Chief editor writes
The Arab–Islamic emergency summit convened in support of Qatar, racing to issue statements of condemnation and solidarity. Yet, as Gaza burned—its stones, its people, its dignity—these same states stood mute, paralyzed before the greater tragedy. The irony is stark: a summit called urgently to defend sovereignty, while silence reigned over Palestine’s ongoing devastation.
Why, then, does the public instinctively sense that such summits are doomed to fail before they even begin? The answer lies in two words: timing and action—or rather, the absence of both.
What was required—indeed, what was imperative—was an immediate and coordinated Arab–Islamic response that would impose real costs on the aggressor:
- Cutting oil supplies to Israel and its backers.
- Shutting land, sea, and air routes to and from its territory.
- Withdrawing ambassadors and severing diplomatic ties.
- Freezing Arab and Islamic assets in international financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF.
Had these measures been applied instantly, their impact would have been forceful and undeniable. Instead, the region reverted to its familiar script: delayed declarations, diluted threats, and hollow communiqués.
The lesson of the 2017 diplomatic crisis with Qatar—when Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt, and later Yemen, the Maldives, and Comoros severed ties—remains instructive. Decisive moves are possible, but without a shared vision and sustained coordination, they dissolve into political theater.
Today, history repeats itself. Rather than becoming a platform to compel Israel to abide by international resolutions (such as UNSC Resolution 242) or to commit to withdrawal to the 1967 borders, reconstruction of Gaza, reparations, and accountability for destabilizing Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon—the summit risks being reduced to yet another stage for rhetoric without resolve.
The deeper, unsettling question lingers: who is next after Qatar? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Another state already sketched onto the so-called “Zionist dream map”?
And so, leaders and delegations depart as they arrived—laden not with strategies, but with protocol gifts and ornate speeches. The region’s great weight, its history and resources, are squandered in declarations that make headlines today and evaporate tomorrow.
Conclusion
The summit reflects a larger malaise: a structural incapacity of the Arab–Islamic system to transform outrage into policy, slogans into mechanisms, and symbolism into strategy. Until this changes, our gatherings will remain summits of paper—grand in words, hollow in deed.
