The Doha Summit: A symbolic gesture or a call for change?

On 15 September 2025, the Arab-Islamic summit convened in Doha, Qatar, in response to Israel’s airstrikes on Qatar and Gaza, once again highlighting the enduring dynamics of Arab-Israeli diplomacy. Despite expressions of solidarity with Qatar and Palestine, the summit ended with symbolic gestures rather than actions that could influence Israeli policy or shift the broader geopolitical landscape. This raises the recurring question: Why does Arab diplomacy, especially in relation to Israel, remain mired in cycles of condemnation without follow-through? The answer lies in a mix of historical inertia, internal divisions, and the influence of global powers—problems that no summit, no matter how vocal, has been able to solve.

Arab diplomacy regarding Israel has a long and complex history, rooted in the geopolitical context of the Middle East. Since the creation of Israel in 1948, Arab states have repeatedly condemned Israeli aggression, issuing numerous declarations and organising summits to express solidarity with Palestine. The founding of Israel resulted in a series of conflicts with neighbouring Arab countries, starting with the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Following the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel’s territorial expansion led to further tensions, and the Arab world’s response has remained largely reactive.

The Arab League, the primary diplomatic body for Arab nations, has maintained a firm stance against Israel, but these positions have often been more symbolic than substantive. The 1967 Khartoum Resolution is a prime example, where the Arab League’s “three no’s”—no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations with Israel—symbolised unity but failed to change Israel’s policies. Rather than translating into strategic actions, it reinforced a pattern of symbolic gestures. This pattern has persisted, with the Doha summit providing another instance of condemnation without real action.

One critical reason for the ineffectiveness of Arab diplomacy is fragmentation within the Arab world itself. Arab states, once united in opposition to Israel, now find themselves divided along political, economic, and strategic lines. While some Gulf states, like the UAE and Bahrain, have normalised relations with Israel through agreements like the Abraham Accords, others, such as Qatar and Kuwait, continue to oppose Israeli policies vocally. This internal division weakens the Arab League’s ability to present a united front against Israel.

The UAE and Bahrain’s shift toward normalisation, driven by pragmatic economic and security considerations, has reshaped the region’s geopolitics. These countries, seeking stability and growth, have aligned with Israel, weakening collective Arab opposition. In contrast, Qatar remains steadfast in supporting Palestinian rights, increasingly isolated in the changing Arab world. The division within the Arab states, rooted in national interests and political ideologies, dilutes their diplomatic leverage, making coordinated action against Israel less likely.

Arab diplomacy is further constrained by the influence of global powers, particularly the United States, which has long been a key ally of Israel. The US provides military, economic, and diplomatic support to Israel, complicating Arab efforts to challenge Israeli policies, given their reliance on the US for security and economic stability. Despite vocal opposition to Israeli actions, Arab countries find themselves unable to act decisively without risking the stability provided by US support.

READ: Contrary to US claims, Israel informed Trump of Qatar attack beforehand: Report

This dynamic is explained through realist theory in international relations, as articulated by Hans Morgenthau. Realism asserts that states prioritise their national interests—chiefly power and security—above all else. For Arab states, this means maintaining relations with the US despite their vocal support for Palestine. Morgenthau’s theory illustrates how Arab states’ diplomatic paralysis stems from the need to preserve their security and alliances, even if it prevents them from taking meaningful action against Israel.

The cycle of symbolic diplomacy remains a persistent feature of Arab-Israeli relations. Arab states continue to condemn Israeli actions, but these statements often lack any substantial follow-up that might alter the political landscape. Each new Israeli military action prompts an automatic reaction from Arab leaders—a call for solidarity with Palestine, a demand for international intervention, and reaffirmation of support for the Palestinian cause—but with no substantial policy changes.

This cycle of reactionary diplomacy is deeply ingrained in Arab diplomatic culture. Alexander Wendt’s constructivist theory of international relations suggests that states’ identities and behaviours are shaped by shared norms and practices. For the Arab world, the identity as defenders of Palestinian rights has reinforced the repetitive nature of their diplomatic responses. This creates a form of diplomacy that focuses more on reaffirming Arab identity and unity than on producing meaningful change in the region’s power dynamics.

Arab diplomacy toward Israel has thus become a series of rituals designed more for internal solidarity than for achieving substantive shifts in the region’s power dynamics. These gestures reinforce the status quo, sidelining the Arab world in its dealings with Israel. Rather than shifting the balance of power, Arab diplomatic efforts merely reaffirm existing power structures, ensuring that the Arab world remains largely sidelined in its dealings with Israel.

Despite the ongoing challenges, there are moments that offer hope for change. The recent increased solidarity among Gulf states, especially in response to Israeli attacks on Qatar, suggests a potential shift in the region’s dynamics. While still in its early stages, this solidarity could lay the groundwork for more coordinated diplomatic efforts in the future.

However, for real change to occur, Arab states must overcome the deep-seated divisions within their ranks and reduce their dependence on external powers like the US. Until Arab states can unite and develop a cohesive, independent diplomatic strategy, their efforts will likely remain symbolic. As Ilan Berman notes, without a significant shift in Arab unity and policy, the cycle of symbolic gestures is unlikely to end.

The Doha summit of 2025, like its predecessors, failed to produce meaningful change in international policy or Israeli behaviour. Arab diplomacy, despite its vocal commitments, remains stuck in cycles of symbolic gestures that fail to challenge the status quo. This diplomatic inertia is driven by internal divisions among Arab states, the influence of global powers, and the repetition of established diplomatic behaviours. Until Arab states overcome these obstacles and develop a coordinated, independent strategy, the prospects for meaningful change remain bleak. The Arab world, despite its calls for solidarity with Palestine, remains trapped in a cycle of inaction, constrained by history, geopolitics, and the influence of powerful external actors.

OPINION: The Doha assassination plot, emergency summit, and Trump’s double-cross

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.