Diplomacy at this year’s Doha Forum unfolded through careful language and selective silences, as leaders and experts debated a fragile “pause” in Gaza without agreeing on disarmament, borders, or who should shape the territory’s postwar future.
Four contrasting perspectives shared with The Media Line—from Yigal Carmon, founder and president of the Middle East Media Research Institute; Irina Tsukerman, US-based geopolitical analyst and president of Scarab Rising; Dr. Tallha Abdulrazaq, regional policy expert and Middle East analyst; and a senior Qatar-based political analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity—sketched a diplomatic landscape where negotiations are intensifying but consensus on Gaza’s postwar order remains deeply fractured.
Throughout the forum, an annual gathering in Doha that draws senior officials, diplomats, and media figures, Qatari officials consistently referred to the Gaza arrangement as a “pause,” avoiding the term “ceasefire.” The omission of any public demand for Hamas disarmament was just as striking.
For Dr. Tallha Abdulrazaq, this linguistic precision reflects political limits rather than tactical ambiguity. “The deliberate shift in language from ‘ceasefire’ to ‘pause,’ paired with the conspicuous silence on disarmament, signals that demilitarization is currently unenforceable and is being quietly deferred,” Abdulrazaq told The Media Line. “Asking Hamas to disarm without a binding guarantee of a total cessation of Israeli strikes is effectively asking for capitulation under fire. The resulting stabilization plan is less about resolving the conflict and more about freezing it,” he explained. He added that this framework “accepts a fragile containment model where Hamas retains its weapons as a survival necessity,” leaving the central security dilemma unresolved.
The resulting stabilization plan is less about resolving the conflict and more about freezing it
From Doha’s Arab political perspective, the terminology instead signals a different crisis of confidence. “When Arab officials hesitate to call this a ceasefire, this is an indication that Israel is viewed as an unreliable actor that does not honor agreements—not an indication that Hamas will not disarm,” the Qatar-based political analyst told The Media Line. “From the perspective of Arab leaders, the real challenge to any stabilization plan is Israel. The same goes for the Arab public,” he added.
Yigal Carmon rejected both framings as secondary to what he described as Hamas’ military calculus. “They don’t dream of giving up the weapons,” Carmon said about Hamas. “They want to come out with their weapons as victorious. And that is exactly what Israel cannot allow,” he added.
Carmon warned that the diplomatic language masks a physical security dynamic that remains unresolved on the ground. “If Israel is not present at Rafah now that has been reopened by Egypt, everything returns immediately to how it used to be—smuggling of weapons, tunnels, everything,” he said. “The Rafah crossing will be one thing above ground and something completely different underground. We are already going back to the pre–October 7 situation. Hamas is already recovering control,” he noted.
Beyond Gaza itself, Carmon cast Doha as part of a long-term branding and influence strategy. “This is one big show to present Qatar as a Western conference center—a political Prada,” he told The Media Line. “They cover Islamist ideology with the World Cup, Hollywood, Western universities, global forums, influencers. This is exactly what they did with FIFA, and now they are doing it with diplomacy,” he said. Carmon argued that this blending of luxury branding and politics deliberately blurs ideological boundaries.
“Anywhere in the Muslim world where there is a battle between Islamists and secularists, Qatar stands with the Islamists,” he said. “From Afghanistan to Sudan, to Tunisia, to Libya—everywhere they drag the Arab world backward,” he added. In recent weeks, some media reports cited by critics have pointed to visits by US-based right-wing and pro-Israel-aligned content creators to Doha as further examples of this soft-power campaign. Those reports, which sparked backlash within parts of the American political sphere, have been interpreted by observers as part of Qatar’s broader effort to position itself simultaneously as a mediator, a humanitarian actor, and a host able to bring together rival camps.
Qatar’s sponsorship functions as an informal immunity system that limits the practical effect of sanctions and political pressure
Irina Tsukerman interpreted Doha’s role less as image-making and more as insulation from pressure. “Qatar operates inside a protected envelope,” she told The Media Line. “When Qatar chooses to host someone, the United States still shows up. Qatar’s sponsorship functions as an informal immunity system that limits the practical effect of sanctions and political pressure,” she explained. She added that this immunity extends well beyond symbolism.
“Instead of tying bilateral cooperation to measurable shifts in Qatar’s support structure for Hamas, Washington treats Doha’s relationship with the organization as an asset for mediation,” Tsukerman said. That immunity was visible in the presence of US delegations alongside Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur sanctioned by Washington, and polarizing Western media figures such as Tucker Carlson—a convergence illustrating Doha’s ability to host irreconcilable narratives.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
The Qatar-based analyst described this not as a spectacle but as deliberate diplomatic engineering. “This signals an endorsement of Qatar’s convening power, as it continues to bring together individuals who hold diametrically opposed views—offering them a space to speak and potentially find common ground,” he said.
Turkey’s determination to participate in a Gaza stabilization force became one of Doha’s sharpest geopolitical fault lines. From Israel’s security perspective, Carmon drew a firm boundary. “Israel may accept Azerbaijan. But Turkey—absolutely not,” he said. “Erdoğan says openly he wants war with Israel. You don’t bring into a stabilization force someone who speaks about war against you,” he added.
