Introduction
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is unique in that it is not merely a regional dispute, but a core ideological and religious touchstone for nearly two billion Muslims worldwide. The land of Palestine, home to Al-Masjid al-Aqṣā (The Furthest Mosque) in Jerusalem, the third holiest site in Islam, imbues the struggle with a divine dimension that transcends political borders. For the collective Muslim world, addressing this conflict is viewed as a duty derived from the foundational texts, particularly the obligation to protect fellow Muslims and the sanctity of holy lands.
This research article seeks to critically analyze the Muslim world's collective response over three major historical phases: the initial military confrontation (1948–1973), the phase of diplomatic fragmentation and bilateral peace (1979–2000), and the contemporary era of normalization and heightened geopolitical complexity (2000–present). By examining the actions, or inactions, of key actors, this assessment will answer what the response reveals about the Muslim world’s genuine geopolitical priorities, its capacity for collective diplomacy, and the tension between the ideal of the Ummah and the reality of the nation-state. The evidence suggests that the response has been characterized by powerful rhetoric alongside fragmented action, symptomatic of a crisis of leadership and strategic unity.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
The Theological and Historical Basis of the Muslim Response
The intensity of the Muslim world's commitment to the Palestinian cause is rooted in core Islamic theological and jurisprudential concepts that define collective responsibility and the sanctity of the land.
The Sacred Status of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and Hifz al-Nafs
Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, holds unparalleled significance as the site of the Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) nocturnal journey (al-Isrā’) and ascent to heaven (al-Mi‘rāj). This event is codified in the Qur'an, establishing its blessed and sacred status:
سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَىٰ بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلًا مِّنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الْأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا ۚ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
“Exalted is He who took His Servant by night from al-Masjid al-Ḥarām to al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him some of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 17:1)
This verse establishes Al-Aqsa Mosque as a focal point of Islamic reverence and guardianship. Protecting the integrity of this land, therefore, becomes a form of spiritual defense (Ḥimāyat al-Ḥaram), elevating the conflict beyond mere territorial dispute to a defense of Islamic religious heritage and sovereignty. Furthermore, the defense of Palestinians adheres to the principle of Ḥifẓ al-Nafs (Preservation of Life), one of the five core objectives of Maqāṣid al-Sharī‘ah (Objectives of Islamic Law), making humanitarian intervention a mandatory religious and legal duty.
The Jurisprudence of Collective Obligation (Farḍ Kifāyah and ’Adl)
Islamic jurisprudence classifies the defense of Muslim lands and people as a collective obligation (Farḍ Kifāyah). If the local community (the Palestinians) cannot repel aggression, the duty shifts sequentially to the neighboring Muslim states, and ultimately, to the entire global Ummah. The failure of the neighboring Arab states to achieve military victory in 1948 and 1967 was thus perceived by many Muslims as a collective failure of Farḍ Kifāyah, leading to existential and moral crises within the political system. This concept is the philosophical engine behind the persistent grassroots pressure on Muslim governments to take decisive action. Moreover, the core Islamic value of ’Adl (Justice) is paramount. The Qur'an commands:
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا كُونُوا قَوَّامِينَ لِلَّهِ شُهَدَاءَ بِالْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَىٰ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا ۚ اعْدِلُوا هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَىٰ
“O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.” (Qur’an 5:8)
The application of ’Adl in this context requires the Muslim world to advocate for and enforce justice for the oppressed Palestinian people, irrespective of political cost. The response of the Muslim world is thus judged, both internally and externally, by its adherence to this principle of justice.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
Phase 1: Collective Military Response and the Rise of Nationalism (1948–1973)
The initial response was defined by military intervention, the rise of Pan-Arabism, and institutional formation.
The Failures of 1948 and 1967
The military defeat in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (al-Nakba) and the subsequent catastrophic 1967 Six-Day War exposed the severe strategic limitations of the newly formed Arab nation-states. The response was strategically weak, poorly coordinated, and marred by deep inter-Arab rivalries, often dictated by monarchical versus republican ideological splits. The defeat in 1967, which resulted in the loss of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula, was a profound psychological and religious shock.
This failure had two significant geopolitical consequences:
1. Rise of Pan-Arab Nationalism
The focus shifted from the Islamic ideal of the Ummah to revolutionary Pan-Arab Nationalism (e.g., Nasserism in Egypt and Ba'athism in Syria/Iraq), which sought to achieve unity and strength through a secular, shared Arab identity rather than through Islamic faith alone.
2. Established National Priorities
The focus shifted decisively from liberating Palestine (the collective goal) to domestic consolidation, modernizing national armies, and securing national borders (the Nation-State Priority). The Khartoum Resolution (1967) formally adopted a hardline stance ("Three No's") but failed to establish a coordinated, effective counter-strategy, demonstrating that national pride and regime survival were now the dominant geopolitical drivers.
The Birth of Institutional Diplomacy: The OIC and Arab League Stance
Following the arson attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969, the need for a non-Arab-centric response led to the formation of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC’s foundational charter explicitly prioritized the liberation of Jerusalem and the defense of Muslim holy sites. Its establishment marked a strategic shift from military failure to collective diplomacy and lobbying within international bodies like the United Nations.
However, the Arab League and the OIC quickly revealed their institutional weaknesses. They operated based on consensus, which meant that the lowest common denominator dictated policy. The OIC, representing 57 member states with vastly divergent political systems and alliances, lacked any executive power to enforce resolutions, making its function primarily symbolic and rhetorical. This demonstrated the inherent difficulty of translating broad religious unity into concrete, coordinated political action.
Phase 2: Fragmentation, Bilateral Peace, and Economic Leverage (1973–2000)
This phase saw the decline of collective ideology and the rise of pragmatic national decision-making, irreversibly fracturing the unified Arab stance.
The Camp David Shock: The Collapse of the Arab Front
The most profound rupture in the collective response was the Camp David Accords (1978), leading to the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Egypt, the military and cultural heart of the Arab world, prioritized recovering its Sinai territory and securing its national interests (with substantial US aid) over the collective Arab goal.
The response from the Arab League was fierce: Egypt was suspended, and the Arab League headquarters were moved from Cairo to Tunis. This reaction, while symbolizing outrage and upholding the principle of collective action, further entrenched fragmentation. It proved that any state willing to break ranks could secure its own national objectives without the collective body having the means to prevent it, confirming that the collective security structure of the Arab world was permanently fractured by the prioritization of national sovereignty. The subsequent 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel, similarly driven by national economic and security imperatives, further normalized this trend.
The Weaponization of Oil: Economic Leverage and Its Limits
The 1973 OPEC oil embargo was arguably the single most successful collective action taken by Muslim states in response to the conflict. Led by the Arab oil-producing states, the embargo aimed to punish states supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War.
This response revealed a potent tool: economic leverage. It demonstrated that the Muslim world, specifically the oil-rich Arab Gulf states, possessed the capacity to coordinate policy that significantly impacted global geopolitical dynamics. However, the sustained application of this leverage proved impossible. Future attempts at coordinated economic pressure were often undercut by national financial requirements, the massive influx of oil wealth requiring stable Western consumer markets, and the long-term dependency of Gulf economies on secure, US-backed stability. The lesson learned was that economic self-interest ultimately constrained the political use of the ‘oil weapon,’ confirming that long-term stability and economic partnership with the West were higher geopolitical priorities than sustained conflict over Palestine.
The Oslo Accords and the Internal Fragmentation of the Palestinian Cause
The Oslo Accords (1993) marked a critical turning point where the Arab states effectively outsourced the political solution to the newly established Palestinian Authority (PA). While the Arab League officially supported the Accords as a potential path to a state, they also represented a passive retreat by Arab states from direct responsibility.
The response to Oslo was internally divisive:
1. State Support
The Arab League generally supported the two-state framework, seeing it as the only viable diplomatic exit from decades of conflict.
2. Internal Opposition
Non-state actors and large segments of the Arab public viewed Oslo as a betrayal, leading to the definitive split in Palestinian political representation (PLO vs. Hamas).
This fragmentation mirrored the broader Muslim world’s division, with some states supporting the diplomatic track (PA) and others supporting the resistance movements (Hamas/Hezbollah), thereby creating geopolitical proxy conflicts within the Palestinian cause itself.
Phase 3: The Era of Normalization and Strategic Retreat (2000–Present)
The contemporary era is defined by the collapse of the two-state solution, the rise of powerful regional rivalries, and the overt prioritization of national interests through normalization with Israel.
