- The rift among Arab Islamic states over ties with Israel, particularly in the context of the Gaza conflict, has indeed left the Palestine question orphaned as countries prioritize their own interests.
- Some countries may push for a more confrontational position, including severing ties with Israel, while others may prefer to prioritize diplomatic or economic interests above such harsh measures.
- A multitude of factors, including political affiliations, economic interests, and historical links, can all have an impact on the final statement.
In the midst of escalating Israeli attacks on the Palestinian people, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation conducted a Joint Arab- Islamic Summit in Riyadh on Saturday, November 11, 2023, at the request of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) convened the summit with the objective of pushing the US and Israel to put an end to the bombing campaign on Gaza, which has killed at least 11,078 Palestinians. However, rejected the punitive economic and political measures against Israel as a result of its clash with Hamas.
1st Joint Arab- Islamic Summit
At first, only the 22 Arab League countries were anticipated to attend, but the summit was eventually enlarged to include the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a larger organisation of 57 predominantly Muslim-majority states to which the Arab League countries belong. The Arab League was at odds over “important clauses” that weren’t able to be included in its collective reaction to Israel’s operation on Gaza during an Arab League meeting. Four “influential countries” in the Arab League prevented the acceptance of proposals including actual penalties against Israel, instead proposing a more ambiguous unwavering clause. Because of the disagreement, the summits of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League were merged. The meeting was attended by leaders from the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), including Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The final declaration issued on November 11 slams Israel’s aggression against the Gaza Strip, as well as the colonial occupation government’s war crimes and massacres against the Palestinian people. The Statement urges that all aggression cease immediately. It opposes labelling this retaliatory war as self-defence or justifying it under any circumstances. It demands an immediate lifting of the siege on Gaza and the urgent entry of Arab, Islamic, and international humanitarian aid convoys carrying food, medicine, and gasoline into the Gaza Strip.
Not only that, but it also, seeks for inclusion of international organizations in this process as well as protection for relief crews in order for them to completely carry out their responsibilities. And also proposed a halt to Israeli weapons exports and rejected any potential political solution to the issue that would maintain Gaza independent of the Israeli-occupied West Bank. It also requests financial assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). Furthermore, the Statement urges the United Nations Security Council to make a decisive and binding decision that puts an end to the aggression and limits the colonial occupation authority’s violations of international law and legitimate resolutions.
Disagreements at the Summit
However, the final statement unveiled the Arab World’s rift over the decision. Countries, like Algeria and Lebanon, suggested that in response to the damage in Gaza, they should terminate all diplomatic and economic ties with Tel Aviv, prohibit Israeli flights in Arab airspace, and for oil-producing Muslim countries to “threaten to use oil as a means of leverage” to negotiate an end to hostilities in Gaza.
Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Mauritania, and Djibouti rebuffed the proposal. Iran proposed practical steps that were neglected. Furthermore, revealed regional splits over how to respond to the turmoil even as concerns increase that it might reach in other countries. Similarly, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, like Iran’s, stated that a lack of obvious punitive steps against Israel might render the summit insignificant.
Regional Divisions and Middle East Complexities
Although most Arab Islamic countries affirm solidarity with Palestine, their stances and priorities differ substantially. The geopolitical intricacies of the rift among Arab Islamic states over ties with Israel, particularly in the context of the Gaza bombardment, have indeed left the Palestine question orphaned as countries prioritize their own interests. Some countries may push for a more confrontational position, including severing ties with Israel, while others may prefer to prioritize diplomatic or economic interests above such harsh measures. This difference in approaches might lead to a sense of division, even though the primary goal of helping Palestine is shared by all of these countries.
The Middle East is typically defined by a complex geopolitical landscape, with countries demonstrating disparities in their approaches to Israel-Palestine conflicts. A multitude of factors, including political affiliations, economic interests, and historical links, can all have an impact on this. The region’s geopolitics is convoluted resulting in varied degrees of support or condemnation based on specific country interests.
(Anjali Singh is a Postgraduate student in political science and international relations. She has interned with the Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi, as a Research Intern. Views expressed are the author’s own)
Balaji Subramanian 
Dhruv Ashok 
Aayush Pal