Quarterly Journal of Political
Research in Islamic World

he twelve-day war of June 2025 raised a question about Islamic solidarity: how far was it reflected in a joint response by Muslim states? This article uses qualitative document analysis to examine eight official texts, including multilateral statements, an OIC resolution, and statements from Oman, Qatar, and Türkiye. Two additional documents from the United Nations and Israel’s diplomatic mission provide context. The conceptual framework draws on constructivism, collective action, and institutionalism, with attention to domestic politics and the credibility of commitments. Organized around three research questions, the findings distinguish condemnation from assigned institutional responsibilities and reported action. They identify provisions for a ministerial contact group, diplomatic tasks, reciprocal claims concerning sovereignty, and reported contacts concerning a ceasefire. These texts, however, do not establish that collective pressure was implemented or that it independently influenced Israeli calculations. Evidence about how decision-makers received these messages and incorporated them into their choices is missing, while competing explanations remain relevant. The possibility that weak implementation of collective commitments lowered the expected costs of continued attacks therefore remains a hypothesis. The article argues for reviewable responsibilities, reciprocal protection of sovereignty, and continued channels for de-escalation. It concludes that stated support, implementation, and political effects require separate assessment.