JEDDAH: The decision by Gulf states to sever ties with Qatar came as “an accumulation” of its behavior in the region, UAE Foreign Minister Anwar Gargash told CNN’s John Defterios on Tuesday.
“We had an agreement in 2014, on paper, signed by the emir of Qatar, pledging that he will abide by the various grievances that were put in the agreement. They have not held to that agreement, so clearly there is a lack of trust.”
Gargash said there are two messages for Qatar: “Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt and other countries are fed up with this sort of duplicity that we have seen, that has been undermining the region… It is time for cooler heads to restructure Qatar’s approach on foreign policy. The other message is: If we do not see that change, then Qatar needs to understand that it is on its own.”
Following is the full transcript of the interview:
Q: What prompted such a strong response by this coalition?
A: I think it is an accumulation of Qatar’s behavior in the region, and especially I would say over the last period… Huge logistical, financial support for extremist groups, support also for some terrorist organizations such as Al-Nusra and some organizations in Libya and in our area, such as the Sinai and other areas. This is really at the crux of the issue… There is no more trust.
Q: Doha is denying this, saying it does not exist, this evidence of financing terrorism or even supporting Iran. What is the concrete evidence?
A: There is a lot of evidence. Doha has built over the years a large network… Just look at the small example of the ransom that was being paid to various terrorist groups in Syria, in Iraq. That ransom camouflages the sort of support we are seeing. There is also other evidence of arms, shipments etc. going to organizations in Libya... The evidence is there. Our attempts to raise this bilaterally, collectively with Qatar in a patient mood has all hit basically a brick wall. As a result, this is an action we have to take because Qatar is a partner with us in the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and we need to work together.
Q: This is the closest thing I have ever seen to an economic blockade on many fronts. What are you hoping to accomplish from the young emir of Qatar?
A: I think two things. The first thing is to make clear that various countries — Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt and other countries — are fed up with this sort of duplicity that we have seen, that has been undermining the region. And to send a strong message that it is time for cooler heads to restructure Qatar’s approach on foreign policy. That is one message. The other message is: If we do not see that change, then Qatar needs to understand that it is on its own... We cannot accept that we have a partner sitting with us around the same table that is undermining our stability and undermining security in the region.
Q: Can it survive on its own, with this economic isolation? What is the point you are trying to prove here?
A: I think we are all better off if wiser and cooler heads basically direct Qatar’s approach of managing the current crisis… (so) we can restructure and change Qatar’s policy not to undermine us, not to hurt us. The issue is not about an independent foreign policy. The GCC has always had various member partners with their independent foreign policies. It is an issue of foreign policy that is working to undermine the security and stability of the region and some of these partners. This is of course not acceptable.
Q: The emir of Kuwait is trying to broker a truce… Is that possible? Saudi Arabia is taking a particularly tough line, closing Qatar Airways offices, suggesting from the central bank they do not want to trade Qatari riyals. Do they want a solution?
A: We had an agreement in 2014, on paper, signed by the emir of Qatar, pledging that he will abide by various grievances that were put in the agreement. They have not held to that agreement, so clearly there is a lack of trust, so a new mediation will be much more difficult. It will need a sincere approach from Qatar that will assure us all that Qatar is intent on changing its approach and being more in line with the stability and security of the region. If that is the approach, then of course we need to build a roadmap. I would say in view of what happened in 2014 it is a difficult sell, but we have to wait and see what happens.
Q: Is it fair to say this coalition feels more emboldened after the visit of President (Donald) Trump to Riyadh and the GCC Summit that took place there?
A: The Riyadh Declaration and Riyadh conference were extremely successful in addressing the issue of extremism and terrorism in black and white. Basically, the Qatari position undermines the sort of consensus that was shaped in Riyadh. The current GCC response toward Qatar is an accumulation of more than a decade of very difficult choices, undermining policies, support for extremism... I think that is the problem.
Q: Many think this coalition is emboldened after the visit, though, of President Trump. Sources tell me that inside that meeting, Qatar took a very hard line. Is that what took place?
A: I cannot comment on what happened in a bilateral meeting. I have read the press reports you have. I would say again that the issue of extremism and terrorism is at the heart of the current rift which the GCC faces with Qatar… We need to make sure there is a clear difference between running an independent foreign policy and running an undermining foreign policy. This is something we have to be very cognizant of.
Q: Do you see Qatar remaining as a member of the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council after this?
A: I hope so. The GCC is a very successful regional group.
Q: Some do not agree with that. They think it is completely broken.
A: The numbers speak louder, with the economic numbers of people moving, investment etc. It is not ideal, but I think the GCC is a successful group that has brought a lot of benefits to the region. But the question I think is a little bit premature. It will all depend on how Qatar wants to address the issue. Does it want to deny that there is a problem, and try to deal with it with its various media outlets and try to divert the issue? Does it want to address the issue head-on and say past policies have been a problem? The emir of Qatar in 2014 clearly said: “Whatever happens before I became emir, I am not responsible for. I am responsible for the record of Qatar after I have assumed the emirateship of Qatar.” We need a change because it is undermining regional security and undermining our attempts at countering the extremist and terrorist narrative.
