Delegations from over ten countries walk out of Israeli president's CICA summit speech

More than 10 country delegations left the CICA summit room when Israeli President Isaac Herzog began his speech. The walkout was a visible diplomatic protest during a major Asian security gathering. Turkey was among the countries identified as taking part.

The action happened in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Thursday. Delegates did not remain for the start of Herzog’s address. The article does not list every country involved or explain each delegation’s reason for leaving. It does, however, connect the protest with wider disagreement over Israel’s role in regional security.

Iran responded directly after the speech. Its deputy legal affairs minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, called for Israel to be expelled from CICA. He argued that security should come through mutual respect, trust-building, and equal cooperation, rather than threats and pressure. The walkout therefore combined a public protest with a demand for institutional action.

The article gives the scale as more than 10 countries. That means the protest involved at least 11 national delegations, although no exact total is provided. Turkey is the only country specifically identified among those that walked out.

The walkout began when Israeli President Isaac Herzog started his speech at the CICA summit. It occurred in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Thursday. The wording indicates that representatives, rather than necessarily every official from each country, left the venue. The article does not name the other delegations.

This distinction matters because the number is a broad figure, not a full attendance record. It shows a substantial, coordinated display of opposition, but it does not establish that all participating CICA members joined. Iran’s subsequent call to expel Israel added a separate official demand to the protest.

CICA stands for the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia. It is a regional diplomatic forum focused on interaction and confidence-building among Asian states. Its importance comes from creating a setting where countries can address security concerns through dialogue rather than relying only on confrontation.

The summit in the article was held in Baku, Azerbaijan. Representatives from more than 10 countries walked out when Israeli President Isaac Herzog began speaking. Iran’s deputy legal affairs minister then argued that Asia’s sustainable security required mutual respect, trust-building, and equal cooperation among independent states.

The article presents CICA as a mechanism connected to wider Asian security. It does not describe the organisation’s membership rules, voting system, or specific programmes. In this episode, the summit became both a diplomatic meeting and a stage for disagreement over Israel’s participation. Iran’s call for expulsion shows that membership itself had become part of the security dispute.

Israel, Iran, and Turkey have different security priorities and regional partnerships, which places them on opposing sides of many West Asian disputes. Israel views Iran as a major security threat. Iran rejects Israel’s regional legitimacy and supports groups opposed to Israel. Turkey has often criticised Israeli policies, especially regarding Palestinians, while also pursuing its own regional interests.

These differences affect diplomacy, military planning, and public statements. Iran’s representative at the summit called Israel the most important source of insecurity and instability in West Asia. Turkey’s delegates joined the walkout when Herzog began speaking. Those actions reflect political opposition, though the article does not explain Turkey’s specific reasoning.

The broader rivalry does not mean every issue produces identical positions. Relations and alignments can change by subject and period. In this event, however, the divide was clear: several delegations protested Herzog’s appearance, while Iran went further by demanding Israel’s removal from CICA. This context helps explain the summit’s tension.

A coordinated walkout is a highly visible diplomatic signal. It can show that several governments reject a speaker’s policies or presence without ending formal relations. For Israel, the event may create reputational pressure and highlight opposition to its role in an Asian security forum. The article confirms the protest, but not its measurable diplomatic effects.

For CICA, the walkout can shift attention from the summit’s agenda to a dispute over participation. Iran’s deputy legal affairs minister called for Israel’s expulsion after Herzog’s speech. That converts a symbolic protest into a demand for institutional action. It also exposes disagreement among members about how the forum should address regional security.

The consequences are not automatic. A walkout does not itself remove a member or change CICA’s rules. Its longer-term impact would depend on whether governments pursue Iran’s demand, whether CICA discusses it, and whether further members support or reject the proposal. The article gives no outcome beyond the call for expulsion.

If Israel were expelled from the CICA mechanism, it would no longer participate as a member in the forum’s relevant meetings, discussions, or confidence-building activities. It would also lose its formal place in a regional diplomatic mechanism. The article reports only a demand for expulsion, not an actual decision or its practical terms.

Such a decision would normally require action through CICA’s established institutional process. That could involve member governments, formal consultations, and whatever voting or consensus rules govern membership. However, the article does not state CICA’s expulsion procedure, threshold, or whether members can block such a move. Those details cannot be determined from the report.

The immediate political meaning would be significant. Iran would have secured a formal response to its accusation that Israel drives insecurity in West Asia. CICA would also have to manage a sharper internal divide over membership and security principles. Until members take a decision, Israel remains part of the mechanism described in the article.

Confidence-building measures are agreements or actions designed to reduce fear and uncertainty between states. They can include regular dialogue, advance notice of military activities, communication channels, shared monitoring, and exchanges of information. The goal is not to erase disagreements, but to make each side’s intentions clearer and lower the chance of accidental escalation.

The article highlights the principles behind this approach. Iran’s Kazem Gharibabadi said sustainable security should come through mutual respect, trust-building, and equal cooperation among independent states. These ideas work by replacing threats and pressure with predictable contact. When governments can verify claims and communicate during a crisis, they have more options than immediate retaliation.

CICA’s name places confidence-building at the centre of its diplomatic purpose. The walkout shows that trust remains contested among participating states. Still, the summit provides a setting for discussion. Whether it can reduce conflict depends on members’ willingness to cooperate, respect one another, and maintain communication despite serious disputes.