Language is the DNA of a person or a nation. The words political leaders choose to describe the world around them often reflect their positionality in relation to conflicts and wars. Israel’s continued ideological war in Palestine and now in Iran, fully supported by the United States, reveals as much about division among Muslim countries as it does about the actions of the aggressors themselves. A considerable body of evidence suggests that one of the primary strategies of an aggressor is to isolate bystanders who might otherwise support the victims. This pattern appears to be visible in the prevailing conflicts across the Muslim world.

The Muslim world has long appeared fragmented when it comes to taking a profound and legal stance that directly declares Israel as responsible for grave violations, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Our corpus analysis of statements issued by leaders of Muslim countries on their Twitter handles regarding the Israel-US attacks on Palestine, and more recently on Iran, reveals distinct discursive patterns of response. Regarding Palestine, three broad groups of countries emerge. The first group, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Oman, Egypt, and Yemen, adopted a strong position. These countries explicitly condemned Israel’s brutality against Palestinians and described the attacks as an ongoing genocide, while urging the international community to implement UN resolutions and support an independent Palestinian state.

In a world increasingly dominated by conflicts, the language of international diplomacy must reinforce the fundamental expectation of the global community, including the pursuit of peace, stability, and respect for international law, instead of the normalisation of war and an expansionist agenda.

In a world increasingly dominated by conflicts, the language of international diplomacy must reinforce the fundamental expectation of the global community, including the pursuit of peace, stability, and respect for international law, instead of the normalisation of war and an expansionist agenda.

A second group, including Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Iraq, adopted a more moderate diplomatic tone. Their statements expressed concern over civilian suffering and called for humanitarian protection, but avoided strong accusatory language directed at Israel. They relied heavily on passive expressions that masked the aggressor.

The third group, including Jordan, Kuwait, and Bahrain, expressed largely symbolic positions. Their statements were brief and avoided explicit condemnation of Israel’s actions. Characterised by short diplomatic formulations and limited lexical intensity, their statements functioned largely as symbolic gestures of concern.

The Israel-US attack on Iran on February 28, however, revealed a different discursive pattern of division within the Muslim world. In this case, the responses largely oscillate into two categories.

The first group, including Qatar, the UAE, Malaysia, and Egypt, remained largely silent regarding the alleged unprovoked attack by Israel and the US on Iran. No clear official statements appeared on their X accounts to condemn the unprovoked attack. Instead, these countries, along with Jordan, Bahrain, and Oman, focused on condemning Iranian retaliatory strikes on US military bases and regional entities. Their statements reflected a cautious diplomatic approach aimed at maintaining regional stability while avoiding direct geopolitical alignment.

The second group, including Türkiye, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, adopted a clearer position. These countries used stronger language, explicitly referring to violations of sovereignty and regional escalation. President Erdo?an stated that the “America-Israel attacks on our neighbor Iran” were deeply concerning and constituted a violation of Iran’s sovereignty, warning that the region could turn into a “ring of fire” if diplomacy failed. The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs firmly stated that Saudi soil will not be used for any attack on Iran and condemned Israel’s expansionist agenda. Similarly, the Iraqi leadership expressed solidarity with Iran and rejected operations that violated Iranian sovereignty, while supporting efforts to stop military escalation. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also condemned the “dangerous regional escalation following the Israeli invasion on Iran,” while emphasising Pakistan’s readiness to contribute to peace and stability in the region.

Based on the analysis of the statements issued by Muslim leaders, one notable limitation is the absence of clear attribution of responsibility in many official statements. A large number of responses rely on generalised diplomatic language such as “escalation,” “violence,” or “regional instability,” without explicitly declaring the actors responsible for initiating the aggression. This linguistic strategy may be diplomatically cautious, but it weakens the strength of the message. The study of the first author suggests that when aggressors are not explicitly named or held accountable, the discourse risks normalising violence by framing conflicts as symmetrical crises. Moreover, the silence or ambiguity of bystanders may inadvertently embolden the aggressors’ hostile actions. Ultimately, the aggressors target each bystander one by one, depending on their specific vulnerabilities.

Another limitation is the dominance of humanitarian rhetoric over legal framing. Many statements emphasise humanitarian aid, calls for restraint, or regional stability, but fewer consistently invoke the full vocabulary of international law, accountability, and justice. Linguistic reform in diplomatic communication could therefore involve clearer references to violations of international law, sovereignty, and civilian protection. In doing so, Muslim countries could strengthen their position and align their discourse with global principles of justice and rule-based order. Such clarity would transform their statements from mere symbolic expressions of concern into direct calls for accountability.

Finally, improving positionality also requires discursive consistency and collective action. Fragmented statements that vary widely in tone and intensity weaken the perception of unity within the Muslim world and reduce the overall influence of their diplomatic messaging. A more coordinated linguistic approach through regional forums such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) could help establish a shared vocabulary that clearly condemns aggression, defends sovereignty, and calls for peaceful resolution.

The language used in the joint statement issued by Muslim countries at the OIC on October 23 2025, offers an epistemic model for Muslim leaders to adopt when condemning the Israel-US attack on Iran. This statement signals to the aggressors that they stand united against hostile actions.

In a world increasingly dominated by conflicts, the language of international diplomacy must reinforce the fundamental expectation of the global community, including the pursuit of peace, stability, and respect for international law, instead of the normalisation of war and an expansionist agenda. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously observed, “In the end, it is not the words of our enemies that matter, but the silence of our friends.”

The first author is a Professor of English at Riphah International University, Lahore. He is a lead guest editor at Emerald and Springer publishing.

The second author is an Assistant Professor of English at Govt. Graduate College for Women, Samanabad, Lahore

© Daily Times