������Ƶ

The Gulf Cooperation Council’s statement following last week’s emergency summit in Doha established a unified Arab Gulf position supporting Qatar, proclaiming that “council member security remains indivisible” and declaring that “aggression against any member state constitutes aggression against all members.”

The summit’s most consequential decision mandated the Joint Defense Council’s urgent convening in Doha to assess defensive capabilities and activate collective security mechanisms. This transition from diplomatic condemnation to operational planning demonstrates Gulf determination to establish concrete deterrent frameworks, rather than accept Israeli aggression as a precedent.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s immediate pledge that the Kingdom deploy “all its capabilities to support Qatar as it takes measures to protect its security and preserve its sovereignty” exemplifies this shift toward actionable commitment. Riyadh’s position transcends diplomatic courtesy, representing the calculated protection of national and regional interests with the aim of constraining Israel’s future operational choices and preventing the repetition of what Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani termed its “treacherous” aggression.

The Qatari leader’s address to the emergency Arab-Islamic summit conveyed unmistakable anger alongside political rhetoric. Qatari officials repeatedly characterized the Sept. 9 Israeli operation targeting the Hamas leadership in Doha as treacherous.

This perception of betrayal stems from Qatar’s pivotal role in mediating between Israel and Hamas, which is conducted in coordination with Egypt and is backed by Washington. Doha had welcomed Israeli Mossad delegations during sensitive negotiations, creating reasonable expectations of operational immunity. Qatar viewed the attack as undermining hostage and prisoner release efforts.

Sheikh Tamim stated categorically: “We were subjected to a treacherous attack that targeted a residence housing the families of Hamas leaders and their negotiating delegation.” He characterized it as “a flagrant violation of (Qatar’s) sovereignty and security and a clear violation of the rules and principles of international law.”

For Gulf states known for their patient, calculated responses, such public displays of anger signal the fundamental violation of boundaries — precisely Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s transgression.

Following his military victories against resistance forces, Gaza’s devastation and Israel’s confrontation with Iran, the Israeli PM perceives an unprecedented opportunity for regional dominance.

Gulf states are determined to establish concrete deterrent frameworks, rather than accept Israeli aggression. 

Hassan Al-Mustafa

This assessment, reinforced by an extreme right-wing expansionist ideology and “Greater Israel” ambitions, drove the decision to attack a peace-engaged state, despite understanding the significance of Qatar’s mediation and while disregarding the constraints of international law.

Netanyahu’s display of power generated extensive Islamic-Arab solidarity with Qatar. Participants at the emergency summit demonstrated this support clearly. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi argued that the Israeli approach “undermines the future of peace … and even aborts the existing peace agreements with countries in the region.” Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian declared that Israel had exceeded all boundaries, requiring a unified response and international legal accountability. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan demanded that summit participants translate their declarations into “concrete actions, including economic pressure.”

While politically significant, this solidarity raises questions about the possible subsequent steps and pressure mechanisms that are available to Arab and Islamic states seeking accountability for Israel.

Popular sentiment favors severing Israeli relations, replacing American security arrangements with Russian or Chinese alternatives, and establishing new military partnerships. Yet these proposals reflect emotion rather than strategic viability.

Saudi analyst Abdulrahman Al-Rashed offered a sobering assessment in his Sept. 14 Asharq Al-Awsat column, advocating realism over wishful thinking. “The Arab countries that have relations with Israel will not sever them, the countries hosting Washington’s military bases will not close them, Egypt will not withdraw from the gas import agreement, and Mahmoud Abbas will not leave power in Ramallah,” he observed. He characterized these as “high political prices and, even if the countries concerned sacrifice them, neither they nor the Palestinians will obtain any concessions or victories in return.” He advocated expectations based on “what can be achieved within a practical political horizon, not on unrealistic proposals.”

The most feasible approach involves supporting the Saudi-French initiatives promoting the implementation of the two-state solution, expanding the recognition of a Palestinian state and encouraging American engagement in comprehensive peace processes, while developing Arab or Gulf capabilities to create regional security networks that limit Israeli aggression and constrain its expansionist objectives.

Gulf states have consistently demonstrated a capacity for transcending disagreements during crises that affect their shared interests — a reflection of the fundamental values in regional political culture. Activating joint defense mechanisms, coordinated diplomacy and comprehensive partnerships across the economic, security and political dimensions could establish effective barriers preventing any further Israeli aggression.

• Hassan Al-Mustafa is a Saudi writer and researcher interested in Islamic movements, the development of religious discourse and the relationship between the Gulf Cooperation Council states and Iran. X: @Halmustafa