Islamic Schism

The Palestine-Israel conflict has been one of the most complex geopolitical issues in the world for more than seven decades. The question of why Islamic countries do not unite to fight Israel and defend Palestine often arises in the midst of global debate. The answer to this question is not simple, because there are various factors that influence the actions of Islamic countries, ranging from political, economic, to diplomatic dynamics.

The consideration of whether Gazans should temporarily move from the region during the conflict is a very complex and sensitive issue. It is related to considerations of security, human rights, national identity, and very complicated political and economic conditions. To answer this question, let us examine some important aspects that need to be considered.

One of the main reasons why Islamic countries do not directly fight Israel is because of the complexity of international diplomacy. International relations today are based on a system of laws and rules regulated by international organizations such as the United Nations (UN). Many countries, including Islamic countries, are bound by obligations to follow international norms, which prohibit war except for self-defense purposes.

The conflict between Palestine and Israel is also influenced by various UN resolutions that call for a peaceful solution based on negotiations between the two parties. Islamic countries, in an effort to maintain their relations with the international community, often choose to support diplomatic efforts rather than engage in military action that could be considered a violation of international law.

Every country has different national interests, including Islamic countries. Although many have historically supported the Palestinian cause, relations with Israel are not always black and white. Several Islamic countries, such as Egypt, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, have signed peace treaties with Israel. Egypt and Jordan, for example, have peace treaties that were concluded after major wars in the mid-20th century.

Other factors that influence Islamic countries’ decisions include regional alliances and national security. For example, several Gulf states have concerns about Iran’s influence in the Middle East, which has led them to form alliances with the United States and other Western countries, including Israel. The perceived threat from Iran is often seen as greater than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, so they focus more on regional stability than fighting Israel.

Internal divisions among Arab countries and the Islamic world are also one reason why there has been no uniform military action against Israel. While many Islamic countries support Palestine, they often have different views on how best to achieve a solution. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan have different interests than countries like Iran, Syria, or non-state groups like Hezbollah.

In addition, ideological differences between Sunni and Shia countries also play a large role in exacerbating these divisions. Iran, for example, which is predominantly Shia, has different views than Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia. While Iran actively supports groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that oppose Israel, Sunni countries in the Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are more focused on their own internal security and forming alliances with the United States.

Another factor influencing the decisions of Islamic countries is international pressure and influence. Major powers such as the United States and the European Union play a significant role in maintaining the balance of power in the Middle East. The United States, in particular, has very close ties with Israel, and many Islamic countries depend on the United States for economic and military support.

In this situation, Islamic countries are often bound by the need to maintain good relations with the world's major powers. They face a complex dilemma, in which military action against Israel could lead to diplomatic and economic isolation from Western countries. For example, Egypt and Jordan, which have signed peace treaties with Israel, receive economic and military aid from the United States. Aggressive action against Israel could threaten the continuation of this aid.

Globalization and economic ties also play a significant role in Islamic countries' decisions regarding Israel. Many Islamic countries have a strong dependence on international trade, especially with Western countries. Israel is one of the countries that has significant economic and technological influence in the region. For example, Israel is known as a leader in technology, agriculture, and defense, which makes neighboring countries more interested in maintaining diplomatic and economic relations than in going to war.

In addition, some Islamic countries, especially the oil-rich Gulf states, have economies that are integrated into the global system. They are heavily dependent on international investment and oil exports, which makes them more cautious about taking military action that could have a negative impact on their economic stability.

Many Islamic countries also face significant domestic challenges that prevent them from focusing their resources on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya, for example, are embroiled in civil wars or experiencing serious political instability. This instability leaves them with neither the ability nor the desire to engage in another major conflict.

Even relatively stable countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have internal challenges that they must prioritize. Social discontent, the threat of terrorism, and the need to maintain domestic political stability are often the primary concerns of governments. In these conditions, starting a war against Israel is considered unrealistic and high-risk.

Islamic countries often use diplomacy and international organizations to pressure Israel regarding the conflict with Palestine. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, for example, is one platform through which Islamic countries seek to support Palestine through diplomacy and international pressure. In addition, many Muslim countries support the UN-led peace initiative to seek a two-state solution as a means to resolve the conflict.

These diplomatic efforts reflect a more cautious and strategic approach than direct military action. Muslim countries recognize that a full-scale war against Israel could end in disaster and destruction, not only for the Palestinians, but for the entire region.

