Afrasianet - Dr. Mohamed Halsa - The attack on Doha shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel has chosen the path of risk management—that is, achieving a potential immediate deterrence and, in fact, change at the expense of the prospect of a prolonged crisis prolonging.
Israel launched a blatant military attack on the capital of a neutral Gulf Arab state and a key mediator in the negotiations between Israel and Hamas, under the pretext of "eliminating Hamas leaders who oppose the deal and are responsible for the events of October 7, 2023." Although this is a dangerous precedent that contradicts all the accepted rules of conduct in the international arena, the damage that may be done to Israel's image and legitimacy in the world has not been mentioned in the internal Israeli debate related to this process.
In principle, the Israeli debate is not about the legitimacy of the strike, nor about the violation of state sovereignty or international law, but rather on two main issues, the first of which is related to the reservations of some about the timing of the attack and the extent to which it will affect the chances of releasing Israeli prisoners, especially with the assessments that the attack on Qatar could overthrow the negotiation process and reduce the chances of releasing the remaining prisoners alive.
The head of the Mossad, for example, proposed during internal Israeli consultations that the attack in Doha be postponed for a week, but he did not oppose the operation in principle. The same applies to the rest of the leaders of the security services, who, by expressing reservations about the timing of the operation, wanted to distance themselves from the expected negative consequences on the lives of Israeli prisoners, thus exempting them, i.e., the commanders of the security services, from any subsequent criticism or accountability.
The second issue is related to the tendency of the Israeli majority, which applauds and boasts about the strike, to override the reservations related to its timing and its negative impact on the Israeli prisoners, if it succeeds in eliminating the Hamas leadership, in the hope of a strategic achievement whose political security value exceeds the negotiation track or the damage resulting from its sabotage.
In fact, the attack on Doha did not come as a passing emotional whim in the wake of the Jerusalem redemption operation, or as an expression of wrong calculations and bets on the part of Netanyahu and his government, but rather as a translation of plans that have been put forward on the Israeli political and security discussion table since the outbreak of the war on Gaza, but it was waiting for the right moment for implementation.
Netanyahu's calculations also probably did not mention the damage that may be caused to the relationship with the United States and President Trump, if the narrative that he learned of the attack belatedly, as Israel bets, as usual, that Trump will be able to swallow this blow and contain its repercussions with his Arab allies, and some "quiet American reproach" that Israel understands the American need for in the context of distancing itself and saving face in front of the Arab allies, as the attack exacerbates the dilemmas of the United States in its need for Maintaining a balance between its allies in the region, and opening a new, more challenging chapter in the relationship between Israel and its Arab neighbor.
This is reinforced by the narratives issued by the White House with the aim of disavowing participation in the Israeli strike on Qatar, which is picked up and promoted by the Hebrew media, including "that it was the Pentagon that informed the White House after the observation of missiles fired towards Qatar, that President Trump knew about the strike after it was carried out and could not warn his ally Qatar until it was too late, and that he pledged to the Emir of Qatar not to repeat what happened in the future.."!
It is believed, even in Israeli circles, that Israel carried out its attack in Doha as "an alternative to a focused operation that was previously planned to be carried out in Turkey and was postponed." According to the probability, "Netanyahu and his government are convinced that the Trump administration will be able to resolve the issue with Doha, unlike Ankara, which, given its NATO membership, will escalate the situation, which could cost Israel a heavier political and economic price." From this, it is understood that the Israelis calculated the cost difference in responding politically and economically when they carried out the attack In the Qatari arena, and not on the principle of the legitimacy of the attack in the first place!
It is no longer a secret that Israel is acting with the logic of brute force arrogance, and is trying to impose new equations on the entire Middle East without any regard for the sovereignty of states or international laws and relations. For Israel, even if its attack on Doha does not achieve its goal of eliminating the Hamas leadership, it has sought to send a dual message to the movement and its host, Qatar, which strives to establish itself as a neutral mediator in conflict zones around the world and as a diplomatic and commercial hub immune to attacks The rules of the game have changed, as confirmed by the statement of the Speaker of the Israeli Knesset when he said that "the attack on Doha is a message to the entire Middle East."
Most of the countries of the world have condemned the Israeli attack on Qatar as a flagrant violation of its sovereignty and the rules of immunity in international relations enjoyed by the mediator, and some even considered it an attack on the security of the Gulf. The question that must now be asked by the Arabs remains: Are the Arabs taking steps that impose on Israel the consequences of its attack on Doha?.
Israel declares that it is not ready to back down from its arrogance, and its prime minister insists on his explicit threat to Qatar and other countries in the region that they must "expel or prosecute Hamas leaders, otherwise Israel will do it itself," even if it leads to regional tensions. This is an attempt on its part, not only to harm Hamas, but also to change the regional equation, or what it calls "the reshaping of the Middle East."
The attack on Doha shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Israel has chosen the path of risk management, i.e., achieving a possible immediate deterrence and, in fact, a change in reality at the expense of the possibility of a prolonged continuation of the crisis. Will the Arabs also choose a peer path that confronts Israel's arrogance and restores to it some of the "calculations of reason" that take into account the potential losses of its condescending behavior?
Qatar's invitation to hold an emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha on Sunday and Monday may constitute a golden opportunity for the leaders of Arab countries, and the Gulf countries in particular, to reposition themselves and take decisive decisions towards the occupation "state" and its political and economic relations, in addition to the proposed normalization programs.
Announcing a firm and unified Arab position, supported by practical steps, will be enough to rein in Israel and push it to stop the war of extermination and displacement in the Gaza Strip, and the annexation and Judaization in Jerusalem and the West Bank within a common Arab vision that redraws the relations of the conflict with it in a way that ensures the cessation of its hand and its ambitions for the Arab countries and their peoples.