Dr. Abdulrazaq framed Ankara’s bid as a calculated geopolitical gamble. “By offering boots on the ground when few others are willing, Turkey is attempting to make itself indispensable to the United States and the international community,” he said. “It is trying to impose political facts before the security framework solidifies,” he added.
The Qatar-based analyst rejected that framing outright. “Israel, not Turkey, is the entity that is trying to impose political facts on the ground before a security framework is finalized,” he said. “One only needs to look at Israel’s use of yellow concrete blocks to set false borders in Gaza. Turkey is acting with other countries to ensure an end to the violence,” he added.
Turkish officials also pointed to backing from Indonesia and Azerbaijan for their involvement, adding another diplomatic layer. Abdulrazaq described this as calculated aggregation. “By pairing Indonesia’s weight as the world’s largest Muslim nation with Azerbaijan’s unique position as Israel’s defense partner, Ankara is constructing a ‘broad church’ force that becomes diplomatically costly to dismiss,” he said.
The Qatar-based analyst again rejected the suspicion. “Indonesia and Azerbaijan’s endorsement of Turkey’s role in Gaza indicates that Turkey is seen as a trustworthy actor, not as part of a cynical plot,” he said.
Behind the scenes, the figure of Tom Barrack, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, loomed large over Turkey’s confidence in Washington. “Tom Barrack is not the American ambassador to Turkey,” Carmon told The Media Line. “He is the Turkish ambassador to the White House,” he added. Carmon tied Barrack’s worldview directly to Turkey’s regional ambitions.
“When Barrack says Sykes-Picot should be forgotten, that means Turkish dominance over the region, meaning backing Erdoğan’s dream of rebuilding the Ottoman Empire,” he said.
Tsukerman positioned Barrack as a key connector within Washington’s foreign-policy network. “Turkey believes that as long as Barrack sits at the intersection of Syria, Lebanon, and Ankara’s regional files, it has a direct channel to convert Turkish proposals into US talking points,” she said.
Carmon also offered a broader critique of President Trump’s regional approach, warning that economic transactionalism cannot substitute for ideological realities. “President Trump does not take hostile ideology seriously,” Carmon said. “For him, ideology is ‘blah, blah, blah.’ As long as they do what he wants, he believes it will work. But in reality, they don’t,” he added.
He warned that this approach carries long-term risk. “They are criminals and idealists at the same time,” Carmon said of Islamist movements. “They are ready to die for their ideals. This blindness to ideology within the region is already blowing up in President Trump’s face. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing expansionism in the US,” he added.
Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa used the Doha stage to issue one of his sharpest public rebukes of Israel. “Al-Sharaa has maintained a principled stance against Israel’s illegal violence,” the Qatar-based analyst said. “After Beit Jinn, after Quneitra, after the bombing of the Syrian defense ministry—his position has remained the same,” he added.
Tsukerman viewed the rhetoric as calibrated rather than transformational. “He was careful about what he did not say,” she said. “He did not attack the United States. Under the current calculus, even sharp anti-Israel rhetoric is treated as calibrated theater rather than a strategic rupture,” she added.
Despite Hezbollah’s rearmament and a still-present Houthi threat, Iran and its proxies were rarely named directly in Doha panels. “Hezbollah’s rearmament and the Houthis’ residual capacity were treated as realities to be managed, not uprooted,” Tsukerman said. “Adaptation hardens into structural accommodation,” she added.
The Qatar-based analyst placed regional threat perception elsewhere. “The region is too focused on the threat posed by Israel to worry about any potential threat from Iran,” he said. “The Iran–Saudi rapprochement did more to neutralize proxy threats than any military confrontation,” he added. Carmon contested this hierarchy directly.
There are not multiple tracks. There are only two: the United States and Israel on one side, and Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria and Jordan on the other.
“Qatar backs Iran, and it is currently the only one among Arab countries, so of course this issue was dismissed,” he said. At the center of Doha’s diplomacy lies a fundamental power contest. “There are not multiple tracks,” the Qatar-based analyst said. “There are only two: the United States and Israel on one side, and Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and Jordan on the other,” he added.
Tsukerman described the result as fragmentation driven by political survival. “No single bloc is directing the postwar framework,” she said. “Political survival logic now supersedes coherent strategy,” she added.
On Gaza’s borders and reconstruction funds, the Qatar-based analyst rejected any external mandate. “The only side that has the legal right to control Gaza’s borders, revenues, and reconstruction funding is the Palestinian side,” he said. “Any other arrangement would only be temporary,” he added.
Tsukerman described the parallel transactional reality, saying that “control over borders, revenues, and reconstruction money is already being sliced up in quiet conversations” and that “public forums offer narrative cover. The decisions that matter are made elsewhere.”
This is an effort to buy time until new political realities emerge
For Abdulrazaq, “this is an effort to buy time until new political realities emerge,” he said, arguing that the Doha Forum’s careful language masks an unresolved struggle over who will shape Gaza’s next chapter.