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 neighborhood. 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.
Ceasefire proposals and sticking points
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 disarmament 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 recognized 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.
Hamas has repeatedly conceded that it would not be part of a post-war Gaza administration but has rejected disarmament as long as the Palestinians do not have their own state. 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.
US credibility on the line
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 became 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.
[The Turbulent World first published this piece.]
[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
The post Israel’s Attack on Qatar Could Be a Watershed for the Israel-Gaza Conflict appeared first on Fair Observer.
from Fair Observer https://ift.tt/hVy6O2t
0 Comments