One of the most recent developments in relations between Islamic countries and Israel is the attempt to normalize relations. The Abraham Accords signed by several Arab countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco, represent a change in attitude toward Israel. Although this normalization has drawn criticism from some quarters, including in the Islamic world, it reflects a strategic shift from military confrontation to a diplomatic and economic approach.

This normalization of relations is also driven by regional economic and security interests. Some Arab countries see Israel as a potential partner in confronting regional threats, such as Iran, as well as an important source of investment and technology.

The inability or unwillingness of Islamic countries to fight Israel in defense of Palestine is the result of a complex set of factors. International diplomacy, regional alliances, internal divisions, economic pressures, and the influence of globalization all play a role in shaping these countries’ decisions. In addition, many Islamic countries prefer diplomatic and peacemaking approaches to military confrontation that could lead to further instability in the region.

Security is one of the main reasons why many people might think that temporarily moving out of Gaza could be a solution. The Gaza Strip is a frequent war zone, with airstrikes, shelling, and military operations posing serious threats to the daily lives of its residents. In the ongoing conflict, the lives of Gazans are at great risk. For some, seeking refuge elsewhere may be seen as a way to escape immediate danger.

However, moving out of Gaza is not an easy solution for most residents. The blockade imposed on Gaza’s borders severely limits mobility out of the territory. Even if residents wanted to temporarily evacuate, they may not have sufficient access to do so. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that neighboring countries or other territories would be able or willing to accept large numbers of refugees.

For many Gazans, their land is a symbol of their national and cultural identity. Evacuating or leaving Gaza, even temporarily, could be seen as a betrayal of their struggle to maintain their rights to their land and territory. Many Palestinians have lived in Gaza for generations, and for them, this land is part of a long history that includes the struggle against occupation.

For some, displacement can be seen as a victory for those seeking to displace them from their land. This reinforces the narrative that forced displacement, whether through conflict or displacement, is a form of ethnic cleansing or an attempt to change the demographics of the region. As such, many Gazans choose to remain despite the hardships because they feel a moral and historical responsibility to defend their land.

While there have been calls to evacuate Gazans for their safety, the international community must also take responsibility for providing better solutions. Temporary displacement may not be an ideal long-term solution as many Gazans will become refugees elsewhere, facing new challenges such as job loss, limited access to basic services, and legal uncertainty.

In addition, refugee crises often place a heavy burden on neighboring countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, which have already hosted millions of Palestine refugees. These countries’ capacity to continue receiving and caring for refugees from Gaza is severely limited, and they often lack the resources needed to provide adequate protection and support.

Rather than focusing on temporary solutions such as resettling Gazans, global attention should be directed toward resolving the conflict in the long term. One way to ensure the long-term security of Gazans is to find a peaceful solution that ends the violence. Numerous diplomatic efforts have been made to find a peaceful resolution between the Palestinians and Israelis, but no agreement has yet been reached that will provide lasting security.

As long as the conflict remains unresolved, Gazans will continue to face the threat of violence, whether they temporarily relocate or remain. Therefore, a permanent solution that involves negotiation, respect for Palestinian rights, and support from the international community is essential.

Temporarily relocating from Gaza also poses significant logistical challenges. The territory is surrounded by a blockade imposed by Israel and Egypt, which restricts the movement of goods and people. With limited access to exit, Gazans do not have the freedom to travel easily.

In addition, many Gazans live in poverty, with limited access to basic resources such as food, water, and electricity. Relocating elsewhere requires resources that many do not have. Even if residents have the desire to relocate, they may not be financially or logistically able to do so.

Displacement, or leaving one’s home, often has severe social and psychological consequences. For many Gazans, moving to another location, even temporarily, can cause further trauma, especially if they have experienced violence or lost family members in the conflict. Leaving their homeland, even in an emergency, can exacerbate feelings of loss and uncertainty.

Children and young people growing up in Gaza also face significant psychological consequences due to the violence and uncertainty they face on a daily basis. If they are displaced, they may face new challenges in terms of social adaptation and education, which could affect their development in the long term.

Overall, the question of whether Gazans should temporarily relocate is complex and does not have an easy answer. There are many factors to consider, including security, human rights, national identity, international support, and psychological impacts.

The most important solution is to establish a just and sustainable peace in the region, so that Gazans do not have to consider the option of moving from their land. International support, diplomatic pressure, and efforts to find a solution that respects the rights of Palestinians must be a priority. In the meantime, the world must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to Gazans living in extremely difficult conditions, whether they choose to stay or temporarily flee.