There was a period when Arab states debated Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands, spanning events in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. The world watched as the 1973 oil embargo disrupted the global economy, triggering unemployment and recession in response to nations supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
By 2023, the landscape had shifted dramatically. Gaza endured a devastating massacre at the hands of Israel, while the West Bank and East Jerusalem—often described as the other pieces of the broader Palestinian question—faced daily killings, arrests, and settler violence at a pace unseen in decades. Reports indicated tens of thousands of Palestinian lives were lost within weeks of Israeli actions in response to Hamas attacks, while Israeli casualties were in the low thousands. Yet, the Arab and Islamic world often reserved their response to rhetoric rather than sweeping diplomatic or economic measures.
In response to the Gaza crisis, members of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation met in Riyadh on an emergency basis after being called together by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The resulting statement urged an end to Israeli military operations and condemned the actions described as a massacre. They pressed the International Criminal Court to investigate potential war crimes and crimes against humanity, but they stopped short of endorsing broad diplomatic or economic retaliation. The question lingered: did this amount to a strategic abandonment of Gaza?
Haizam Amirah-Fernández, a researcher at the Elcano Royal Institute, observed that Palestinians have long felt isolated. He noted a striking development from the Riyadh summit: the gathering of top leaders from many states, including notable participation from Iran and Saudi Arabia, signaling a potential shift beyond late-stage diplomacy typically led by foreign ministers in past conflicts.
The summit highlighted a rare convergence among leaders such as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi, a development that would have been unlikely only months earlier given deep regional rivalries. The gathering suggested a potential thaw in long-standing tensions, with Gaza playing a central role in uniting or at least reshaping regional dynamics.
The event prompted social media commentary, including a post from a public account noting the attendance of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan, Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Syria’s president Bashar al-Assad, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and representatives from Algeria, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and other states. The gathering drew a broad roster of heads of state or government from the Arab League plus additional Muslim-majority nations that are not Arab, spanning regions such as Indonesia and parts of Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.
Positions of Arab countries on Gaza
Managing the diverse stances proved difficult. Countries closer to the West—such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—often sought careful balance, while Iran and allied states favored firmer lines. Other nations, including Algeria and Morocco, faced internal tensions between popular pro-Palestinian sentiment and more tempered governmental approaches aimed at preserving stability or ongoing ties with Western partners.
A notable exchange cited by observers was the outspoken critique of Israeli actions in Gaza by figures within academia, underscoring a broader pattern: while elites articulated solidarity with Gaza, differences persisted in practical policy options. The most pronounced disagreements existed among groups advocating economic or diplomatic pressure and those favoring more measured responses.
Some states pressed for actions like sanctions or oil-based leverage, while others prioritized safeguarding existing relations with the United States or pursuing normalization. Egypt, sharing a border with Gaza and historically among the first to establish post-war ties with Israel, has consistently advocated moderation and called for a ceasefire, focusing on de-escalation and humanitarian considerations. Similarly, other Gulf and North African partners that recently moved toward normalization have often moderated their public stance, balancing security concerns with public sympathy for the Palestinian cause. The normalization trend, associated with frameworks such as the Abraham Accords, has faced recalibration in the wake of the October events and subsequent Israeli responses.
The Moroccan case stands out as illustrative. Morocco benefited from closer ties with Israel, including recognition of its sovereignty in Western Sahara, while maintaining substantial domestic demonstrations in solidarity with Gaza. The Moroccan leadership appeared to keep a lower profile on the Palestinian issue in official speeches, even as domestic audiences showed strong support for Gaza. In this landscape, the royal palace maintains a sensitive role as guardian of Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, underscoring the delicate balance between diplomacy and public sentiment.
Iran emerged as a more forceful voice, urging broader Islamic solidarity to apply economic pressure, including oil and trade restrictions, while President Raisi framed resilience as essential in confronting Israel. Across the region, public expressions of grievance and condemnation grew louder even when governments shouldered the burden of cautious diplomacy.
Harsh language against Israel
Even without immediate punitive steps, public sentiment across many Arab capitals has pushed leaders to adopt firmer rhetoric against Israel. Statements condemning the Gaza campaign as a brutal assault have been echoed by high-level figures across the region, reflecting widespread concern for civilian casualties and a call for international accountability. Some leaders urged the United States to press for restraint and encouraged the United Nations Security Council to fulfill its responsibilities in addressing the crisis.
Raisi and other regional voices have publicly celebrated resistance while urging support for humanitarian relief and protection of civilians. Egypt has sought to present a mediated stance, emphasizing a ceasefire and humanitarian access, while Qatar has criticized perceived unilateral actions that undermine international law. Analysts observe that the intensity of Arab street sentiment has influenced official discourse, shaping a broader narrative about regional responsibility and the moral dimensions of the conflict.
Scholars emphasize that while public opinion may drive rhetoric, it coexists with strategic considerations about security, economic stability, and regional alliances. Observers note that even among allies, the spectrum of responses reveals a pragmatic struggle to align values with pragmatic statecraft, particularly as countries weigh long-standing commitments to peace and the protection of civilians against the realities of geopolitics.