AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENT: "The Israeli attack on the Hamas leadership in Doha marks an extremely dangerous development and clear breach of a red line, for several reasons," maintains Palestinian commentator Hani al-Masri on Wednesday's PCI-(Palestinian citizens of Israel) focused news portal www.arab48.com.

First, Hamas was in residence in Qatar, as the mediating country, at the request of the U.S. and with Israeli approval, with renewed assurances recently that it would not be targeted. Second, the attack struck a major U.S. ally that has a defense pact with Washington and hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region. This means Netanyahu's government dared to infringe upon Washington's own interests at a time when Israel is suffering unprecedented international isolation, to use the words of Naftali Bennett, one of the main opposition leaders and the frontrunner to become PM if elections are held, according to ongoing polls since October 7, 2023.

U.S. President Donald Trump disavowed Netanyahu's move, even though it could not have happened without a U.S. green light. But failure has a single father while success has many parents, and many Israeli observers, politicians, and writers decried the move as madness. Nevertheless, it is not out of the question that Netanyahu will cling to power if the Israeli opposition fails to produce a coherent alternative to the current government, for example by postponing elections under the pretext of a 'state of emergency' caused by the war, should he realize his chances of winning again are nil. In that case, Israel's internal and external crises will deepen, and the far-right will complete its coup against the identity of the state and the nature of the political system by abolishing the independence of branches of government, disabling oversight, and turning Netanyahu into an autocratic ruler, leaving Israel's fate opaque and uncertain, to say the least. Strikingly, Netanyahu, in a demonstration of his arrogance and his belief that force solves everything and knows no limits, continued to threaten to pursue Hamas in Qatar and other countries despite Trump's pledge that what happened in Qatar would not recur.

The deeper message of this attack is that it reflects a qualitative shift in Israeli policy. The use of force is no longer limited to traditional 'enemies' but has extended even to mediating or allied states. The attack on Qatar – which Netanyahu described a few months ago as a complicated country but not an enemy – comes in the context of continued assaults on Syria, despite the new regime voicing willingness to cooperate on security matters with Israel, even to the point of discussing a security pact. This confirms that Netanyahu's government is working to reshape the Middle East through military force and aggression and by establishing buffer zones that remain under direct Israeli control, including efforts to change 'moderate' regimes.

This vision springs from considering the region as unsteady 'shifting sands', where no country or ruler is guaranteed stability. From Tel Aviv's point of view, this justifies fragmenting and dividing Arab states along ethnic and confessional lines to entrench a state of perpetual conflict among them. The ultimate goal is to entrench the model of a 'religious state' that Israel alone has embodied and now seeks to generalize, as reflected in the passage of the Nation-State Law, which granted Jews alone the right to self-determination in Palestine. That law paves the way to accelerate projects of displacement and ethnic cleansing against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and within Israel, and to revive the idea of a 'Greater Israel', as recently voiced by Netanyahu and earlier by Donald Trump, who said Israel is tiny and needs to expand at the expense of the greater Middle East.

Previous Israeli governments relied, to a relative degree, on integration, or as Shimon Peres used to say, mixing Jewish innovation and mentality with Arab capital, markets, and labor (a kind of 'soft power') through normalization, political/cultural/technological infiltration, managing the conflict, and creating facts on the ground over long periods of time so that the Israeli solution becomes the only feasible one. In contrast, the current far-right government is moving to resolve the conflict quickly and completely: By annexing land, displacing Palestinians, and pursuing regional expansion through direct military force. For this government, normalization is not a priority but a secondary tool if necessary.

What happened in Doha cannot be considered a conventional extension of Israeli policies; rather, it is a qualitative leap: Attacking the negotiating delegation in a mediating country essentially amounts to delivering the coup de grâce to the negotiations, which Israel never treated seriously anyway and used as a cover to continue genocide and displacement. Therefore, after the attack the door must be closed to negotiations and opened to pressure, sanctions, boycott, and accountability, because those who escape punishment repeat aggression, unless the U.S. administration decides to backtrack and exert the necessary pressure on Netanyahu's government to stop the genocidal war in a bid to contain Arab and international reactions.

Thus, the region today faces two approaches:

The force approach believes that which is not resolved by force should be resolved by more force, focusing on security and the economy while ignoring politics and Palestinian rights. This approach is represented by Netanyahu's government and the Trump administration and opens the door wide to a 'law of the jungle' logic in which the stronger devours the weaker.

The political approach, in contrast, relies on what remains of international law and legitimacy and seeks to build a broad global alliance to achieve the two-state solution and to establish a regional order based on mutual cooperation instead of unilateral Israeli domination. Although this approach has the support of most countries, it still lacks the implementation tools capable of translating it into reality. The opportunity is here, so let us size it. If the will to implement this approach is present, with a focus on ending the occupation to realize Palestinian statehood, then a political solution will be possible. However, merely talking about a political horizon will end with the whole world supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state while Israel buries it.

These developments confirm that the region is at a pivotal historical moment: Either the Arab states recognize the danger of this phase and build a viable Arab system capable of defending itself through an implementable unification project, diversifying alliances and sources of weaponry, and freeing decision-making from subservience to Washington, or one state after another will fall victim to partition, division, and Israeli domination under the slogan of 'Greater Israel.'

What to do? The path is clear if the will is present: It is possible to begin by severing or freezing diplomatic relations with Israel. Sever economic, security, military, and technological cooperation. Return to a policy of Arab boycott. Impose air, sea, and land embargoes. Activate legal accountability through the UN, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice. Call for suspending Israel's membership in the General Assembly (a measure not subject to the U.S. veto). Call for the formation of a UN force to protect Palestinians under the Uniting for Peace mechanism, because Israel has become a major threat to security, stability, and peace in the region and the world.

"And finally, use Arab pressure cards (oil, investment, purchasing goods and weapons) in relations with Washington and its allies," concludes Masri.

End…