Q: What do you think is the narrative between Doha and Tehran these days? Do you think Qatar is supporting Iran? What is the evidence of that?
A: I think that Iran wants to use any vacuum to try and push in. The emir of Qatar has not been perhaps as vocal in his position on Iran, because of the major economic interests they have in gas fields etc. But I think Iran is watching this situation, and is trying to see whether it can actually play on the situation and see if there is any vacuum currently.
Q: And bring Qatar closer to it, as you are suggesting?
A: The best solution is for cooler heads to take charge in Doha… At the same time, it is important to get what I would call rationality, because the Qatari people are similar to all the GCC people in their social and economic backgrounds, what they aspire for and so forth. So I am hoping this is something we can actually deal with, but it will really require Doha to change the way it has been behaving, regionally and with its neighbors.
Q: Is there any potential for retaliation by Qatar? They deliver natural gas. About a third of the supply is to the UAE. Do you see that happening?
A: No, I think there are commitments. These are all commercial commitments with proper legal frameworks. I do not think we will see that sort of retaliation. And it will not be wise.
UAE FM Anwar Gargash on Qatar: ‘Clearly there is a lack of trust’
UAE FM Anwar Gargash on Qatar: ‘Clearly there is a lack of trust’
What role will Palestinian technocrats play in Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction?
- Newly formed committee prepares to help administer Gaza under Trump-backed plan, despite continued uncertainty
- Stabilization efforts gather pace with Board of Peace funding pledges, but access and security questions remain unresolved
DUBAI: US President Donald Trump convened the first meeting of his Board of Peace in Washington on Feb. 19, bringing together about two dozen allied leaders and diplomats to discuss postwar governance of Palestine’s Gaza Strip.
Among those in attendance was Ali Shaath, a former undersecretary in the Palestinian Authority widely regarded as a nonpartisan figure. In January, he was appointed to lead the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a 15-member body of technocrats expected to serve as the board’s governing partner on the ground.
As the vision takes shape, the scale of reconstruction presents a daunting challenge. A joint rapid damage assessment by the UN, European Union and World Bank estimates the cost of rebuilding Gaza and making it safe at approximately $70 billion.
Officials say about $20 billion will be needed in the first three years to jump-start recovery and stabilization.
At Thursday’s meeting, nine board member states committed a total of $7 billion toward a relief package, while the US committed an additional $10 billion.
Saudi Arabia pledged $1 billion to support efforts aimed at ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Addressing the board, Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Al-Jubeir said the Kingdom was embarking “on a journey toward establishing a lasting and just peace in the Middle East.”
He emphasized a two-state solution in which “Palestine and Israel live side by side in peace and security.”
Such an outcome, he added, would transform the region “from death and destruction to hope and prosperity.” He also expressed Saudi Arabia’s readiness to cooperate with the Board of Peace to advance what he described as a “noble objective.”
For his part, Shaath outlined the committee’s mandate. “A new governing authority is now in place for Gaza with a clear mandate and a clear commitment to establishing development and stability,” he said, noting it would operate “in extremely difficult conditions.”
“Large parts of the Gaza Strip are severely damaged — destroyed actually, humanitarian needs are acute, law and order remain fragile,” he added.
Israel’s military campaign, launched after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel, has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, displaced nearly the entire population, and devastated civilian infrastructure.
Against this backdrop, the Board of Peace, announced in mid-January, is intended to coordinate Gaza’s reconstruction, security arrangements, and political transition under US leadership, with Trump as chair.
As part of that effort, Shaath said the committee’s immediate priority would be to restore security by deploying a 5,000-strong police force drawn entirely from Gaza within 60 days.
From there, the focus would shift to reviving economic activity, delivering sustained emergency relief, and restoring basic services.
“Our mandate is simple,” he said. “Step by step, to build the foundation for lasting peace, dignity and prosperity for the people of Gaza.”
But what is the structure of the Palestinian governing body tasked with carrying out that mission, and how viable will it be?
Hugh Lovatt, a senior policy fellow with the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Arab News that the committee’s final composition has been in flux for months. By cross-referencing images from meetings in Cairo with European Commission records, he has identified several of its members.
He said the group appears to include many former Palestinian Authority officials, despite Israel’s insistence that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority should play a role in postwar governance.
“What comes out of the profiles is the extent to which the members of the committee have had ties to the Palestinian Authority and to the Fatah party of President (Mahmoud) Abbas,” Lovatt said.
As an example, he cited Sami Nasman, a prominent officer in the Palestinian General Intelligence Service who is expected to oversee internal security.
