Responses to Israel's Doha strike: The condemnations mask relief - opinion

Israel has both the right and the capacity to cross borders to protect its citizens. Don’t confuse the public protest of Israel’s critics with their private preferences. When it comes to Hamas, what these nations shout may well be the opposite of what they secretly seek.

Israel’s attack on Hamas in Qatar is hardly unique. History shows that states routinely cross borders with international impunity under similar circumstances. Consider, for example, that in 2011, the US obtained some measure of justice and retribution for 9/11 when Navy SEALs flew into Abbottabad, Pakistan, and killed Osama bin Laden. Pakistan protested, but there was no military retaliation or lasting rupture. Consider France’s interventions in Libya.

In 1986, French jets bombed Libya’s Ouadi Doum airbase to protect France’s strategic interests and its ally Chad. Libya protested, but the world moved on. Again in 2019, French jets hit rebel convoys entering Chad from Libya. Outrage was short-lived; there was no retaliation. Other examples involving Turkey, India, Russia, Israel, Ethiopia, and Colombia (to name but a few) exist. Such sovereignty violations are common. They are regularly condemned but rarely punished.

Yet, now, French President Emmanuel Macron hypocritically babbles that Israel’s strikes against Hamas leadership in Qatar are “unacceptable. I condemn them. I reaffirmed France’s commitment to the sovereignty and security of Qatar.”

One can’t help but wonder what Macron thought of Libya’s sovereignty when he authorized France’s attack on rebels in 2019. Similarly, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry whined that the strike was a “cowardly Israeli attack” and a “blatant violation of all international laws and norms,” ignoring, of course, the well-established norm against providing aid and shelter to known terrorists.

In my view, these responses are purely performative. They are kabuki theater for domestic political consumption and reflect nothing of the real power exercised between states or their desire to stabilize the region without Hamas. They sound furious, cost nothing, and forecast no genuine willingness to escalate. What most of these governments say for the cameras is the inverse of what they pray for in private.

Notwithstanding their protestations, all parties acknowledge that Israel can strike anywhere and that it brooks no quarter for anyone providing a haven to those responsible for the October 7 terror attack. Israel’s strike in Qatar was not only about killing Hamas leadership, it was about again demonstrating Israel’s reach and penchant to act.

Consider also Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s sharp denunciation of Israel’s attack in Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood, with Hamas as its Palestinian branch, is his existential enemy. Sisi shed no tears over the targeting of Hamas’s leadership. Still, as the leader of a major Arab power, he condemned the attack publicly not to protect Hamas, but to protect Egypt’s standing and his own rule.

The recent Arab-Islamic summit’s harsh concluding statement “strongly” condemning the attack is properly viewed in the same light, especially when considering that the statement mentions Hamas not once and explicitly supports “mediation efforts.”

Despite their noisy diplo-speak, these Arab governments likely share Israel’s goals. They prefer stability, peace, and prosperity. They all recognize, though cannot publicly say, that Israel isn’t going away, and that Hamas must be dismantled and disarmed. The hostages must be freed. Gaza must ultimately be rebuilt under a regime that ensures Israel’s security and provides a better future for Palestinians.