Eight foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey issued a joint statement on February 1 sharply criticizing Israel for repeated violations of the Gaza ceasefire, blaming the breaches for more than 1,000 Palestinian casualties. The statement warned that such actions risk inflaming tensions and undermining efforts to consolidate the ceasefire and restore stability in the enclave. The ministers demanded full implementation of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement and called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint.
The foreign ministers said Israel’s conduct constitutes a direct threat to the political process and urged all actors to take concrete steps to preserve the current truce, enable reconstruction and safeguard Palestinian self-determination and the right to statehood. The communiqué emphasized the need to avoid any measures that could derail the fragile progress toward a broader stabilization and recovery agenda in Gaza. The appeal frames the ceasefire not merely as a pause in hostilities but as a hinge for diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives.
The intervention by this diverse group of predominantly Muslim-majority states is notable for its breadth: it includes Gulf monarchies that have in recent years pursued varying degrees of engagement with Israel alongside states that retain longstanding opposition to Israeli policy. That coalition amplifies regional political pressure on Israel while signaling cross-regional concern over the humanitarian toll in Gaza and the durability of ceasefire arrangements. The timing—coming after an Israeli airstrike in Khan Younis on January 31 that again sent plumes of smoke over southern Gaza—adds urgency to calls for sustained international involvement.
For outside audiences, the statement matters because it modestly narrows the political space for normalisation and business-as-usual approaches to the Israel-Palestine question in the Arab and broader Muslim world. While the ministers stopped short of concrete punitive measures, their public rebuke can translate into increased diplomatic activity at the United Nations and among mediators, potential coordination on humanitarian channels, and domestic pressure on governments that have cultivated ties with Israel. The longer-term significance depends on whether these statements are backed by coordinated policy steps or remain rhetorical pressure without operational follow-through.