Thursday 16/October/2025 – 06:24 PM
Analyst Shai Gal wrote in an editorial for the Israel Today newspaper that the attack launched by Israel against Hamas members in Doha broke what he called Qatar’s “immunity” and highlighted a new truth that the states of Turkey and Qatar are not part of the solution but rather part of the problem. But among all the accusations and criticism, a pivotal role emerges for Egypt, not as a spectator, but rather as a mediating power capable, according to the writer, of imposing a new reality if the sponsoring countries refrain from Spoiling agreements.
Shai Gal, the Israeli political analyst, wrote in an article in the Israel Today newspaper: If we want a complete calm, there is no alternative to Cairo.
The article confirms that, for an entire decade, Doha exploited its position as a “host” for the Hamas leadership, and transformed what was presented as a humanitarian channel into a stable political and economic structure that allowed the flow of money and the growth of the leadership within Doha. As for Ankara, the writer went further, accusing the Turkish regime of whitewashing extremist viewpoints through educational institutions and official policies, to the point that October 7 was mentioned in the curricula as an occasion for “Palestinian awareness,” according to the article.
The writer places Egypt in a different position, saying: Cairo uses its historical and geographical influence as a mediator in the south, and presents itself as a guarantor of reconstruction and supervision mechanisms, while the highest role is given to the American administration in formulating guarantees. In other words, Gal suggests that the prospective peace plan depends on a clear division of roles, with Egypt on the executive and logistical side, and the United States on strategic supervision.
As for Qatar and Turkey, the scope of their participation was restricted to formal and symbolic roles, especially after it became clear that they might be a haven or even an axis of influence for groups that do not want real peace.
The writer warns against allowing a party that has sponsored a feeding station for extremist ideologies to participate in the keys to reconstruction and control unless the protections it provides to it are abolished.
In the end, the article concludes that Egypt, with its control over the Gaza borders and regional legitimacy, is the most practically capable of transforming the truce into an arrangement that guarantees disarmament and reconstruction, on the condition that it is granted full powers, and that Doha and Ankara reduce their destabilizing influence.
