace of Abraham.”
Critics therefore interpret his words as aligning Lebanon, even if unintentionally, with a project that seeks to redefine regional identity on theological rather than national, historical, and anti-colonial foundations.
Under these circumstances, adopting terms associated with the Abraham Accords is far from symbolic and has tangible political consequences. It risks showing openness to normalization, undermining Lebanon’s historic position towards the Palestinian cause, and weakening the narrative underpinning its internationally recognized right to resist occupation.
After all, criticism of Aoun’s statements is not linguistics for its own sake. It concerns the political function of language in regions where language has become an instrument of geopolitical engineering.
In today’s West Asia, terms like “sons of Abraham” are not an invitation to unity, but a framework within which new power structures are justified and imposed.