The summit that whispered while Gaza burns

It was as if they were exclaiming, “Thank God!”

Some media outlets sought to portray the mere attendance of Arab and Islamic leaders at the extraordinary Doha Summit as an “achievement.”

The summit was convened to address the Israeli strike on Qatar and the targeting of Hamas leaders who have long resided there, under political and security arrangements with Washington and Tel Aviv.

Yet for Palestinians and the broader Arab public, the immediate path forward remained entirely unclear, especially as Israel’s ground invasion of Gaza City commenced with full American backing.

The moment is jarring and continues to disrupt established expectations. There is little evidence of political imagination, except, perhaps, among the enemy’s leadership.

Benjamin Netanyahu, now steering the trajectory of the Israeli-Arab conflict unilaterally, has dismantled a keystone of the US-designed post-9/11 regional order. Over the course of 2024 and 2025, he has defied all conventional engagement rules through successive campaigns targeting Hezbollah, decapitating its historic leadership, striking Iran, and intensifying Israeli involvement in Syria in an attempt to reduce it to a dependent client.

Over the past two years of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and its efforts to establish lasting control over both Gaza and the West Bank, much of the Arab political elite, and broader international interlocutors, have come to operate squarely within a framework conceived and tightly defined by the United States.

This framework is sustained by a tangle of sophisticated arms agreements and dense trade and investment pacts, constructed to ensure America’s unassailable leverage over the region’s political direction and to insulate Israel from retaliatory shocks or any diminishment of its strategic edge.

At the same time, capital continues to be channeled into military technologies deployed exclusively for large-scale destruction and to enforce subordination upon surrounding states.

When will we challenge the “Iron Wall”?

The targeting of Doha has now demonstrated, unequivocally, that no party is exempt from Netanyahu’s “iron wall” doctrine. That doctrine is not only implemented but now openly articulated and reintroduced into Israeli political discourse.

Across Egypt, Turkey, Iran, the GCC countries, and the wider Arab and Islamic worlds, analysts and citizens alike have begun to call for a radical shift in discourse towards Israel—one that pairs rhetoric with long-overdue action.

These calls gained traction after the Arab League Council, at the ministerial level, adopted the “Shared Vision for Security and Cooperation in the Region” just hours before the Israeli strike. The resolution, for the first time, albeit obliquely, contemplated suspending the Abraham Accords.

Yet the aggression against Qatar is not the sole catalyst. The ongoing occupation of Gaza City proceeds apace despite reports of internal dissent within Israel. International statements of condemnation have failed to halt Israeli ministers’ plans to formally annex the West Bank, as evidenced by a fresh legislative initiative to cancel the Oslo Accords.

Now we also have a new resolution from the United Nations General Assembly—overwhelmingly endorsed—that has reaffirmed the New York Declaration’s support for the two-state solution and the inevitability of an independent Palestinian state.

The vote revealed the extent of Israel’s diplomatic isolation, as several nations with historically unfavorable positions—including Germany, Croatia, and Finland—shifted to back the future of the Palestinian cause. This, in principle, offers a wide foundation for robust Arab and Islamic initiatives, which were anticipated to be conveyed with clarity and conviction through the decisions of the Doha summit.

The summit is not enough

Some observers suggest that the very act of convening the summit conveyed its message, and that the final communiqué was a formality. They point to parallel Arab efforts within the UN and argue that some Arab states oppose strong language directed at Washington or Tel Aviv, asserting that the adopted text represents the best attainable compromise under the circumstances.

Such arguments warrant rebuttal. First, Arab positions have diverged dramatically since the Al-Aqsa Flood. With Donald Trump’s return to the White House, it has become clearer which regimes are committed to Palestinian rights and which are not.

Forming a constructive bloc and exposing obstructionism is no longer a matter of preference. It is a necessity, particularly as recent events have confirmed long-standing warnings: naive illusions of individual security and equal-footing diplomacy collapse when Israel’s military machine is fully unleashed.

Second, signs of a rhetorical shift have emerged in the remarks of some Arab leaders. For the first time, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi raised the possibility of terminating existing peace agreements. His pointed address to the Israeli public, warning them of the grave consequences of the Netanyahu government’s conduct, reflected deterioration in bilateral ties and marked a clear readiness to escalate further if provoked.