At the same time, he noted that several other members come from humanitarian and academic backgrounds and appear less politically aligned.
According to Lovatt, the committee faces significant hurdles, with Hamas having yet to disarm, and Israel continuing to block committee members from entering Gaza.
“They aren’t even allowed into Gaza at the moment,” he said. “They don’t have funding; they don’t have civil service at the moment.”
Israel has barred committee members from entering Gaza via the Rafah crossing, citing security concerns, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Members are currently operating from Egypt or remotely, limiting their ability to exercise authority on the ground.
In the interim, Lovatt said, governance on the ground is largely in the hands of existing civil servants, adding that Hamas insists on keeping much of Gaza’s bureaucracy intact after any transfer of power — an arrangement that appears to have been accepted for now.
As a result, while the technocratic committee undergoes training in Cairo under the Board of Peace, the day-to-day administration of Gaza continues to rely on the pre-existing civil infrastructure.
Indeed, although Hamas publicly pledged in late January to hand over civilian administration, it reportedly retains full control of security forces, about 40,000 civil servants, and its weapons.
Full disarmament, which is a core condition tied to Phase Two of Trump’s 20-point ceasefire plan and Board of Peace oversight, has yet to be implemented.
The war in Gaza has been widely described by rights groups and UN bodies as amounting to “genocide,” with accusations that Israel used starvation as a weapon of war.
According to the local health authority, at least 72,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, were killed and more than 171,680 were injured until a ceasefire took effect on Oct. 9.
In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as a former Hamas commander, citing allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Nickolay Mladenov, a former Bulgarian politician selected as the Board of Peace’s high representative for Gaza, said that while the committee is prepared to assume its mandate, the situation remains volatile.
“Unfortunately, some people believe that this is a bit like changing a government after an election,” he told CNN during a recent interview. “It’s far more complicated than that.
“We need to be able to verify and to confirm that the transfer of authority by Hamas to the International Committee happens in a meaningful way.”
Mladenov, who acts as the link between the board and the committee, maintained that Trump’s plan is the most comprehensive path forward, while warning that alternatives could be catastrophic.
“I think we need to make very clear to everyone that there are only three pathways forward,” he said.
“One pathway leads to a resumption of war, and that is certainly something that we want to avoid. The second pathway, perhaps even more dangerous than the resumption of war, is cementing the situation which you have now, where Gaza is divided.”
The third pathway, he said, “requires Hamas to give up civilian control of Gaza, to decommission all weapons inside the Gaza Strip, and to have a new governance model that allows for reconstruction to happen.”
Gaza remains physically and politically divided, split between Israeli-controlled eastern buffer zones, including the Yellow Line, and a densely packed western coastal strip where most Palestinians are confined.
Israel controls more than half of Gaza’s land, enforcing no-go zones and preventing full Palestinian access or return. The remaining coastal enclave, which is ever-shrinking due to operations, is managed uneasily between Hamas’s residual security hold, the sidelined technocratic committee, and limited aid flows via Rafah, which Israel contests.
Given these circumstances, some observers question whether the committee will ultimately be able to benefit Palestinians in Gaza.
Hannan Hussein, a senior expert at the Initiate Futures policy think tank, cautioned that the technocratic committee might “ultimately work to implement reconstruction in Gaza in a manner that is beneficial to Israel.”
He told Arab News: “Its success is ultimately tethered to the operations of the Board of Peace. Its mandate comes at a time when the possibilities of enduring peace in Gaza are not in line with the interests of besieged Palestinians.
“This is important, because enduring stability remains distant when those subject to aggression lack a voice within the committee. To succeed, it needs ownership from the ground up, which is lacking.”
Those concerns are compounded by ongoing violence despite a ceasefire that took effect on Oct. 9. Israel has continued airstrikes and raids that have killed Palestinians and obstructed large-scale reconstruction, keeping the territory in a state of chronic emergency.
Since the ceasefire took effect, another 601 Palestinians had been killed and 1,607 injured, according to Gaza’s health authority.
Aid groups continue to call for a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, saying continued violence, displacement and restrictions on humanitarian access are hindering the delivery of essential assistance.
Although the Rafah crossing with Egypt reopened on Feb. 2 in both directions, the flow of people and aid is below agreed levels, an official from the Egyptian Red Crescent in North Sinai told Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper on Feb. 19.
Hussein also raised concerns about the committee’s lack of independent oversight and questions surrounding transparency.
Even so, the committee appears, for now, to have the broadest backing of any Palestinian body positioned to govern Gaza, with both Hamas and Israel agreeing in principle to its formation.
Implementation of the Gaza plan appears to be moving forward, according to the European Council on Foreign Relations.
The latest confirmed list of technocrats suggests a final roster of 16 to 17 commissioners, although several portfolios — including transport, energy, land authority and religious affairs — remain to be finalized.
