It is becoming increasingly more common among Israel fanatics (or, more accurately, lunatics) to accuse anyone even minimally critical of the unduly influence of that state on the foreign policy of the collective West of receiving monetary incentives from Qatar. Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Tahani’s recent comments on a potential Israeli-American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities seem to have only led to an increase in this tendency. The same fanatics had similarly reacted to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s critical stance toward Israel by raising “concerns” over the "grievances" of the Kurdish people in the region, for example. Of course, recent developments in Türkiye’s domestic affairs, most notably in relation to the results of the government’s talks with the leadership of the PKK, could be construed partly as Türkiye’s counter-response to that reaction.
Why is it that the Israeli propaganda seems to target Qatar and Türkiye specifically? It is not a secret that, in recent years, Qatar and Türkiye have formed a stronger alliance than the rest of the nations in the region. This alliance seems to be perceived to pose a significant threat to Israel’s genocidal regime, and strikingly, people who are otherwise extremely commendable for their strong stance against the genocide in Gaza and the atrocities that the Palestinian people have undergone for decades sometimes appear to overlook this important fact.
The origins of the alliances in the region could be traced back to the political history of the region, or they can be conveniently, though mistakenly, explained away by appealing to simplistic national or sectarian divides. One may refer to Lebanese-American writer Fawaz Gerges’s instructive book "Making of the Arab World" to better understand those divides and the consequences they have hitherto brought about. Yet it is even more urgent to realize, from a historical perspective, what today’s reality demands of those who rightly object to the countless injustices committed by Israel throughout its entire existence as a Zionist state.
Indeed, the existence of Israel as a Zionist state has been nothing but a continuation of the imperial legacy of Western states in the region. It is really the symbol of that lasting influence that the people of the region have long detested, to put it mildly. Tucker Carlson’s interview with Sheikh Mohammed was instructive, particularly in this context, for the latter pointed out that the notion that the U.S. could dictate how the bilateral relations between various states in the region, including the relationship between Qatar and Iran, must look like based on a “misunderstanding.” Sheikh Mohammed correctly described this misunderstanding as a “legacy issue,” emphasizing that it stemmed from a persistent yet misguided view that “the U.S. needs to take care of the whole world’s problems.” He proposed that the way to resolve this misunderstanding was to recognize that “each region needs to address their own problems.”
In a way, Sheikh Mohammed’s words echoed U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks in one of his first interviews following his appointment, in which he expressed his regret that, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had “assumed the responsibility of becoming the global government.” Now, it is important to note that Rubio’s “isolationism” is likely not very sincere, as evidenced, for instance, by the empire’s continuing involvement in much of the world. Nevertheless, it shows that at least Sheikh Mohammed understands the common sentiment among a large portion of the Republican base in the U.S. rather better than the fanatical elements of its leadership. Or, more precisely, he shows a somewhat higher respect for that sentiment than those fanatics seem to.
Of course, Qatar knows all too well what this kind of “independent thinking” can lead to, especially considering the diplomatic crisis it went through back in 2017, which took place during the first presidential term of Donald Trump. Al-Jazeera’s coverage of regional events, especially with regard to Palestine, was doubtless a cause among many of the animosity toward Qatar of those very same fanatical elements within successive U.S. governments. That Qatar currently hosts, and mediates negotiations with, Hamas leadership has not helped it avoid this bitter antagonism either. Perhaps it did not have to deal with a vicious coup attempt for its “independent thinking” like Türkiye did in 2016; yet Qatar too has been at the receiving end of constant attacks by the usual suspects over the years.
The kind of “independent thinking” at play here leads inevitably to the fundamental principle that the states in the region cannot be asked to determine their foreign policies based on Israel’s interests. This is why the Israeli regime cannot tolerate it in its neighborhood. In his mistitled book "Fighting Terrorism," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was really explicit in this “intolerance.”
He wrote that the root of the anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East was the “confusion and humiliation which descended on the Arab and Muslim world” as a result of the “political independence of the Islamic world” coming to a “final and complete end” after a long and proud history of sovereignty. Crucially, Netanyahu identified “two streams of thought” that, “not long after the establishment of the European protectorates throughout the Arab world ... emerged to challenge the ‘horrible state’ in which the Muslim Arabs found themselves.”
He was talking about the “Pan-Arab nationalism of Egypt’s Nasser and the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq” and the “Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic fundamentalist organizations.” According to him, however, they had at least one thing in common: an “abiding hatred of the weakness and treachery of the Arab monarchies (and of the shah’s rule in Iran) and of the Western powers, which they believed to have dismembered the Islamic world, leaving it humiliated, impoverished, divided, and culturally colonized.” In other words, both had displayed some kind of “independent thinking” in their own ways. And what must be done about this, in Netanyahu’s view, was to create a schismatic rift between these streams of thought.
It is for this reason that Palestine’s bringing these together in any shape or form is unacceptable for Israel. For it would then find itself in a position in which the stakes would be too high to sustain a rift beneficial for itself. In this connection, the hope is that Sheikh Mohammed's comments will be solidified by united action against Israel’s destructive plans for the region.
