Nournews: Trump’s Gaza initiative was announced at a time when public opinion across the Islamic world is demanding an immediate halt to the war and an end to the crimes of the Zionist regime. The reaction of eight Arab and Islamic countries came in the form of a collective statement, yet no sign of full acceptance of Trump’s plan can be found in it. What was welcomed was the act of making a proposal and the effort to end the war—not the details of the plan. This seemingly minor distinction carries significant meaning: the countries want to show that the door to dialogue remains open, but they do not intend to remain silent on clauses such as Hamas’s disarmament or the deployment of foreign forces. Such a smart distancing is, in fact, a tactic to reduce political pressure from Washington while keeping room for maneuver in the future.
Diplomacy of carefully chosen words
The language of the statement also carries multilayered messages. The emphasis on “positive and constructive engagement with relevant parties” shows that the drafters deliberately left the scope of actors broad enough to include Hamas. Such phrasing is a form of coded diplomatic language that reassures Washington while holding special meaning for resistance groups. At the same time, these carefully chosen words help present the statement as a common stance, even though deep differences lie beneath among the signatories. This art of wording allows the countries to simultaneously send a message of reassurance to the United States while shielding themselves from waves of domestic criticism.
Rifts among the aignatories
The political reality behind the scenes is different from what appears in the official text. The UAE and Saudi Arabia lean more toward aligning with the security-oriented and hardline aspects of Trump’s plan. In contrast, Turkey, Qatar, Indonesia, and Pakistan seek to preserve their close ties with Hamas and Palestinian popular movements. Egypt and Jordan stand somewhere in between, more concerned about the stability of their borders and the domestic repercussions of the Gaza crisis. Thus, the joint statement is not a genuine consensus but the product of diplomatic give-and-take—a fragile agreement designed to keep divisions from surfacing. This diversity of perspectives could in the future lead each country to pursue its own independent course on Gaza, potentially causing the collective framework to collapse.
An uncertain future and a heavy responsibility
The final section of the statement refers to principles that outwardly favor Palestine: unhindered delivery of humanitarian aid, prevention of forced displacement, full reconstruction of Gaza, the release of hostages, and realization of the two-state solution. However, the lack of concrete mechanisms to implement these principles is a serious weakness. The countries wish to show they stand with the Palestinian people, yet they bear no real cost to achieve these goals. In practice, such a statement serves less to stop the war than to buy time and deflect direct criticism. The fundamental question is whether these governments will move beyond statements and exert real political and economic pressure on Israel—or even on Trump himself. The answer will determine not only the fate of this statement but also the future role of Islamic countries in the Gaza crisis.
NOURNEWS