Third, and most crucially, the region faces urgent political decisions on a rapidly evolving diplomatic front. No one expected the Doha Summit to declare war on Israel. Nor would it have been plausible to propose pan-Arab military defense in a room that included states some participants consider adversaries; states that themselves are engaged in proxy conflicts.

But there are dozens of long-neglected tools and policy measures that should have been activated. Encouraging signs of their reconsideration did appear in the summit’s final communiqué—revised in its final hours. Arab and Islamic capitals that remain sincere in their commitment to the Palestinian cause must seize upon and expand these provisions, particularly with the UN General Assembly poised to convene, where Palestine will once again take center stage amid a frenetic Israeli drive to cement the status quo.

A timid shift

Three new clauses were inserted into the summit’s final communiqué. Though belated, they reflect an important rhetorical evolution in Arab-Islamic summit diplomacy.

The text calls on all states to adopt every “possible” legal and effective measure to end Israel’s impunity—measures including sanctions, the suspension of weapons transfers and transit, the review of diplomatic and economic ties, formal prosecution of war crimes, and even an inquiry into the compatibility of Israel’s UN membership with the Charter. ICC member states were specifically tasked with pursuing accountability for Israeli war crimes.

Yet this is not the first time such proposals have surfaced. These actions are no longer optional geopolitical gestures; they are necessary responses, given the recent legal victories secured for the Palestinian cause.

International law now offers robust backing for economic measures, arms control, and resistance to settlement expansion, as evidenced by advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice condemning Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories, including Gaza. European and Latin American precedents further strengthen the case for legal action.

It is a timid shift, far slower than the pace of Zionist escalation, and it falls short of the public’s mounting expectations. After all, this is not a conflict that began yesterday; it is only natural to expect the summit’s response to reflect that reality.

The route of referring genocide crimes, such as South Africa’s application to the ICJ, or filing new cases imposes no material cost on Arab and Islamic states, nor does it expose them to risk. This inaction casts doubt on the seriousness of the Arab and Islamic response after two years of genocidal warfare.

The summit statement also failed to outline any concrete diplomatic response to complement the European push to recognize a Palestinian state. This avenue of pressure demands a far broader political imagination; one that moves beyond rhetoric to coordination with the more than 140 nations that have formally endorsed the two-state solution under UN auspices. The aim should not be limited to symbolic gestures like the 1988 relocation of the General Assembly to Geneva to accommodate Yasser Arafat (then labelled a terrorist by the US), but rather the launch of a broad, sustained international campaign against the occupation.

Leaders had before them the opportunity to enact a genuine step towards implementing the recovery and reconstruction plan for Gaza, adopted by the March Cairo Summit and described as a “comprehensive Arab blueprint.” That plan could now be revived, adjusted in light of new developments, and given the necessary diplomatic and financial backing.

Dormant weapons

The remainder of the communiqué emphasized solidarity with Qatar and praised its regional role. However, the tone was largely promotional: “commending Qatar’s civilized and prudent conduct in responding to this treacherous attack, and its steadfast adherence to international law...”

There is growing weariness, even among Arab officials, with the familiar formulas of condemnation. This time, the document did not “condemn,” “denounce,” or “deplore”—it “reaffirmed” condemnation, “reaffirmed” denunciation!

What emerges is that “calls” and “urging” now represent the ceiling of collective Arab action.

This is insufficient in light of present-day realities—particularly as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio tours the region spreading Israeli propaganda, while President Trump issues ambivalent statements calling Qatar “a great ally” and urging Israel to “exercise caution” in its actions against Hamas. Meanwhile, Netanyahu proclaims that Hamas leaders “can hide but cannot escape,” champions a self-reliant Israeli arms industry, and cautions against dependence on Europe, which he claims is controlled by “Muslim minorities.”

Consider his strategy. Then reflect on our hesitance to take even the most basic steps.

Legal reviews of peace treaties, economic sanctions, and accountability proceedings are dormant instruments. The Doha communiqué has belatedly and tentatively opened the door to deploying them. They remain the only viable tools capable of breaching the Zionist “iron wall,” challenging an American administration singularly submissive to Netanyahu’s regional designs, and resisting the crude exploitation of Gulf regimes.

Arab publics have long been tired of summit rhetoric. Their frustration has become so commonplace that even mocking such meetings risks sounding trite. A new generation might not even know what the Arab League is. And yet, the Doha Summit marked a step that could be built upon—if political will and strategic imagination are found.