The Arab Peace Initiative (2002)
In response to the Second Intifada, the Arab League collectively put forward the Arab Peace Initiative (API). This initiative offered Israel full normalization of relations and comprehensive peace with all 57 OIC member states in exchange for a complete withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967 and a "just and agreed-upon solution" for Palestinian refugees.
The API represented the Muslim world's most unified and comprehensive diplomatic offer—a powerful display of collective leverage. However, it failed because:
1. Lack of Israeli Engagement
Israel largely ignored the initiative, viewing it as a non-starter, particularly regarding the refugee issue.
2. Lack of Enforcement Mechanism
The Arab world failed to provide any coercive economic or political mechanism (e.g., threatened oil embargo or withdrawal of diplomatic ties) to force the initiative onto the international agenda. Its ultimate failure proved that collective diplomacy without a collective enforcement mechanism is toothless.
Geopolitical Competition and the Politicization of the Conflict
The conflict has increasingly become a function of the internal geopolitical struggle between regional power blocs, primarily the rivalry between the Iranian-led "Axis of Resistance" and the Saudi-led bloc of pragmatic Arab monarchies.
1. The Axis of Resistance
Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and other non-state actors frame the conflict as an ideological struggle against Zionism and Western hegemony. This alignment uses the Palestinian cause as a legitimizing tool for their regional expansion and influence, prioritizing ideological commitment and regional power projection over diplomatic settlement.
2. The Pragmatic Bloc
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states prioritize regime security, economic diversification, and countering Iranian influence. This strategic pivot shifted the definition of the primary threat from Israel to Iran, creating the political space necessary for the subsequent normalization process. The Palestinian issue became a liability rather than a unifying banner.
The Abraham Accords (2020) and the End of Collective Preconditions
The signing of the Abraham Accords between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco marked a definitive strategic retreat by key Arab states. These treaties shattered the 2002 API consensus, which had stipulated that normalization must only occur after the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The Accords revealed the ultimate geopolitical priority of the signatory states: national security and economic integration. By prioritizing shared security concerns (primarily against Iran) and access to advanced technology, investment, and tourism, these states effectively decoupled the Palestinian issue from their national decision-making. This action confirmed that regime survival and economic integration with the West are the highest geopolitical priorities, fully superseding the theological and historical obligation to maintain a unified front on Palestine. The official responses from the OIC and the Arab League were weak and divided, merely underscoring the irreversible collapse of collective diplomatic unity.
Non-State Actors, Grassroots Solidarity, and Humanitarian Responses
While state responses have often been fragmented, the response from non-state actors and the global Muslim public remains a consistent and powerful expression of Ummah solidarity.
The Role of Resistance Movements and Proxies
Palestinian resistance movements (Hamas, Islamic Jihad) and allied non-state actors (Hezbollah in Lebanon) have consistently acted as the primary military response to the conflict since the 1980s. Their existence is a direct consequence of the failure of Arab states to uphold the Farḍ Kifāyah.
These groups, often relying on funding and strategic backing from states like Iran, sustain a military deterrent that prevents the total abandonment of the Palestinian cause by the Arab political elite. However, their actions have also served to further politicize and divide the response, forcing Arab states into contradictory positions where they publicly condemn the resistance while covertly allowing political and financial support to continue under popular pressure. This dynamic reveals a geopolitical strategy of "managed tension," where governments pay lip service to the cause while maintaining stability.
The Power of Global Humanitarian and Civil Society Action
The strongest, most unified, and most consistent response from the Muslim world comes from the grassroots and civil society. This reflects the pure, unadulterated commitment to Takaful (mutual responsibility).
1. Financial Contributions
Billions of dollars in Zakat (obligatory charity) and Ṣadaqah (voluntary charity) flow annually from the global Ummah (from Indonesia to the UK) to Palestine via international Islamic relief organizations. The sheer volume of this financial support confirms that solidarity at the popular level is absolute and non-negotiable, adhering strictly to the religious obligation of protecting the poor and oppressed.
2. Mass Protests and Advocacy
During crises, Muslims worldwide mobilize in massive protests. These demonstrations pressure local governments to take a stronger diplomatic stance and counteract normalization efforts. This sustained popular pressure is the only collective force preventing most Muslim governments from fully abandoning the Palestinian cause.
The Role of Non-Arab Muslim States (Turkey and Iran)
The emergence of major non-Arab Muslim powers like Turkey and Iran as key players in the conflict further highlights the collapse of Arab leadership.
