As images of destruction and suffering continue to emerge from Gaza, many around the world are asking: Where are the Arab leaders? Why the silence?
The answer, while frustrating to some, is rooted not in apathy, but in a complex web of diplomacy, regional rivalries, and decades of shifting geopolitical realities. It also includes uncomfortable historical ironies — particularly concerning Hamas, the very group now central to the conflict.
Diplomatic Balancing Acts
Many Arab countries have condemned Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. However, most have stopped short of taking concrete action such as severing diplomatic ties or imposing sanctions. This is largely due to evolving regional dynamics. Several Arab nations, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, have normalized relations with Israel under the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords.
Saudi Arabia, a regional power broker, has publicly labeled Israel’s military operations in Gaza and Lebanon as “barbaric massacres.” Yet it has prioritized diplomacy, engaging in international summits and ceasefire talks rather than taking direct action.
Egypt: The Strategic Mediator
Egypt, which borders Gaza, plays a critical role in mediation and humanitarian access. While publicly condemning the blockade and warning of efforts to displace Gazans, Egypt is also wary of empowering Hamas, which it associates with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt walks a careful line — facilitating aid, pushing for ceasefires, and proposing post-war reconstruction plans that aim to exclude Hamas from power.
Jordan’s Outspoken Criticism
Jordan has been among the most vocal critics of Israeli actions. Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi accused Israel of committing genocide, and King Abdullah has demanded international accountability. However, Jordan is also bound by a peace treaty with Israel and heavily depends on U.S. financial and military aid, making overt actions unlikely.
UAE and Morocco: Strategic Restraint
Though both the United Arab Emirates and Morocco have normalized ties with Israel, they have publicly condemned civilian casualties. The UAE, in particular, has said it will not support postwar plans for Gaza unless a Palestinian state is established — indicating its preference for long-term diplomatic solutions over reactionary measures.
The Arab League: Rhetoric vs. Reality
The Arab League has issued formal condemnations, called for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and encouraged its members to sever military and economic ties with Israel. Yet the League’s internal divisions and limited enforcement mechanisms have made such resolutions more symbolic than actionable.
Public Opinion vs. Government Action
In Cairo, Amman, Casablanca, and beyond, thousands have protested in solidarity with Gaza. A recent poll by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies found overwhelming public support for stronger governmental responses. However, Arab leaders remain cautious, fearing domestic instability and international fallout.
Historical Irony: Hamas and Israeli Policy in the 1980s
Amid the current conflict, few recall that Hamas itself emerged with indirect Israeli tolerance. Founded in 1987 as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas originally focused on Islamic education and charity — not armed resistance.
At the time, Israel considered the secular PLO a greater threat and, according to former Israeli officials and journalistic investigations, allowed Islamist groups to grow unchecked in Gaza. Brigadier General Yitzhak Segev, an Israeli military governor in Gaza during the 1980s, later admitted:
“We made a mistake… we thought religious movements could be a counterweight to the nationalists. Now we realize we helped create a monster.”
Though Israel did not directly create or fund Hamas, its strategic decisions helped lay the groundwork for Hamas’s rise. The group later evolved into a militant resistance movement, prompting a complete reversal in Israeli policy by the 1990s.
This historical context deepens the irony of today’s conflict — and complicates how regional actors, many of whom also fear political Islam, respond to Hamas’s central role in Gaza.
Can the PLO Reclaim Leadership of the Palestinians?
In the wake of Gaza’s devastation, many voices are calling for the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to reclaim its role as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Officially recognized by the UN, Arab League, and many governments, the PLO signed the Oslo Accords and created the Palestinian Authority (PA) — which currently governs parts of the West Bank. However, since 2007, Hamas has ruled Gaza independently, following a violent split from the PA. Hamas does not belong to the PLO, and repeated reconciliation efforts have failed.
Reasserting PLO leadership over both Gaza and the West Bank would require:
National unity and a powr-sharing arrangement. Reform of the Palestinian Authority, which many Palestinians view as corrupt or ineffective. Broad international and regional backing, especially from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Western powers. There is growing diplomatic momentum behind this idea, especially in proposals for postwar governance. If achieved, a unified leadership under the PLO could restore Palestinian diplomatic standing and give fresh impetus to the long-stalled peace process.
In conclusion, the perceived silence of Arab governments is more nuanced than it appears. Their positions reflect internal political risks, diplomatic calculations, and a tangled historical legacy. The revival of a united Palestinian leadership — particularly through the PLO — may yet emerge as the most viable path forward. But without political courage, popular legitimacy, and regional unity, the suffering in Gaza may only deepen, and the prospects for peace may remain distant.
Fuseini Abdulai Braimah
0550558008 / 0208282575
[email protected]
