����ֱ��

The emergency session of Organization of Islamic Cooperation foreign ministers held in Jeddah last Monday transcended routine diplomatic proceedings. Convened during one of the Gaza war’s most brutal chapters, the gathering highlighted how Palestinian affairs have evolved beyond regional politics into a litmus test for the global commitment to justice and legal principles.
The summit’s closing declaration employed unusually blunt language, denouncing “Israeli schemes for the total occupation and military dominance of Gaza,” while characterizing “blockades, forced starvation and mass expulsions as severe breaches of humanitarian law constituting war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.” Beyond demanding the immediate cessation of hostilities and unrestricted humanitarian corridor access, delegates called for sanctions and Israel’s UN suspension — language reflecting documented legal assessments rather than political rhetoric.
����ֱ�� assumed a pivotal conference role. Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan condemned the “occupation forces’ most abhorrent practices, including murder, starvation and forced displacement,” and demanded “the termination of Gaza’s siege and urgent, adequate crossing openings for relief supplies.” He rejected the “Greater Israel concept,” while reaffirming the Kingdom’s commitment to “Palestinians’ historic right to statehood within the 1967 boundaries with East Jerusalem as capital.”
The proceedings in Jeddah extended beyond collective statements toward meaningful diplomatic engagement. Prince Faisal’s meeting on the sidelines with his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, represented a crucial test of the potential for Riyadh-Tehran practical cooperation. While Araghchi endorsed the OIC declaration, he emphasized that “implementation matters most,” advocating that Islamic nations “sever commercial and diplomatic Israeli ties.” ����ֱ�� prioritized pragmatic international mechanisms encompassing humanitarian assistance and legal channels.
The contrasting approaches are evident: Iran’s maximalist positions regardless of feasibility versus ����ֱ��’s balance between principles, realism and effective diplomatic-legal pressure. Nevertheless, Saudi-Iranian convergences remain significant — particularly shared concerns that ongoing warfare destabilizes the region and that impunity erodes international legal credibility.

Prince Faisal’s meeting with Araghchi represented a crucial test of the potential for Riyadh-Tehran cooperation.

Hassan Al-Mustafa

Should Tehran temper its ideological messaging and embrace practical steps within established international institutions, Saudi-Iranian collaboration through OIC frameworks could amplify efforts toward Gaza ceasefire possibilities, despite the extremist Israeli government’s persistence with policies of starvation, occupation and forced displacement.
Europe’s positioning, especially France’s stance, reinforces this approach’s significance. President Emmanuel Macron consistently maintains that the two-state solution represents the sole sustainable pathway to peace. Paris supports international conferences establishing clear conflict resolution roadmaps. The alignment of ����ֱ��’s strategic two-state commitment with France’s revival of a comprehensive peace process creates opportunities for broader international cooperation that transcends condemnation and leads to concrete action.
Such developments would present US President Donald Trump with additional political and humanitarian considerations amid mounting pressure due to the famine in Gaza. More than 40 senators in July petitioned the State Department, warning that the current aid distribution mechanisms are ineffective and crisis-aggravating. These pressures also reflect shifting public sentiment, with recent polling showing 55 percent of Americans want a ceasefire. Trump faces a stark choice: either maintain unconditional support for Israel despite the domestic and international political costs or pursue negotiations and a truce to restore America’s credibility as a peace broker. Riyadh’s preferred outcome would be Washington guaranteeing a comprehensive and permanent termination of the Gaza war.
The escalating humanitarian conditions and constrained political options confronting Israel and its supporters enhance the value of the regional initiatives, including potential Saudi-Iranian cooperation. This creates cumulative contexts supported by multiple European and global capitals, as well as widespread public opinion, which Washington and Tel Aviv are increasingly struggling to dismiss indefinitely.
The Jeddah OIC foreign ministerial meeting demonstrated the capacity for Islamic convergence on Palestinian issues despite the divergent perspectives. However, the developments in Gaza and the West Bank test not only the Palestinian leadership — requiring internal reconciliation around coherent, rational programs — but also the effectiveness of joint Islamic action in restoring international law and regional stability, granting this organization genuine influence over urgent matters.

• Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and researcher interested in Islamic movements, the development of religious discourse and the relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran.X: @Halmustafa