The recent Extraordinary Joint OIC-Arab Summit meeting unfolded predictably as inconsequential theatre, featuring statements and resolutions denouncing double standards in implementing international law, condemning displacement, and reiterating the demand for a ceasefire. But, it lacked any commitment to substantial actions that could compel Israel and its allies to change course. Most telling was what it failed to address, revealing what journalist Antony Loewenstein described as a “wilful impotence” of the Arab elites.
The Summit provided the broader Muslim community, the ummah, with a glimpse of its double standards on Palestine, shedding light on the real issues and views held by its leaders. It clarified which countries aligned with Israel and which with Palestine, and to what extent. Notably, it failed to heed Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan’s plea to “talk with one voice that the Palestinian cause must be solved from the basis of the Palestinian rights, and not any other basis.”
The actual drama took place at the 22-member League of Arab States Summit meeting, where four "important clauses" emerged, effectively dividing the Arab League into anti- and pro-Israel stances. These clauses included prohibiting the use of US and other military bases in Arab countries to supply Israel with weapons and ammunition, freezing Arab diplomatic, economic, military, and security relations with Israel, issuing threats to leverage oil and economic capabilities to apply pressure and halt ongoing aggression, and preventing Israeli aviation from accessing Arab airspace.
For the average person, these proposals seem entirely reasonable. However, only half of the Arab member countries were willing to take a decisive stand against Israel and endorse them. This exposed the Arab League members – Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and UAE – for defeating the "important clauses" and substituting the proposed "concrete measures" with "vague non-committal clauses" that can only contribute to the ongoing genocide. This is tantamount to complicity.
The Summit provided the broader Muslim community, the ummah, with a glimpse of its double standards on Palestine, shedding light on the real issues and views held by its leaders
Following the rejection of the Arab League resolution, the matter was then referred to the 57-member OIC Summit, which turned out to be an even greater tragedy. It rejected the Iranian president’s 10-point proposal that provided a more comprehensive response to the Israeli aggression and included declaring the Israeli army a terrorist organisation. After a long list of condemnations, affirmations, and desires, the 31-clause resolution did not affirm the legitimacy of Hamas and its resistance. It failed to mention that the two-state solution had been completely undermined and lacked anything substantive or new thinking to move the agenda forward. While calling on others to act, the OIC omitted the Arab League's punitive important clauses without expressing any willingness to take actions that might compel a change.
Senior columnist Zahid Hussain’s Shameful Capitulation indignantly described the resolution as “another shameful act of betrayal of the hapless Palestinian population who are facing genocide. Their inaction virtually makes these countries abettors in the mass killings”.
Hussain's indignation is not a mere conscientious protest. Under international law, aiding, abetting, and complicity in genocide are considered crimes. By supplying and/or failing to prevent vital resources and support, directly or indirectly fuelling Israel’s genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the Arab League and OIC member states are arguably contributing materially to supporting and/or sustaining grotesque criminality. Knowledge or recklessness regarding the probable consequences of such support, whether by omission or commission, may be sufficient for establishing the necessary intent to prove such crimes.
Sending humanitarian aid to Gaza, despite knowing that it will not reach the Palestinians, at the same, reassuring Israel that relations will not be affected by its current genocidal spat - a morally odious policy of “running with the hare and hunting with the hounds” - is barefaced hypocrisy. As of November 25, 2023, ambassadors have been recalled, but very few, if any, Muslim or Arab countries, including Turkey, have terminated or suspended their diplomatic, economic, military, or security relations with Israel.
After the horrific killing of over 19,000 civilians, two-thirds of whom were women and children, with nearly 60,000 injured, over 3,000 detained without charge, and massive destruction of essential infrastructure, including hospitals, some Arab and Muslim leaders have announced modest steps. Djibouti, Bangladesh, and Comoros have approached the International Criminal Court (ICC), calling for an investigation. Oman has closed its airspace to Israeli flights, and Dubai has suspended Emirates flights to Israel. Jordan has rejected a water and energy deal with Israel, and the Maldives is moving to close entry to Israeli citizens.
Despite the rhetoric and resolutions, with a few exceptions, the reality is that support for the Palestinians is often influenced by self-serving parochial interests and trade rather than a commitment to Palestinian rights. It is a pursuit of profit than principle.
It is crucial to hold our governments accountable and prevent them from being complicit in the genocide against the Palestinians through what has been described as "wilful impotence" — which effectively grants Israelis a license to continue with mass indiscriminate killing
For ordinary Muslims and Arabs, the issue is less about realpolitik and profits; it's about innocent people being slaughtered to seize and occupy Palestinian land, putting an end to clear and manifest injustice, zulm, both in humanitarian and international law terms. There is a moral clarity that zulm is unconscionable and must be confronted. Equally, it is unconscionable that leaders are prioritising self-interest over protecting lives and dignity.
The Qur'anic obligations to stand firmly for justice and speaking out for truth are clear. Legally, the UN Genocide Convention obliges states to take measures to prevent and punish genocide (Art. I) if they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals (Art. IV).
As settled by Pinochet and other precedents, countries and individuals suspected of complicity may be held to account legally. The Centre for Constitutional Rights (US) and the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians (UK and Canada) are initiating legal processes against their government officials. Human rights groups, such as Al Haq, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, have filed a lawsuit against Israel at the ICC. The French lawyer Gilles Devers, with hundreds of volunteer lawyers representing Gaza victims, has submitted a complaint to the ICC.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with the Muslims, civil society, and legal professionals to challenge government policies that are morally repugnant and legally vacuous. This can be achieved by mobilising public opinion to pressure leaders to take more significant actions in support of the Palestinians. It is crucial to hold our governments accountable and prevent them from being complicit in the genocide against the Palestinians through what has been described as "wilful impotence" — which effectively grants Israelis a license to continue with mass indiscriminate killing.