Arab-Islamic summit in Doha condemns Israeli aggression, but falls silent on action

By Roya Pour Bagher

The Arab-Islamic summit in Doha concluded with lukewarm condemnations and expressions of solidarity with Qatar following the Israeli regime’s attack on the Arab country that is mediating the ceasefire deal between the regime and the Hamas resistance movement.

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani condemned the attack as “cowardly and treacherous,” asking how he could host negotiating delegations from the Israeli regime while they carried out aerial raids against his country.

Arab League Secretary General, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, pointed out that silence in response to a crime is, in itself, a crime. Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the Tel Aviv regime as embodying a terrorist mindset.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim called for severing relations with the Zionist entity. Other Arab-Islamic leaders who attended the summit made similar remarks, verbally condemning the Zionist aggression.

Yet, beneath these expressions of outrage lies an uncomfortable truth: the Arab-Muslim states are ineffective in turning their rhetoric into tangible and concrete action.

The final communique contained no binding security commitments, no collective economic measures, and certainly no unified military response against the aggressor. Instead, previous positions were reiterated, and leaders called for more diplomatic engagement through international institutions—bodies that have proven ineffective at halting Israeli crimes.

The Israeli strike on Doha on September 9, which targeted the offices of Hamas' negotiating team, was a serious and dangerous escalation by the same entity that has wreaked havoc in the Gaza Strip since October 2023 and has also launched acts of unprovoked aggression against Lebanon, Yemen, and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It was an attack on the same country that was hosting Israeli officials to try and reach a ceasefire deal in Gaza—one that would end the genocide of Palestinians and see the release of remaining Israeli captives.

Many have argued repeatedly that Israel and the United States do not actually want a ceasefire, and the strike on Qatari soil was another addition to the mounting evidence. The attack was also the first time Israel was testing the practical limits of Arab and Islamic collective security arrangements.

What makes the strike particularly significant is not merely its brazenness, but that it stands as a glaring validation of warnings from resistance leaders, including Yemen’s Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, who has regularly warned Arab states that they would also experience aggression by Israel unless they act.

Needless to say, these warnings were coming out of the Zionist entity itself, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli regime officials boasting about their ‘Greater Israel’ project.

The attack on the Qatari capital proved that no American ally, even with significant Western military presence, is immune to attacks—history alone should have sufficed as proof for the wise. While the strike should have served as a wake-up call for Arab and Muslim states, the real question is, even if they woke up, what would they do?

Following the attack, the world anticipated a decisive response from Qatar, similar to what it had seen from the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, that did not happen, and the global public opinion was one of harsh scrutiny against Qatar and greater respect for Iran.

As for the summit hosted by Doha, it solely produced fiery bluster from Arab leaders. What else could it have produced? After all, it was a gathering of top leaders. A proper and long-overdue military retaliation can only be anticipated when a unified security framework is established by the Arab states.

Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani came closest to addressing this gap when he hinted at the need for greater security coordination. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian also called for a unified Muslim front against the enemy—a deeply embedded principle in Iran’s strategic worldview.

However, even before the summit took place, it was Iran’s Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council who suggested that a ‘joint operations room’ should be organized by Muslim countries instead—a proposal that garnered wide public support.

Ali Larijani wrote in an Arabic post on X that a summit without practical results is the same as issuing a new order for Israeli aggression. He urged OIC member states to take concrete action to stop the ‘madness’ of the Israeli regime.

Larijani did not euphemize his words when he also pointed out that the Islamic countries in question did nothing concrete for the oppressed Palestinians, and urged them to at least take action in order to avoid their own humiliation and annihilation.

This vision of Islamic unity has been a cornerstone of Iranian foreign policy since the Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khomeini in 1979. It is not just a symbolic ideal, but a practical security necessity as seen by the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

It was his foresight that recognized the liberation of Palestine and Muslim unity as the only foundation for regional peace.

Iran and other members of the resistance axis have warned for decades that the Zionist regime’s expansionist ideology would inevitably threaten neighboring countries.

Islamic unity means joining forces to fight the maniacal, genocidal entity that has killed over 65,000 Palestinians—an undercount—and has attacked six countries in the region.

Perhaps the least that is expected from Arab and Muslim countries is the complete severing of ties with the Zionist entity—a step that is far easier to take than military action. The persistence of trade relations, for instance, reveals how unfortunately deep the addiction to economic wealth is.

Islamic nations carry significant economic leverage over Israel and its allies through their control of the financial market, energy resources, and trade networks. Yet, this leverage is unused even in the face of direct aggression on member countries.

The Arab states’ inaction today is a stark contrast to the 1973 oil embargo, when they were willing to weaponize their economic resources in response to Israeli aggression.

However, today’s response is limited to statements and symbolism. The absence of political will to confront the Zionist regime is the result of a desire for power, which has led to such deep integration into US architecture that action against US interests—and by extension, Israeli interests—is effectively forbidden.

They insist on turning to the US in hopes that it can hold back Israel, being willfully ignorant of the fact that the genocide in Gaza is essentially an American-Israeli project to undermine regional peace and stability.

Roya Pour Bagher is a Tehran-based writer.

(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir