Middle East Press On: Gaza, Palestine, Trump, Hitler, Qatar: New Age Islam's Selection, 15 September 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
15 September 2025
Free Gaza, Free Palestine: Is Trump The Hitler Of Our Time?
Have Netanyahu's Strikes On Qatari Soil Gone Too Far?
Rubio’s Visit Highlights Israel's Need To Change Course Of War Before It’s Too Late
Israel's Strike On Hamas Leadership In Qatar Backfired, Now An Image Of Failure
Israel's Strike In Doha Clarion Call, Won't Sit By As Terror Leaders Walk Free In Qatar
Israel, Qatar, And The Global Conscience
----
Free Gaza, Free Palestine: Is Trump The Hitler Of Our Time?
by Hakkı Öcal
Sep 15, 2025
The original chant went like this: “Free D.C., free Palestine! Trump is the Hitler of our time!” Well, if you ask me, D.C. in the United States is a free city. The deployment of a couple of hundred National Guard personnel there does not make it unfree. It is one of President Donald Trump’s fake crises; he wants to derail the real issues the U.S. is currently facing. What he is doing and the way he is doing it would make him Benito Mussolini at most, not Adolf Hitler.
Thank Goodness, the young Americans woke (no pun intended!) up on time and realized that he has betrayed his promises that America was going to be "the first" in his agenda – which did not happen – and that he was going to end all the wars NeoCons, Globalists, and Interventionists started in the Middle East – which he didn’t.
He must have seen the light through the nick that those who started these wars put in his ear on July 13, 2024! He must have understood what they meant by this warning shot. Therefore, he was not going to have any Obama Moment inspiring hope and change, but he kept telling people he would Make (only) America Great Again, forgetting the other country, which was in a hurry to become "Greater."
Trump used to disparage these two men: The Little Marco (Marco Rubio), the former senator from Florida he would make fun of, but he eventually became the head of four government – outdoing Henry Kissinger, famous secretary of state in the 70s, and even China's leader Xi Jinping – (named the "Secretary of Everything" by The New York Times), and Pete Hegseth, who has “the absolute and complete authority” (not only on the drugs he used to buy as a TV commentator but) on the wars the U.S. Department of War, wants to continue ... These two men asked Trump one afternoon to rush back to the White House immediately from his endless golf shenanigans, and “briefed” him on the urgent need to give the green light to Israel’s sweeping strike on Iranian nuclear and military targets, now.
Nobody yet knows how these two men convinced Trump to change his attitude on Israel’s Iran War. Only the previous day, he restated his total objection to any Israeli attacks on Iran and Gaza. But, after the evening briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., "We had a clear U.S. green light," Israeli officials were quoted as saying in Tel Aviv.
Like almost all those people who have narcissistic personality disorder, Trump, like Hitler, enjoys holding all reins himself; even if he is not holding them, he likes to think that he is. Hitler, a third-rate corporal, thought he was an uber-Marshal over the war-hardened Prussian generals conducting the war to the Final Victory. He only schlepped himself and his mistress to joint-suicide and Germany to an unprecedented disaster.
Nonetheless, whatever Trump does (yet), in my humble opinion, cannot make him the Hitler of our time. He is a willing or unwilling stooge of the real Hitler of our time: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Actually, not our time, but all times!
Real Hitler is Netanyahu
Benjamin Mileikowsky, who, like all successful stage and screen personalities, renamed himself "Netanyahu" (gift of Jehovah, in Hebrew), proved that he could beat not only Hitler himself but the Devil at their own game! He is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for War Crimes, and his Mussolini, that is, Donald Trump, sanctions the elected ICC officials.
Trump calls on Hamas to evaluate his last deal offer to them and to Netanyahu. Still, Netanyahu attacks the place where the Hamas leaders met to weigh the cease-fire proposal to kill all the Hamas leadership and sink the deal once again. (But luckily, its top leaders survived the strike, yet the son of Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’ leader for Gaza and its top negotiator, three bodyguards, and the head of al-Hayya’s office were killed.) The U.S. officials admit that they knew about it in advance, and the British and U.S. aerial tankers refueled the Israeli jets on their way to Qatar.
As usual, Trump said he was very unhappy about the Israeli strike in Doha, which Israel had not informed him in advance and the United Kingdom Royal Air Force (RAF), and U.S. tankers were not refueling Israeli war planes on their 1700-kilometer (1056.33 miles) flight to Qatar! Yeah, and I'm the king of England!
I don’t say Israel is the biggest winner from Hitler’s Holocaust, but it uses the same justification to annihilate the Palestinians. I wonder why and how the people who themselves have not been subjected to the Nazi policies that culminated in the Holocaust learned those hideous, detestable and abhorrent practices from their crucifiers.
Rightly, Zionism is a form of racism, said the United Nations in 1975, drawing attention to the links between Zionism and Nazism, Fascism, genocide, settler-colonialism, imperialism, militarism and apartheid. Non-Zionist Jews suffered the evil scourge, as well as Palestinians.
David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of this cursed called Israel, Netanyahu as its last (I hope really last, the final) prime minister and all the other leaders in between were and are Zionists in the sense of establishing and strengthening the Jewish state in the historical Land of Israel. They did not conceptualize a homeland for the Jews in a binational state, but rather a country for Jews only. (We have to mention here the strange case of Reuven Rivlin, a right-wing Likud politician, a staunch Zionist and prime minister from 2014 to 2021. He was open to the idea of a single state with equal rights for Jews and Arabs, not because he rejected Zionism, but because he feared the two-state solution was collapsing.)
Not only did the founders of Israel imagine having indigenous Palestinians automatically as citizens of the partition given to Jews in 1947, but they sought means to expel them from both partitions. Yes, non-Jews may apply for citizenship under the Citizenship Law, but it takes ages to receive a response from the Israeli authorities, while any Jew acquires immediate citizenship!
Despite such modern-sounding laws on paper, all those Israeli politicians – from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu – never gave up the idea of ethnic cleansing. Their tutors in implementing the “evict, expel and dispossess” policy were the Nazis. Just like the Nazis used to take property away from the Jews (long before the Holocaust), Zio-nazis would see no harm in any way to purify the land. They even used a Biblical term (tihur) to cleanse the land from infidels.
In sum, neither Mr. Joel Kotkin (a presidential fellow in Urban Studies at Chapman University in Orange, California, and a senior research fellow at the University of Texas’ Civitas Institute) nor the zealot, middle, or progressive Jews are meant when we say Zionism is racism. Judaism is not racist; a true believer in the Creator cannot be racist. But the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is racist and so is any U.S. politician funded by them. But their receiving the Zionist money can hardly make them the Hitler of our time.
But committing the "unimaginable horror" of killing nearly 65,000 people in the Gaza Strip certainly makes one the Hitler of our time.
https://www.dailysabah.com/opinion/columns/free-gaza-free-palestine-is-trump-the-hitler-of-our-time
----
Have Netanyahu's Strikes On Qatari Soil Gone Too Far?
By Susan Hattis Rolef
September 15, 2025
I do not know whether last week was an especially stormy week, or just another stormy week, but between terrorist incidents in Jerusalem and the neighbouring Kibbutz Tzuba, and the failed Israeli attack against Hamas’s leadership in Doha, the capital of Qatar – it was certainly a highly emotional one.
Among the stable elements of our foreign policy is the principle that every Israeli whose personal security is threatened while they are abroad – both in the military and natural disasters spheres – can expect Israel to do everything to extricate him/her from the situation.
The current hostage situation is probably the first time since the State of Israel was established that this principle has been called into question, even though the majority of 251 hostages have been returned from the Gaza Strip, either alive or dead.
Forty-eight hostages remain in the Gaza Strip; 20 of them possibly still alive but in immediate danger of death. Should all 48 be brought back as bodies, Israeli society is liable to suffer a fundamental blow that will take many years to recover from, if at all.
The second stable element in our foreign policy is the principle that anyone involved in the planning or execution of acts of terror against Israelis, in Israel or abroad, is considered to be a person under a death sentence, to be executed by the relevant Israeli forces. Over the years, numerous Palestinians and others have found themselves in this category, with few in Israel questioning the sagacity of this practice as part of the post-World War II slogan, “Never Again.”
Nevertheless, as happened in the initiative last Tuesday, there can be differences of opinion regarding the timing and location of the act of revenge, and perhaps some regret if the wrong person is eliminated. This occurred in the July 1973 case of the hapless Moroccan waiter in the Norwegian town of Lillehammer, who was mistakenly identified as one of the leaders of Black September, which had been responsible for the killing of 11 members of the Israeli Olympic delegation to the 1972 Munich Olympics. I do not think that anyone in Israel expressed regret for the fact that the wrong persons were killed in Doha.
The operation that was carried out last Tuesday was a particularly miserable event, not because of the identity of those whom it was designed to eliminate, nor even because the intelligence regarding their supposed presence in the location attacked was apparently faulty.
The two main problems were the timing of the operation, and the decision to attack in Doha, where the Hamas leaders were reportedly convened to discuss an American initiative to free all 48 remaining hostages in return for Israel ending the war in the Gaza Strip.
It has been reported that most of the top of the security establishment objected to the timing of the operation. Mossad director David Barnea reportedly was most adamant in his objection, while IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir maintained that the attack should not take place before negotiations for an agreement with Hamas were exhausted.
After the event, and before it became known that the operation had failed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that if those giving sanctuary to terrorists refuse to bring them to justice and banish them, Israel will do what needs to be done.
Israel’s erratic decision-making is harmful
HAMAS LEADERS have been living in luxury in Doha, and their presence there has been known for many years. Israel might have raised the issue with the Qatari leadership, within the framework of its ambivalent relations with the rich and influential Gulf state.
It should also be noted that in February 2025, Netanyahu announced that from an Israeli perspective, Qatar is not an enemy state. “Qatar is a complex country, not a simple country,” he added.
The question is especially pertinent these days, when Israel’s international status has reached its lowest-ever level. The foreign media is full of descriptions and visual evidence of the catastrophic human and physical state of the Gaza Strip. Even if what is happening is not the result of a deliberate Israeli policy, Israel’s erratic decision-making and conduct do not look good.
Add to this the fact that numerous states that were considered friends of Israel (especially in Europe), even if occasionally critical friends, are now considering, or even starting to implement economic, sports, and cultural sanctions and boycotts against Israel. Many of them voted in favor of the non-binding UN General Assembly resolution, passed last Friday, in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state to exist alongside Israel (142 voted in favor, 10 opposed, and 12 abstained).
Even US President Donald Trump declared that the Israeli attack in Doha “does not advance Israel or America’s goals” and that he is not thrilled about the whole situation. We do not know whether Israel informed the US in advance of its intention, but the US maintains a large airbase in Qatar and considers it an ally. It was reported that Trump promised the leader of Qatar that an Israeli attack on its territory would not recur.
The reaction of Qatar, and the Gulf States in general, including those that are members of the Abraham Accords, has also been negative. The strike might totally wreck this highly welcomed diplomatic project, which Netanyahu has lauded as advancing peace, without Israel being required to pay a territorial price.
At this stage, it is not clear what measures the Gulf states will take against Israel, or whether Qatar will continue to engage in attempts to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas regarding the return of all the hostages in return for an end to the fighting.
However, continued Israeli talk of conquering Gaza City, and possibly the whole Gaza Strip, and of annexing territories within the West Bank (as openly advocated by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich), is an additional problem.
Did Netanyahu go too far this time? At least in Israel, opinions are divided on this question.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-867430
----
Rubio’s Visit Highlights Israel's Need To Change Course Of War Before It’s Too Late
By Jpost Editorial
September 15, 2025
The arrival of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Israel on Sunday is yet another opportunity that cannot be missed by Israeli leadership to bring the Israel-Hamas War to a satisfactory close, as time continues to run out – both for the hostages and for Israel’s good name, reputation, and international credit.
This moment is a test: Will Jerusalem seize the chance to reset course, or will it once again squander a rare window for diplomacy?
Israel’s airstrike last week on senior Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, was backed by a mix of support and dread among Israeli officials. But it came at a fierce diplomatic cost that may not be restored. What looked like tactical success has left Israel bruised strategically, alarming allies, alienating partners, and setting back fragile progress toward an endgame.
Before departing for Tel Aviv on Saturday night, Rubio told reporters his goal was to understand how last week’s events would shape the next phases of the war. In other words, Washington is asking the questions that Jerusalem refuses to confront: What is the path out of this cycle, and who will pay the price if it is not found?
“The US-Israeli relationship is very strong,” Rubio said before departing. “It continues to be strong.”
True enough, but no alliance is unshakable. This strength will endure only if Israel begins to match its military instincts with political judgment.
Rubio’s trip follows criticism by US President Donald Trump about the attack. When even Trump, Israel’s staunchest defender, raises alarm, it should be impossible for Israel’s leaders to ignore.
“The president wants this conflict to end,” Rubio said Saturday. “He wants all the hostages out, all 48 of them, living and deceased... Obviously we’re concerned [about the] events last week. He didn’t like the way it went down,” [and] “he’s expressed that publicly.”
Washington is telling Israel that enough is enough
Washington’s message could not be clearer: Enough.
Rubio said the crux of his trip to Jerusalem would be to talk “about what impact it’s going to have on efforts to get all the hostages back, get rid of Hamas, end this war. That’s the president’s priority.” What needs to happen now is to figure out what comes next, he said.
The Americans want results, not excuses.
But Israeli leaders, as professed by their statements, show indifference to the growing international isolation. The war grinds on, deals collapse, and with each passing week, Israel’s credit abroad is depleted.
To be clear, the Hamas terrorist organization that started this catastrophe – and its Qatari backer – bear the blame. But that does not absolve Israel from responsibility for its own choices. Time has long since run out on its legitimacy to continue advancing into Gaza City, destroying one Hamas stronghold after another – Rafah, the Philadelphi Corridor, and now Gaza City – without a political horizon to match.
We Israelis have an eternal enemy, but we cannot fight an eternal war.
Trump has said this plainly, Israelis feel it deeply, and the world is shouting it back at us – from the icy rebukes of the European Union, to the cancellations of cultural events featuring Israelis, to the stunned reactions of Middle Eastern allies after the Qatar airstrike.
The chill is real, and it will not lift unless Israel changes course.
The idea Hamas represents will not be defeated by flattening Gaza, killing more Palestinians, dooming the hostages, and sending more soldiers to die. It demands a different treatment: political strategy alongside military action; creative diplomacy instead of endless bombardment.
Rubio’s visit is a warning bell. Israel’s legitimacy to act as it has is nearly exhausted. Unless Jerusalem is prepared to embrace pariah status – with all the economic, cultural, and security consequences that entails – it must pivot now.
Bring the hostages home. Provide a true and lasting sense of security. Heed Rubio’s clarion call before the window closes for good.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-867470
-----
Israel's Strike On Hamas Leadership In Qatar Backfired, Now An Image Of Failure
By Ben Caspit
September 14, 2025
The Qatar assassination strike, intended as a bold move to reshape negotiations with Hamas, has backfired, turning what was supposed to be a “victory picture” into a “picture of failure.”
The operation forced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to post a puzzling tweet in English Saturday night, in which he essentially admitted to the strike’s failure, while trying to convince - even himself - that the operation was the right move. Unfortunately, it was not. As they say in football, the scoreboard doesn’t lie: Netanyahu’s gamble was a fiasco.
Even without the “refusal of an order” story, there is still no small drama here. Israel carried out a historic, unprecedented strike on the territory of a country not defined as an enemy state, in the middle of negotiations that this country is conducting also on Israel’s behalf, without Mossad’s special operations division being involved.
Let’s start with the (relatively) good news: contrary to reports, Mossad chief David Barnea did not “refuse an order” regarding the failed operation. If Barnea had received instructions from the political leadership to carry out a specific operation and decided not to execute it, he would have had to put the keys on the table and resign. He can argue, he can express his opinion, but he cannot refuse.
According to The Washington Post, Barnea’s refusal to carry out the assassination on the ground using Mossad agents supposedly forced Israel to strike via the Air Force. This is incorrect.
Yes, there are always several options for execution. Israel’s security system is very diverse, and its capabilities are extensive, but in the case of Qatar, the decision on which option to pursue was made in earlier discussions. When a decision is made to act immediately, as happened in this case, there is no time for the ground option. An assassination carried out by agents requires lengthy preparation. Aircraft, on the other hand, can take off immediately.
Shin Bet carries out Qatar operation, not Mossad
The fact that Mossad did not participate in the operation, and that the “targeting” of the individuals was carried out by the Shin Bet - which usually handles targets within Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza - is almost unprecedented. Barnea did indeed strongly oppose carrying out the operation at the current timing.
Mossad assessed that an operation in Qatar could sabotage the potential for a deal. Senior Hamas figures had arrived in Doha from Turkey and joined other senior Hamas leaders abroad. Qatari mediators were also supposed to participate in the discussion, and according to assessments, Hamas’s response was expected to be a “yes, but.”
Barnea believed that from a “yes, but” response, a deal could be reached. Hamas leaders can be killed at any given moment - they are not ticking bombs right now. On the contrary, what is ticking are the lives of the hostages. In the Mossad chief’s view, an attack in Qatar would cause much more harm than benefit and would sabotage any chance of returning the hostages, in full or in part.
So why did the Shin Bet push for and support the failed strike? The answer is complex. The Shin Bet does not see Qatar as a fair mediator and preferred Egypt from the start. Only history will judge this debate. There is no argument that Qatar is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas), and Egypt is not.
There is no argument that Qatar funded Hamas and hosted its leaders, while Egypt did not. The debate is over which of these two countries is more effective when it comes to mediation and applying pressure on Hamas. Barnea is convinced it is Qatar. The Shin Bet prefers Egypt.
The Shin Bet believed that an assassination in Qatar, at the current timing, would remove opponents of a deal from the picture, leave Hamas operatives in Gaza under heavy pressure, and create a “billiard effect”: one ball hitting the group of balls and scattering them anew across the table.
According to the Shin Bet’s view, the assassination was supposed to reshuffle the cards, shake the entire system, and perhaps give Hamas the push needed to agree to a comprehensive deal on terms acceptable to Israel.
Within the system, some believe that the fact that the Shin Bet currently has a deputy director, rather than a full chief, is a structural problem that also carries the danger of “folding” under the prime minister’s wishes. The deputy director, even subconsciously, seeks a permanent appointment and wants to remain in the prime minister’s favor, and therefore is more likely to “go along” with the Prime Minister’s ideas.
It must be emphasized: the Shin Bet executes the political leadership’s orders, but the head of the Shin Bet’s position, his opinion, and the information he presents to the Prime Minister played a central role in the case of the Qatar strike.
In the case of the current deputy head, there is no reason to doubt his motives. He is a worthy, professional, and honest individual. The issue lies in what happens subconsciously. When you are acting in a temporary role and want to secure a permanent appointment, it affects you even if you’re unaware of it.
If you understand that the Prime Minister very much wants the assassination in Qatar, it can influence you more than on normal days, when “commander’s intent” is also subject to professional critique.
In Netanyahu’s case, the analysis is more complex. He faces a built-in conflict of interest due to his complete dependence on extremist elements in his government, who threaten to dismantle it if it ends the war.
Netanyahu, largely thanks to Ron Dermer, has managed to reach an unprecedented position of control with former President Trump, who, until now, provided him with an open and unlimited line of credit regarding the war in Gaza.
Netanyahu and Dermer succeeded in convincing Trump that a quick and total victory over Hamas in Gaza was possible. The only problem is that this does not withstand the test of reality.
In this situation, it is entirely possible that Netanyahu planned to eliminate in one blow all that remained of Hamas’s leadership and use it to declare victory and end the war. Netanyahu also knows he cannot continue fighting in Gaza indefinitely.
Even Trump’s patience would eventually run out. Israel’s position in the US has sunk in recent weeks to the lowest depths of all time. This represents a significant loss of Israel's most strategic asset. Netanyahu is responsible for this loss. Since he is not foolish, he may have understood that he needed to aim for a “victory picture” and built the Qatar strike as that image.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-867360
-----
Israel's Strike In Doha Clarion Call, Won't Sit By As Terror Leaders Walk Free In Qatar
September 14, 2025
Israel’s daring attack on Hamas leaders in Doha last week was a justified gamble that failed.
It was a gamble to attack a sovereign country that was hosting the leadership of a terrorist organization. Let’s ponder that sentence again. A sovereign country was hosting the leadership of a terrorist organization.
As the Post’s Seth Frantzman wrote, the terrorist organization’s leadership has been residing in Qatar for over a decade. It has enjoyed a life of luxury and privilege while there.
Visiting Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, and other countries, those top Hamas officials have been able to fly around the Middle East. They felt safe and secure, even when they cheered the October 7 massacre on, watching Israelis being slaughtered.
Israel’s decision to strike in the heart of Doha, nearly two years after the war began and Qatar began mediating between Israel and Hamas, signals a new stage in attempts to free the hostages and defeat Hamas.
First, it shows that negotiations over the hostages – in which Qatar has played a leading role – were at a dead end.
Hamas, with Qatar’s acquiescence, has delayed time and time again any progress toward a ceasefire or an end to the war that would see the remaining hostages return home.
As our editor-in-chief, Zvika Klein, wrote here last week, time was a tactic. And as long as Hamas had Qatar in its corner, there was no urgency in reaching a deal. But we all know too well, from seeing the propaganda videos that Hamas releases of the hostages, that a deal is urgent.
Double game being played by Qatar
Qatar’s double game, disguised as being an honest broker and the only party that had relations with both Israel and Hamas, has proven to be a broken record. And Qatar’s puffed-up prestige as being the only country that has benefited since October 7 has been deflated.
N12’s Middle East analyst Ehud Yaa’ari said after the attack that, despite public criticism, Middle East countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia were “100%” privately pleased that Israel had undertaken the mission.
Israel’s Western allies, however, appear to be more upset than the countries in our neighborhood.
Canada’s Foreign Minister Anita Anand told reporters on Wednesday that Canada is evaluating its relationship with Israel in the wake of its attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar.
Both British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron condemned the strikes, warning of further escalation across the region.
“Today’s Israeli strikes on Qatar are unacceptable, whatever the reason. I express my solidarity with Qatar and its emir, Sheikh Tamim Al Thani. Under no circumstances should the war spread throughout the region,” said Macron.
Yes, conducting an attack by violating territorial sovereignty is not a good look, but all of the above countries neglected to mention the heinous target of those attacks and the justification for them.
But we’ve come to expect that kind of reaction for Israel’s actions since October 7 from those countries.
It was the reaction of US President Donald Trump, who supposedly understands Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu better than anyone, which was most perplexing.
He told reporters that he was “very unhappy” about the attack. Since he would clearly shed no tears over the demise of the Hamas leadership, his anger may be derived from jeopardized business ties with Qatar.
Apparently, his bluster toward Hamas, which has included many “last warnings” of “all hell breaking loose” unless they release the hostages, is only meant for effect, and when action is actually taken, he falls in line with others.
Israel could have plodded along, sending negotiating teams to Qatar, and continuing to get stonewalled by Hamas intransigence as the hostages continue to languish in Gaza tunnels. That charade is over.
The United States and Israel’s Western friends would do well to change their tune, back Israel’s actions, and start putting the pressure on Hamas and their interlocutors, Qatar.
Israel’s actions last week, even if they didn’t achieve the goals that were set, were a clarion call that the Jewish state will no longer sit idly by while the leaders of a terrorist organization aimed at destroying it are walking free in a welcoming host country.
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-867336
-------
Israel, Qatar, And The Global Conscience
By Ranjan Solomon
September 14, 2025
The streets of the world are alive. From Seoul to São Paulo, from New Delhi to Dakar, the voices of solidarity with Gaza resonate across continents. Citizens are no longer passive observers; they march, they chant, they demand justice. Gaza’s siege continues, yet its people—under bombardment, starvation, and blockade – remain defiant. Their message is unambiguous: We are not going anywhere. The moral weight of this resistance reverberates globally, creating a resonance that Israel’s military might cannot erase.
Qatar has emerged as a crucial intermediary in this crisis, navigating both humanitarian and geopolitical terrains. Doha’s role is strategic: it provides critical aid, funds infrastructure repair, negotiates temporary ceasefires, and uses its diplomatic leverage to influence other regional actors. Qatar’s engagement is a reminder that small states with vision and resources can exert influence even against militarily dominant powers. Beyond humanitarian efforts, Qatar’s mediation underscores a broader message: the Arab states, when coordinated, remain a counterweight in regional geopolitics. Israel’s strike on Qatar was not just an attack on one country – it was a declaration that no law restrains its impunity.
The Arab League, for all its historical divisions, has closed ranks on Gaza in ways that matter. While differences persist over Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, the attack on Gaza has unified voices in Cairo, Riyadh, Amman, and beyond. Statements condemning Israel’s bombardment, coupled with calls for urgent humanitarian action, are complemented by behind-the-scenes diplomacy, leveraging channels with Washington, Brussels, and the UN. The Arab Spring’s legacy looms large: governments know that ignoring the streets risks instability. This awareness has catalysed coordinated action, at least diplomatically, and rekindled a sense of Arab solidarity long dormant.
Across the Arab world, the “street” has become a decisive political actor once more. From Cairo to Amman, from Tunis to Rabat, tens of thousands have poured out to denounce Israel’s assault on Gaza and the Arab regimes that collude in silence. These demonstrations carry the memory of the Arab Spring but with a sharper moral edge: people are not only demanding dignity and justice for Palestinians, but also exposing the bankruptcy of their own governments. The Arab Street is signalling that normalization deals, strategic alliances, and elite diplomacy cannot bury the region’s conscience. Palestine remains the wound that defines Arab identity, and in the alleys, universities, and marketplaces, it is the people—not the palaces—who are setting the terms of history.
Europe’s response has been striking. The continent’s urban centers are witnessing unprecedented mobilizations in defence of Gaza. Paris, Berlin, London, Madrid, and Rome are flooded with demonstrators, crossing age, religion, and political lines. These protests are more than symbolic; they are a demand for accountability, a rejection of complicity, and a critique of arms deals that have historically fuelled Israel’s military machine. Governments are under pressure to reconcile economic and strategic interests with moral and civic demands from their populations. In North America, similar currents are emerging. Universities, city squares, and public forums in the United States and Canada are increasingly platforms for Palestinian solidarity, challenging politicians and corporations alike.
The Global South is asserting itself as a decisive force in this moral reckoning. Massive protests and civic campaigns have emerged in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia, demonstrating the reach of Palestinian solidarity beyond the Middle East. South Korea and Japan, often characterized as politically cautious, have seen students, activists, and ordinary citizens rally for Gaza. Africa is alive with discourse and action: in Senegal, South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria, civil society organizations, unions, and student groups amplify Gaza’s plight while critiquing Western complicity. Latin America, from Brazil to Colombia and Mexico, blends human rights activism with anti-imperialist critique, creating networks of resistance that transcend borders. “From Seoul to São Paulo, the chant is the same: Free Palestine, End the Siege.”
The BDS movement—Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions—is gaining new traction. Universities, artists, intellectuals, unions, and corporate groups are refusing to participate in or profit from Israeli institutions complicit in the siege. BDS’s influence is not merely symbolic; it has tangible economic and cultural effects, drawing attention to Israel’s internal contradictions. Israeli refuseniks, citizens refusing military service or publicly dissenting against government policies, amplify this effect from within. Their moral courage exposes fissures in a society long portrayed as monolithic.
Inside Israel, the social fabric is showing strain. Years of sustained militarism, political polarization, and international criticism are beginning to leave marks on domestic life. Citizens are questioning the cost of unending occupation. Jewish populations uncomfortable with the government’s aggressive policies are emigrating or publicly dissenting. These internal tensions are not marginal—they reflect a state grappling with both ethical and practical limits. Economically, Israel is facing challenges from international sanctions, divestment campaigns, and the escalating costs of prolonged conflict. The illusion of invincibility is slowly giving way to domestic unrest and a questioning of state legitimacy.
The Arab Spring’s echoes are unmistakable in current movements. Governments across the Middle East and North Africa cannot ignore popular sentiment; public opinion has become a decisive political actor. From Tunisia to Egypt to Jordan, citizen protests and social media campaigns amplify Gaza’s struggle and challenge state complacency. Qatar’s diplomacy navigates these currents, balancing humanitarian relief with political messaging and regional coordination. The small Gulf state illustrates that strategic, well-timed interventions can produce tangible outcomes even in complex conflicts.
Europe’s labour unions, artists, and academics are increasingly taking up the Palestinian cause, pressuring governments to reconsider arms exports and trade agreements with Israel. Public opinion is shifting, and the moral cost of silence grows heavier. In North America, Palestinian solidarity movements are no longer confined to campuses; they penetrate corporate boards, city councils, and legislative hearings, demanding a recalibration of foreign policy grounded in human rights rather than strategic expediency.
Israel’s domestic political environment reflects mounting tension. Young citizens, particularly in urban centers like Tel Aviv and Haifa, are increasingly critical of government policies. Social media amplifies these internal debates, making dissent more visible. Refuseniks and human rights activists highlight the contradiction between military dominance abroad and ethical instability at home. Economically, the prolonged siege of Gaza and international pressure strain public resources, threaten markets, and challenge long-term sustainability. The state’s approach, reliant on military solutions and strategic alliances, faces both internal and external limitations. International law has become Israel’s greatest adversary – and its most consistent victim.
Palestinian endurance in Gaza—amid destruction and scarcity—has inspired a global awakening. From social media campaigns to international legal advocacy, the narrative of resilience empowers the moral imagination of billions. Grassroots networks deliver medical aid, food, and essential supplies while countering propaganda. Palestinians insist not merely on survival but on recognition, justice, and sovereignty. Their message reverberates across continents: the fight for human dignity cannot be sidelined.
Qatar’s diplomatic intervention highlights the potential of small states to exert outsized influence in a turbulent regional order. Through mediation, funding, and coordination with Arab League members, Doha exemplifies strategic leverage in asymmetric conflicts. Israel, though militarily dominant, cannot ignore the consequences of regional unity, diplomatic pressure, or the erosion of moral legitimacy. Every airstrike, blockade, and civilian casualty reverberates globally, shaping political, economic, and cultural responses.
Global solidarity is reshaping the conversation. Streets, universities, unions, and cultural institutions increasingly act in unison to challenge injustice. BDS campaigns, protests, and digital activism exert moral and material pressure. Israel’s strategy, focused on force and containment, encounters resistance not only on the ground in Gaza but also in the hearts and minds of citizens worldwide. The siege, intended to isolate, has instead highlighted Gaza’s centrality to global conscience.
The lesson is stark: military power cannot substitute for legitimacy. Gaza, sustained by resilience and amplified by global solidarity, challenges assumptions of unilateral dominance. From Dakar to Delhi, Seoul to São Paulo, citizens are asserting that ethical responsibility is non-negotiable. Israel faces a dual crisis: operational dominance in Gaza versus global delegitimization. Its internal social cohesion is strained; its economy and political narrative are under pressure; its moral credibility is declining.
In the final reckoning, Gaza is not merely a geographic space under siege—it is the epicentre of global moral awakening. Palestinians declare with unwavering clarity: We are here. We are alive. We are not going anywhere. The streets of the world echo this declaration, from the Arab capitals to the Global South, from Europe to North America. Protests, divestments, cultural campaigns, and civic engagement converge to challenge the siege, demanding justice and recognition. The Palestinian struggle has become, in essence, a test of global conscience, one that continues to awaken citizens and shape policy across continents.
This is a pivotal moment. The siege may continue, but so does solidarity. Israel’s military advantage is evident, yet morally, politically, and socially, it faces an unprecedented challenge. The Palestinian people, the streets of the world, the Global South, and Arab diplomacy together form a matrix of resistance that cannot be ignored. Gaza’s endurance is a lesson in courage, strategy, and moral clarity. It demonstrates that survival and justice are not mutually exclusive—they are intertwined, amplified by global action and persistent solidarity.
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250914-israel-qatar-and-the-global-conscience/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/gaza-palestine-trump-hitler-qatar/d/136835
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism