TRUMP IS DEAD WRONG IN INSISTING THAT ISRAEL'S LONGTIME ENEMIES TURKEY AND QATAR PLAY A ROLE IN POST-WAR GAZA

Why Netanyahu is right to reject Turkish and Qatari involvement in Gaza

Allowing either country to participate in Gaza’s reconstruction or security arrangements would be like asking the arsonist to help rebuild the house he burned down. 

 

By Stephen M. Flatow 

 

JNS

Nov 4, 2025

 

 

 

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani 

 

Reports that the United States is pressing for Turkish troops to participate in a post-war stabilization force in Gaza should alarm anyone who understands the region’s realities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence that no such forces enter Gaza without Israel’s approval is not defiance but common sense. Israel cannot and should not outsource its security to countries whose loyalties are, at best, divided and, at worst, openly hostile.

Turkey and Qatar are not neutral mediators. Both have long histories of supporting Hamas—politically, financially and ideologically. Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has refused to designate Hamas a terrorist organization, calling it instead a “resistance movement.” Ankara has hosted senior Hamas officials, provided them safe passage and allowed its territory to become a base for Hamas’s political operations. Erdoğan’s government routinely uses anti-Israel rhetoric to burnish its Islamist credentials at home and abroad. Such a government cannot be trusted to help secure a post-Hamas Gaza.

Qatar’s record is no better. For years, Doha has functioned as Hamas’s banker, transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza under the pretense of humanitarian aid. It has hosted and continues to host Hamas’s political leadership in luxury and uses its state-run media to promote anti-Israel narratives. Qatar’s mediation efforts are never free of self-interest; they are designed to preserve its role as a power broker in the Arab world, even if that means propping up terrorist actors. Allowing either country to participate in Gaza’s reconstruction or security arrangements would be like asking the arsonist to help rebuild the house he burned down.

Netanyahu’s position—that Israel alone must decide which foreign forces, if any, operate near its borders—flows from the most basic principle of sovereignty. The security of Israel cannot depend on the goodwill of nations that sympathize with its enemies. If Turkish or Qatari troops were deployed under the guise of stabilization, who would ensure that their presence didn’t become a shield for Hamas’s remnants? Who would monitor where Qatari funds went once inside Gaza? These are not abstract questions. They go to the heart of Israel’s very survival.

Critics claim that excluding Turkey and Qatar will make reconstruction harder. But rebuilding Gaza at the cost of re-empowering Hamas would only set the stage for the next war. The same voices urging inclusivity now will be the first to condemn Israel later if Hamas re-emerges from the tunnels rebuilt with “aid money.” Reconstruction can and should proceed, but only under a framework that ensures demilitarization and transparency. Israel can work with Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and other states whose interests align with regional stability, not Islamist ideology.

Some in Washington argue that Turkey and Qatar’s channels to Hamas make them indispensable. That argument confuses access with alignment. It may be tactically useful for Israel or others to use those channels for hostage talks or ceasefire negotiations, but that does not justify placing them in charge of security or governance. Access should never translate into authority.

The same logic applies to U.S. pressure. America is a critical ally and Israel’s closest friend, but friendship does not mean surrendering vital interests. The Trump administration’s vision for the region emphasizes strong sovereign partners, not blind subordination. Israel’s refusal to accept a Turkish or Qatari role does not undermine the alliance; it reinforces the credibility of a partner that takes its own defense seriously. Allies respect resolve more than acquiescence.

Israel’s war with Hamas has never been just about territory. It is about who governs the Gaza Strip, what ideology shapes its future and whether that ideology tolerates Israel’s existence. Turkey and Qatar have each, in their own ways, legitimized Hamas’s genocidal vision. They are part of the problem, not the solution. Including them in Gaza’s next chapter would undermine everything Israeli soldiers fought to achieve.

The temptation to treat every participant as a stakeholder must be resisted. Some players have disqualified themselves by their actions and beliefs. For Israel, this is not a question of diplomatic niceties but of national security. Netanyahu’s stance may frustrate those eager for quick fixes and photo ops, but history will judge it as the prudent course.

Israel’s security must rest on those who truly wish for a peaceful, demilitarized Gaza—not on those who enabled Hamas’s rise in the first place. The prime minister’s refusal to bend to pressure is not stubbornness. It is the clarity that comes from living in a neighborhood where illusions are deadly.