Qatar’s mediation was behind the first hostage releases by Hamas and Israel. Yes, the “Qatargate” that broke out in the European Parliament a year ago. The one accused of hosting the leaders of jihadist terrorism in luxury hotels in Doha. Or giving Islamic fanaticism a megaphone by showcasing their voices on its Al Jazeera television channel. Qatar is being denounced by many Westerners for violations of workers’ rights at World Cup construction sites. Qatar, which through its sovereign wealth fund (QIA with assets of 450 billion dollars) has also bought many Western companies and many real estate in Milan… However, in times of need, no one is afraid to turn to “evil” Qatar, one one of the few states in the world capable of dialogue with the White House and the Kremlin, with the heads of Mossad and Hamas, with Iran and with Saudi Arabia. And if the result is the release of hostages, how can one not applaud? ù
For the families of innocent civilians who eventually return home, it would be pointless to argue about the methods used to initiate the exchange and the moral quality of the mediators who undertake this task. There are moments in history when the “wicked” are crucial and must take action, while the righteous and pure stand by and hand out grades on their ethical credentials. It’s an old story. Qatar is used to arousing suspicion and hostility everywhere except when everyone needs its services. That Qatar is a logistical platform for several leaders of Islamic terrorism, as well as for the banker who finances them (not the only one), has been known for years. But it is not only known, it is also tolerated, wanted and promoted: by America, by Israel, by the UN. Among US presidents, Barack Obama was the first to advocate this role of Qatar as a “sanctuary” for Hamas: with the idea that it is always better to have an informal channel to talk to even the worst enemy. Then Donald Trump used Doha as a venue for negotiations with the Afghan Taliban about the withdrawal of American troops from Kabul: in this case, too, it was useful for America to have a transversal channel thanks to Qatar, since there were no direct diplomatic relations with the Taliban Taliban.
As for Israel, in the most cynical interpretation, Netanyahu wanted Qatar to fund Hamas because the strength of that jihadist militia was a perfect alibi to block any progress toward a Palestinian state. In a more benign interpretation – which does not exclude the previous one – the State of Israel, accountable for its democratic public opinion, had to send aid to Gaza. (And if Hamas had invested all the capital received from the Arab world in the development and well-being of the people of Gaza, we would not be facing this tragedy today… but that is another story). The same applies to the UN, which has always received detailed information about the functioning of the Qatar-Hamas-Gaza axis. The fact that everyone has taken advantage of Qatar does not mean that this Gulf monarchy is portrayed as an innocent pawn to be manipulated by others. Qatar is characterized by ambiguity and ambiguity and has even gotten into trouble because of it.
Perhaps his ambivalence is structural, written down in geographical maps. This small peninsula owes its immense wealth to the fact that it is one of the largest producers of natural gas in the world. However, it shares its reserves with its neighbor on the opposite Gulf coast, Iran. So Qatar is sitting on a gigantic fossil resource and a powder keg of centuries-old religious conflicts: in particular between the Sunni supremacy Arabia and its Shiite enemy Iran. Many attribute Qatar’s opening to various extremist and terrorist movements, which are currently supported by the Ayatollahs of Tehran, to its good neighbor policy towards Iran. There has been a serious crisis in relations between Qatar and many of its Arab neighbors over Al Jazeera’s role as an open platform for proponents of jihadism and other ties to the Muslim Brotherhood world. In June 2017, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen cut diplomatic, commercial and tourism ties with Doha and accused Qatar of supporting terrorism. A conflict arose. Erdogan’s Turkey, another leader close to the Muslim Brotherhood, also intervened, sending a military contingent to Doha to send a deterrent signal to the moderate Sunni front. Hamas’s main treasury is in Turkey and brings in a billion dollars annually. Today, Qatar could be useful not only in negotiating the release of more hostages, but also in major diplomatic maneuvers over the future of Gaza. As is well known, Americans – and much of Israeli public opinion – do not want Israeli forces to occupy the Gaza Strip for a long time. Abu Mazen’s Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, does not want to be “catapulted” into a zone where it would have no legitimacy among the population.
The Arab League does not want to govern this area with a multilateral force because the countries most involved, Egypt, Jordan and Arabia, are against it. All of the topics mentioned have one unspeakable goal in common: that the Israeli armed forces destroy Hamas. This does not mean that this desire is achievable. If Hamas somehow survives, one scenario (very hypothetical at the moment) is to include it in Gaza’s future. Perhaps by selecting the so-called “political wing” of Hamas based in Doha, perhaps more moderate than the military wing; and include it in a pact with the Palestinian Authority. This is a political fiction for now, even if it is based on the precedent of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which the bitter enemies held negotiations shortly afterwards. Whatever solution emerges from this tragedy – and we must hope that one is found – a role will be played by the “bad guys,” those who dirty their hands, consciences, and reputations by dealing with the devil make. Apparently including the Saudi Arabia of Mohammed bin Salman (MbS), the prince remembered by many Westerners only for his role in the murder of opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi. MbS will certainly be thinking about how not to allow Iran to steal the goal of a thaw with Israel, which until October 7 seemed within reach. This pacification cannot take place “on the backs of the Palestinians”.
But neither can it remain hostage to Iran’s right of veto, which it exercises through terrorist massacres. Arabia is also one of the “bad guys” that we will hopefully soon see again playing a leading role in building a new Middle East. We accept that geopolitics is not populated by angels, cherubim and seraphim. On the other hand, there is a contradiction in the West that practices “humanitarian extremism” and condemns our governments if they dare to enter into relationships with autocrats. The same people who want to exclude Qatar or Arabia (or Egypt or Turkey) in the name of violated human rights are usually the ones who show the greatest compassion for Hamas’s murders of children and rapes of women.