The Gaza War has brought the Middle East to the edge of a humanitarian abyss. As missiles fall and casualties rise, the diplomatic machinery of the Islamic world has begun to stir, at times with vigor, but too often with hesitancy. In the face of an unrelenting crisis, three of the region’s key multilateral organizations, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), have stepped into the arena, each claiming to represent the collective conscience of the Arab and Muslim world. Their actions, statements, and summits reflect a blend of moral outrage, diplomatic maneuvering, and strategic caution. Yet their effectiveness remains under sharp scrutiny.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
Formed in the spirit of unity and common identity, these organizations were designed to project a consolidated voice for their member states, especially during moments of regional upheaval. The OIC, comprising 57 Muslim-majority nations, aims to protect the rights and interests of Muslims worldwide. The Arab League, a bloc of 22 Arab states, aspires to foster political and economic cooperation while addressing issues central to Arab identity, especially the Palestinian cause. The GCC, consisting of six Gulf nations, was built around economic integration and regional security cooperation. In theory, all three should stand aligned in the face of widespread violence and human suffering. In practice, unity is harder to maintain.
The recent Gaza crisis has seen these organizations rally publicly against Israeli aggression, albeit with differing degrees of coordination and commitment. The OIC convened an extraordinary session in Istanbul, where it launched a campaign to counter Israel’s disinformation strategy. Turkish delegate Fahrettin Altun forcefully condemned Israel’s violations of international law, describing the actions in Gaza as clear breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention, and the Rome Statute. His words, amplified by others at the session, focused on forced displacement, civilian casualties, and war crimes. The OIC did more than just condemn; it called for a global awareness campaign to challenge the narrative pushed by Israeli media and its allies.
Ambassador Riyad Mansour of Palestine echoed this urgency, expressing frustration with the paralysis of the UN Security Council. He urged the Islamic world not to relent in pushing for action and emphasized the need for an immediate ceasefire. The OIC, in his view, was one of the few remaining platforms capable of advocating meaningfully for Palestinian rights at the global level. The organization’s demand for General Assembly resolutions and international accountability provided a rare moral anchor in an otherwise faltering diplomatic landscape.
The Arab League, too, made moves to challenge Israeli actions. Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit criticized what he termed Israel’s “time-bomb policies,” warning that unchecked aggression was robbing the region of any chance at sustainable peace. The League denounced the international community’s double standards and reaffirmed its support for Palestinian self-determination. It endorsed South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of genocide, marking a rare instance of collective legal action by Arab states.
The GCC, meanwhile, assembled its leaders in Doha to express collective condemnation of the violence. Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani used the moment to call on the UN Security Council to halt what he described as barbaric actions. He reaffirmed support for a two-state solution and called for accountability under international law. Qatar’s efforts, though symbolic in many ways, at least kept the Palestinian issue in international headlines.
Yet, for all the vocal support and formal gestures, cracks within and between these organizations have weakened their overall impact. In the case of the OIC, unity remains elusive. Saudi Arabia, widely seen as the de facto leader of the Muslim world, has shown restraint in its response. Along with the UAE and several other member states, Riyadh rejected calls, mainly from Iran and Syria, to sever diplomatic ties with Israel. While Turkiye and Iran demanded decisive action, others hedged their positions. The result was a watered-down consensus that fell short of meaningful political leverage.
The Arab League, for its part, has long struggled with internal contradictions. While some member states maintain active diplomatic relations with Israel, most notably the UAE and Bahrain, which normalised ties under the Abraham Accords, others remain in staunch opposition. This divergence, rooted in neorealist calculations of military, economic, and geopolitical interests, has diluted the League’s moral authority. When some members cooperate with a state that others accuse of war crimes, a unified front becomes impossible. The League’s failure to mobilize around a ceasefire resolution at the UN further exposed its limitations.
The GCC faces similar challenges. While its statement in Doha condemned Israel’s actions, internal coherence is lacking. Member states have pursued varied relationships with Israel, and the bloc has shown little appetite for collective diplomatic penalties. More concerning was the group’s response to the failed UN ceasefire resolution, which was vetoed by the United States. Rather than press forward with an alternative plan or pursue independent diplomatic avenues, the GCC largely expressed disappointment and moved on. Qatar and Kuwait have remained vocal, but others have fallen silent. Calls for full Palestinian statehood have yet to be matched with actionable steps.
This fragmentation across the Muslim and Arab world is not new, but in the context of Gaza, it has become painfully visible. Even as children die in airstrikes and hospitals run out of supplies, political calculations continue to trump collective morality. Statements are made, press releases issued, and special sessions held, but when it comes to tangible action, inertia prevails.
Critically, this crisis has exposed the delicate dance between sovereignty and solidarity in the Muslim world. While member states of these organizations agree in principle on Palestinian rights, they disagree on how far they are willing to go to defend them. For some, economic ties with Western powers and security cooperation with Israel outweigh the costs of breaking ranks. For others, like Iran and Syria, the Palestinian cause remains a core tenet of foreign policy, used both as a symbol of resistance and a lever of regional influence.
Moreover, the failure of these organizations to press the UN Security Council for meaningful action underscores their waning diplomatic clout. Despite having numerical strength in international bodies, Muslim and Arab countries have struggled to transform condemnation into consequence. Their inability to rally non-aligned states or propose enforceable solutions has further marginalized them in global decision-making circles.
Still, it would be wrong to dismiss their efforts entirely. These organizations have helped keep the Palestinian issue on the international agenda. They have organised diplomatic forums, supported legal action at international courts, and maintained pressure, however symbolic, on global institutions to respond. In doing so, they have offered a platform for Palestine to speak, even when other doors were closed.
Want to Prepare for CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis Papers?
Learn to write persuasive and argumentative essays and master precis writing with Sir Syed Kazim Ali to qualify for CSS and PMS exams with high scores. Limited seats available; join now to enhance your writing and secure your success.
The question now is whether these organizations can evolve into vehicles for real influence or remain forums for rhetorical solidarity. For that to happen, a few imperatives are clear. First, unity must be prioritized over political posturing. Second, symbolic resolutions must be matched with economic and diplomatic strategies that carry real consequences. Third, internal contradictions must be addressed, particularly regarding ties with Israel, if collective action is to mean anything at all.
In conclusion, the OIC, Arab League, and GCC have all played visible roles in responding to the Gaza crisis, raising their voices against atrocities and calling for a ceasefire. Yet their inability to translate outrage into action has limited their impact. While they have succeeded in highlighting the plight of Palestinians on the world stage, they have so far failed to influence events on the ground. As the war in Gaza grinds on, these institutions must decide whether to remain spectators or become true instruments of justice, unity, and peace in the Middle East. The credibility of their missions, and the hope of millions, may well depend on that choice.
