What were reactions from global Muslim political leaders to Trump's Middle East policies like the Abraham Accords and Jerusalem recognition?
Executive summary
Global Muslim political leaders offered a mix of pragmatic engagement and sharp public criticism of Trump’s Israel policies—praising diplomatic openings like the Abraham Accords while condemning unilateral steps over Jerusalem and Palestinian displacement plans. Regional monarchs and Gulf officials worked with Washington on normalization and security ties [1] [2], while many Arab and Muslim leaders, together with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and domestic political forces, denounced U.S. recognition of Jerusalem and proposals seen as displacing Palestinians [3] [4] [5].
1. A dual-track of statecraft: normalization vs. public outrage
Many Muslim-majority governments pursued a pragmatic course: they deepened ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords and continued engagement with the Trump administration to secure security and economic benefits [1] [2]. At the same time, leaders could not ignore widespread public sentiment and regional political costs; when Washington took unilateral actions affecting Jerusalem or proposed displacement of Palestinians, official and popular reactions hardened quickly [1] [3] [4].
2. Gulf capitals: buying security and influence, tolerating political heat
Gulf states such as the UAE and Bahrain consolidated diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel under the Accords and engaged with U.S. policies that bolstered a regional security architecture—but they also signalled limits when Israeli actions threatened Palestinian interests or regional stability [1] [2]. Analysts and think‑tanks note Gulf pragmatism aims to manage Iran and attract investment, even as public opinion and some political elites remain hostile to perceived Palestinian abandonment [1] [6].
3. The institutional Muslim response: coordinated condemnation on Jerusalem
When the U.S. recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Muslim political institutions and coalitions pushed a unified diplomatic rebuttal: the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and leaders from across the Muslim world called for recognition of East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital and rejected unilateral U.S. moves as legally and politically provocative [4] [3]. Historical memory of Jerusalem’s religious importance underpinned these statements and amplified their domestic resonance [7] [8].
4. Popular politics forced leaders to push back
Beyond formal statements, leaders faced street protests and domestic political pressure that constrained policy choices. Reporting and analysis document mass demonstrations and broad public denunciation across Arab states after U.S. actions on Jerusalem and later proposals about Gaza displacement—these grassroots reactions reinforced official rejection of any plan seen as dispossessing Palestinians [5] [9] [10].
5. Divergence over the “day after” for Gaza and broader strategy
Trump’s later proposals for Gaza, including controversial ideas about displacement or U.S. stewardship, produced near‑unanimous rejection among Arab and Muslim leaders and unified them politically against such options [5] [9]. Simultaneously, the administration sought to use the Accords architecture and post‑war planning to bind Arab states into reconstruction and security arrangements—an approach that leaders weighed differently depending on domestic politics and strategic priorities [11] [12].
6. Critics warn of erosion of Palestinian leverage and long‑term risks
Scholars and regional commentators warned that normalization without credible Israeli concessions on Palestinians weakens traditional Arab bargaining chips and risks backlash that could undermine the Accords’ durability. Some analysts argue unchecked Israeli policies in Gaza and the West Bank strain the Accords and could prompt Arab and Muslim actors to seek alternative regional security groupings [11] [13] [6].
7. Mixed long-term picture: Accords endure, but under stress
By mid‑to‑late 2025 the Abraham Accords remained a living framework—expanded in some cases and praised by proponents as a strategic success—yet they were politically tested by wartime dynamics, Israeli military actions, and U.S. policy shifts that unsettled partners and publics [2] [14] [1]. Governments publicly courted economic and security gains while privately recalibrating ties in response to regional events [1] [15].
Limitations: available sources document statements, protests, think‑tank and media analysis but do not provide a comprehensive catalogue of every Muslim political leader’s private views or classified diplomatic exchanges; those are not found in current reporting (not found in current reporting).