Doha summit leaders condemn, but inaction exposes lack of real resolve
7 Min Read
While the Doha summit strongly condemned "Israel’s" airstrike on Qatar, it fell short of delivering concrete measures, exposing the gap between leaders’ statements and popular demands.
-
The Arab-Islamic summit failed to push forward concrete steps (Illustrated by Mahdi Rtail, Al Mayadeen)
The Israeli attack on Qatar rallied Arab, Islamic, and parts of the international community in issuing condemnation statements and letters of caution against the strike by claiming that it undermined the sovereignty of the attacked state and the security of the region.
Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said, in a CNN interview, that his country is seeking a “collective response” from regional allies to the recent Israeli aggression targeting Hamas officials in the Qatari capital, Doha.
After the dust settled, Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, reached the conclusion that the right decision to settle this issue would be to host a gathering where Arab and Islamic nations would discuss the situation at hand.
On September 15, Arab and Islamic leaders met in Doha at the request of Al Thani to discuss what they called the "reckless" attack by "Israel" and plans laid out by the Israeli prime minister, as described by the emir, “[to] turn the Arab region into an Israeli sphere of influence.”
Israeli hostile attack, initial Qatari verbal response
"Israel" launched an airstrike on the Qatari capital on September 9 under the guise of targeting members of the Hamas negotiation delegation, staying in a residential area of the city.
The attack by Tel Aviv failed its initial goal but ultimately claimed the lives of four Palestinian representatives, including Hamas chief of staff Jihad Labad, and a Qatari national.
Qatar's Al Thani condemned the attack in a phone call with US President Donald Trump, stating it was “a flagrant violation of its sovereignty and security, and a clear violation of the rules and principles of international law."
He even boasted about the US standing by Qatar, saying, “During the call, the US President affirmed his solidarity with the State of Qatar and his strong condemnation of the attack on its sovereignty, pointing out that diplomatic solutions are capable of resolving outstanding issues in the region.”
The Qatari Emir highlighted that the attack was a form of "state terrorism" that "must not be overlooked."
On his part, contradicting initial Israeli media reports that the US president greenlit the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office claimed that the strike was "wholly independent", stating that "the days in which terrorist chiefs enjoy immunity anywhere have ended," blasting Qatar for being a "safe haven" to Hamas by housing and allegedly financing the Palestinian group.
Regardless of condemnation, the Israeli prime minister was clear and precise with what's to come forward by saying "to Qatar and all nations who harbour terrorists, you either expel them or you bring them to justice — because if you don’t, we will."
The threat "Israel" poses to the region was laid out clearly by Netanyahu with this statement. No nation that houses so much as one person deemed an enemy by "Israel" is safe.
What the Israelis sought to achieve by this strike was to show that there is nothing that can prevent Tel Aviv from carrying out such an attack; none of the years Qatar spent on diplomacy mattered when "Israel" decided to attack its civilian areas.
The Arab-Islamic Summit statement vs. what should've been
The summit's concluding statement fell short on any concrete measures or steps taken in retaliation for the Israeli attack on the Qatari capital, despite its gravity and the need for something to be done to end "Israel's" impunity and prevent it from any further aggression elsewhere.
What we saw throughout the event was a group of Arab and Islamic bloc leaders voicing condemnations against what happened and what the consequences of such an event are; however, no solid basis was formed as to how the respective members are to move forward. None. Only hypotheses with no subsequent action or steps for their fulfillment were made.
What came from the leader's statements was talk of standing "against Israel’s plans to impose a new reality in the region” and urging OIC states to “examine Israel’s UN membership [...] and its persistent disregard for UN resolutions, with THE POSSIBILITY of coordinating efforts to suspend Israel’s membership."
Regarding Palestine, the leaders stated that all countries SHOULD “take effective legal and political measures to prevent Israel from continuing its actions against the Palestinian people," without delving into what these measures could be, or, if any, how they are to be implemented.
Nothing explicit was said about what these steps towards implementing political measures to snuff out some of "Israel's" impunity in the region look like.
Does worry about harming 'normalization efforts' count as a measure?
Instead, the Arab and Islamic nations were worried about the attack harming normalization efforts.
The outcome of the Summit was akin to what the majority of these nations and regional blocs did throughout the Israeli aggressions on Gaza. While bombs were being dropped on hospitals, tents, and unarmed civilians, these same nations and groups rushed to condemn but showed no real weight behind their words.
What could have been?
One major point that the summit could have highlighted was: how Israeli warplanes were allowed to fly through neighbouring skies to facilitate the attack? Where were the defense systems that it, and other Arab nations, paid billions of dollars for?
Why didn't Qatar, the host, call out the nations that failed to protect their slly in Doha in the face of such hostility?
Regional favouratism was front and center; one does not have to look too far back to see that when Iranian missiles were targeting Israeli sites, American bases and some Arab nations blocked Tehran's retaliatory efforts by shooting down missiles and drones heading toward the occupied territories.
The least that these nations could have done in this grandiose summit was to suspend diplomatic and trade deals with "Israel", nix strategic documents signed, further boycott moves, among other steps toward some form of retaliation.
No one is asking for a military response as of yet, not that Arab and Islamic nations are ready for such a thing, which brings into question the real potential and intentions of these countries. Does the lack of military ability reveal a cocktail of impotence, dependency, incompitence, and complicity when facing such a foe, or is there something in the making not mentioned in the closing statement? One cannot help but wonder.
Leaders' statements vs. popular demands
The summit also exposed a huge gap between the heads of state and the people of the respective nations when it comes to meeting demands. It turns out to be an utter disappointment when comparing the demands made by the general population of these nations in demanding divestment, implementation of an arms embargo, sanctions, working toward breaking the siege on Gaza, to say the least, with what these heads of state ended up moving forward with: mere words.
What the gathering of Arab and Islamic did make clear was that there is a lack of a much-needed one-handed force to combat such existential threats that cause the gap between historical allies to grow wider.
The region's unity has been dwindling as "Israel" continues to exist. Nothing more than strongly worded letters replaced the armed and economic struggle once waged against Tel Aviv and other foreign threats in unity.
By not giving any tangible response against "Israel" for such an attack, who's to say that such an aggression against an ally or a state moving forward with the normalization process will be the last one?
