Many people wonder why leaders of several Arab nations appear quiet or hesitant to take strong action regarding the conflict in Gaza, despite expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. The reasons are not simple and are tied to a long history of deep connections with Western powers, particularly the United States. These relationships are built on a mix of security, economic interests, and a desire for political stability.

A key factor is the security relationship many Arab governments have with the West. For decades, these nations have relied on countries like the United States for advanced military equipment, training, and a security umbrella in a volatile region. This dependency means that taking a strong stance against a key Western ally or its partners could jeopardize their own national security. Leaders often weigh the potential risks of losing this powerful support against the pressure to act, and many choose to maintain the existing balance to protect their own countries from other regional threats.

Economics also plays a huge role. The economies of many Arab nations are deeply intertwined with the global financial system, which is heavily influenced by the West. They are major players in the global energy market, and their wealth is often invested in Western countries. Disrupting these economic ties by taking drastic political action could lead to sanctions or economic instability at home. For these leaders, ensuring their country’s economic prosperity and the stability of their own rule often becomes the top priority. They may offer aid and make statements of condemnation, but they stop short of actions that could harm their economic partnerships.

When leaders remain quiet or take a more measured approach, they are often making a calculation to preserve the status quo. By maintaining good relations with Western powers, they ensure the continued flow of military aid, protect their economic interests, and maintain their own political power. For some governments, the priority has shifted from a unified Arab position to focusing on their own national development and security. Agreements in recent years that have normalized relations between some Arab states and Israel are a clear sign of this shift, where perceived benefits of trade and security cooperation have been prioritized.

Regarding American politics, it is common for presidential candidates to make promises on the campaign trail that are difficult to keep once in office. President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to end “endless wars” and reduce America’s involvement in the Middle East. This message appealed to many voters, including some Muslims, who were tired of conflict in the region.

However, once in office, a president faces complex realities. Decisions are influenced by government agencies, existing alliances, and long-standing foreign policy goals. During his presidency, Trump’s administration took several actions that were seen by many as a strong alignment with Israel.⁷ This included moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and helping to broker the Abraham Accords, which saw several Arab nations formalize diplomatic ties with Israel. These actions were viewed by some of his supporters as a departure from his promise to disengage, and by many in the Muslim world as a betrayal of the Palestinian cause. This highlights the frequent gap between campaign rhetoric and the actual policies enacted once a leader is in power.