Israel’s attack on Qatar could be a watershed
Hamas Political Bureau member Suhail al-Hindi on Al
Jazeera
By James M. Dorsey
Thank
you for joining me today.
The rise of Artificial Intelligence
magnifies the importance of journalists with true expertise, top-notch
sourcing, and historical depth. These journalists, like me, tell and analyse
in-depth stories. Their goal is to enhance their readers and listeners’ ability
to form informed opinions of their own.
We don’t just chronicle events. Our
reporting and analysis are shaped by years of on-the-ground coverage,
expertise, and historical knowledge. In my case, I have covered geopolitics,
the Middle East, and the Muslim world for decades, having been based in
multiple countries, including Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UAE,
Lebanon, Kuwait, and Turkey.
Hard-hitting reporting and analysis that
lets the chips fall where they may is even more critical in a world of brutal
wars, unimaginable humanitarian crises, and increasing authoritarianism.
That is The Turbulent World with James
M. Dorsey’s mission since its inception 15 years ago.
Thousands worldwide are avid readers and
listeners of The Turbulent World. Join them in helping to maintain and expand
the column and podcast by becoming a paid supporter by clicking here.
Subscribing allows you to participate in
a poll, listen to the podcast, watch the video, access the archive, post
comments, and direct message me with your questions.
Israel’s risky strike against Qatar was neither an
unmitigated success in Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s terms nor a
complete failure, even if it’s too early for a definitive cost-benefit analysis
of what could prove to be a watershed.
Hamas was quick to declare that its top leaders had survived
the attack on a villa in a lofty Doha neighbourhood. Six people
were reported killed in the attack.
The Hamas statement left open whether any of the leaders
were wounded in the attack.
None of the leaders has been seen in public since the
attack except for Political Bureau member Suhail al-Hindi, who appeared in an
Al-Jazeera interview.
Mr. Al-Hindi said the Hamas leadership was “safe and
secure,” but added that their “blood was no different from that of any
Palestinian man, woman, or child.”
It was unclear whether Mr. Al-Hindi attended the Hamas
meeting called to discuss the latest Israel-endorsed US proposal for an end to
the Gaza war.
What is certain is that the attack, at least for now, has
disrupted efforts to achieve a Gaza ceasefire and likely persuaded Qatar to
pause its mediation effort, allowing Israel to move forward with its planned
occupation of Gaza City.
Mr. Al-Hindi said the Hamas leadership was discussing the
latest ceasefire proposal with a “positive outlook” when Israel attacked. He left
unsaid what that positive outlook entailed.
Even so, the gap between the positions of the United
States, Israel, and Hamas remained wide.
In the last six weeks, Hamas has largely agreed to
proposals put forward by the mediators, Qatar, Egypt, and the United States.
The latest proposal called for a 60-day ceasefire, the
release of the remaining 48 hostages immediately after the ceasefire takes
effect, the disarming of Hamas, whose Gaza-based leaders would go into exile,
and the installation of a post-war administration of the Strip.
The proposal further called for the flow of humanitarian
aid into Gaza, but did not address the quantity of aid, who would distribute
it, or what types of goods would be allowed in.
Israel has repeatedly rejected Hamas’s offer to release
the hostages in one go in exchange for an end to the war and an Israeli
withdrawal from Gaza.
The US proposal suggested that President Donald Trump
would guarantee that Israel and Hamas “negotiate in good faith until an
agreement is reached.”
Israel has insisted that neither Hamas nor the West
Bank-based, internationally recognised Palestine Authority would be part of the
post-war administration.
Arab countries have rejected any role in a post-war
administration without the Palestine Authority and a credible Israeli
commitment to a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
involving the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Most Arab countries agree that Hamas should not be part
of a post-war administration but disagree with Israel’s devastation of Gaza and
throttling of the flow of humanitarian aid into the Strip as a way of
destroying Hamas and reject Israel’s intention to depopulate Gaza.
It is also early days in determining the impact the
Israeli strike may have on US relations with Middle Eastern countries.
One key determinant is when and how the United States was
aware of the Israeli intention to attack Hamas in Qatar.
Israel has insisted that neither Hamas nor the West
Bank-based, internationally recognised Palestine Authority would be part of the
post-war administration.
Arab countries have rejected any role in a post-war
administration without the Palestine Authority and a credible Israeli
commitment to a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,
involving the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Most Arab countries agree that Hamas should not be part
of a post-war administration but disagree with Israel’s devastation of Gaza and
throttling of the flow of humanitarian aid into the Strip as a way of
destroying Hamas and reject Israel’s intention to depopulate Gaza.
It is also early days in determining the impact the
Israeli strike may have on US relations with Middle Eastern countries.
One key determinant is when and how the United States was
aware of the Israeli intention to attack Hamas in Qatar.
White
House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the US military had
informed the Trump administration of the attack but refused to indicate whether
Israel had told the military or whether the military was relying on its
surveillance capabilities.
It is unclear how much detail Israel gave the military,
if it was the military’s source.
Qatar hosts the US military’s largest base in the Middle
East.
Mr. Trump insisted that he had no advance knowledge of
the attack.
What appears to be clear is that the United States knew
about the attack only minutes before the Israeli planes released their
ordinance.
If so, the United States may not have given the green
light for the attack.
US credibility in the Gulf, which relies on the United
States for its security, will likely ride on how it responds to the Israeli
attack.
Fresh in Gulf minds is Mr.
Trump’s failure to rush to Saudi Arabia’s aid when Iranian-backed Yemeni
Houthi rebels claimed responsibility for attacks on the kingdom’s oil
facilities in 2019 during the president’s first term in office.
Add to that the fact that Gulf perceptions of Israel have
changed as a result of Israel’s wars in the last two years. Once perceived as a
potential security partner, Israel today is viewed by many as a rogue state
that threatens regional security and stability.
“I’m not thrilled about the whole situation. It’s not a
good situation. But I will say this, we want the hostages back, but we are not
thrilled about the way that went down,” Mr. Trump told reporters. Mr. Trump
said he would be issuing a “full statement” on Wednesday.
Ms. Leavitt’s carefully crafted statement asserted that
the Israeli attack served neither US nor Israeli interests.
The question is whether and what steps Mr. Trump might
take to rein in Israel. Taking steps could be a watershed.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at
Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The
Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.
Comments
Post a Comment