1. Turkey's Neo-Ottoman Stance
Under President Erdoğan, Turkey has positioned itself as the ideological champion of the Palestinian cause, employing sharp rhetoric and diplomatic confrontation with Israel. This response is driven by a desire for regional leadership and ideological soft power across the Ummah, positioning Turkey as a more authentic defender of the cause than the traditionally aligned Arab states.
2. Iran's Ideological Strategy
Iran has made the elimination of Israel a core tenet of its foreign policy, funding and arming proxies. This response is fundamentally driven by ideology and a strategic goal of regional encirclement against its rivals (Israel and the US-allied Arab states).
These non-Arab responses reveal that the vacuum left by the failure of collective Arab action has been filled by states with their own distinct geopolitical and ideological agendas, further complicating a unified diplomatic strategy.
Geopolitical Priorities Revealed by the Response
The history of the Muslim world's response to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a chronicle of the internal triumph of the nation-state over the Ummah ideal, revealing a clear hierarchy of geopolitical priorities.
Priority 1: Regime Survival and National Security
For nearly all governments in the region, the highest priority is the stability and survival of the ruling regime. Any policy toward Palestine is measured first by its potential impact on domestic stability.
● Containment of Islamism
Many regimes fear that an overtly aggressive stance against Israel could destabilize their relationship with the U.S. and Europe, or, conversely, empower domestic Islamist opposition groups who champion the Palestinian cause more fervently.
● Security Cooperation
The Abraham Accords solidified a security alliance prioritizing intelligence sharing and defense against mutual threats (Iran, domestic insurgency), demonstrating that immediate security needs trump historical solidarity.
Priority 2: Economic Integration and Resource Access
Maintaining access to global capital, technology, and stable oil markets is the second-highest priority. The economic dependency of most Muslim-majority states on Western economies and markets restricts the use of meaningful economic leverage (like the 1973 oil embargo). The desire for foreign direct investment (FDI) and technology transfer from global powers has become a powerful moderating force, making economic partnership a higher strategic priority than coordinated political confrontation. The Palestinian cause is often viewed as a potential hindrance to ambitious economic visions (e.g., Saudi Vision 2030).
Priority 3: Countering Regional Rivalry and Internal Fragmentation
The primary geopolitical focus of the wealthy and powerful Arab states is not Palestine, but managing internal and regional power balances, particularly the containment of Iranian influence. The focus on Iran, intra-GCC disputes, and conflicts in Yemen and Libya consumes the vast majority of diplomatic energy and military resources, marginalizing Palestine to a secondary, rhetorical issue. This reveals that inter-Muslim conflicts and power struggles have become a higher priority than collective action against an external occupier.
The Failure of Collective Diplomacy and the Principle of Shūra
The OIC and the Arab League consistently fail because they lack the core Islamic principle of effective Shūra (consultation) backed by executive accountability. Decisions are driven by diplomatic compromise and national vetoes, not by the collective Maslaha (public interest) of the Ummah. The lack of a shared strategic vision means that collective diplomacy serves primarily to issue strongly worded, non-binding condemnations, a function that satisfies domestic religious constituencies without incurring significant geopolitical costs.
Conclusion
The Muslim world's response to the Israel-Palestine conflict is a poignant revelation of the profound chasm between the theological ideals of the Ummah and the geopolitical realities of the modern nation-state system. While the religious imperative for justice (’Adl) and collective defense (Farḍ Kifāyah) remains deeply etched in the hearts of the global Muslim populace, the actions of sovereign Muslim governments are overwhelmingly dictated by the immediate, pragmatic concerns of regime survival, national security, and economic stability.
The trajectory from the unified military failure of 1948 to the normalization accords of 2020 demonstrates a clear and consistent pattern: the strategic retreat from the Palestinian cause as a collective primary issue. This retreat is underpinned by the realization that collective military action is strategically impossible, and sustained economic leverage is financially prohibitive. The response has devolved into a polarized duality: the enduring, powerful grassroots solidarity of the Ummah (manifested through aid and protest) versus the self-interested diplomatic fragmentation of the nation-states. Ultimately, the conflict reveals a Muslim world that possesses immense collective moral weight but critically lacks the institutional unity and political will necessary to translate that weight into decisive, coordinated diplomatic or coercive action on its central cause.
