In a historic first, a Qatari Minister agreed to be interviewed by Israeli journalists. The interview is fascinating because the minister is directly involved in negotiations between Hamas and Israel. The interview appeared in Haaretz. You will find more critical views in Haaretz than in American media.

DOHA – Dr. Majed Al-Ansari, adviser to the Qatari prime minister and spokesperson for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, has become a well-known figure in recent months. 

In a special interview – the first he has given to an Israeli news outlet, he says – Al-Ansari discusses Qatar’s frustration with both Hamas and Israel’s conduct in talks to reach a cease-fire/hostage release deal, and the need to reach an agreement as soon as possible to prevent further harm to the hostages.

The conversation in Doha, which took place after the Qatari prime minister said he was “re-evaluating” the country’s role in negotiations, occurred amid reports in Israel that another proposal is being examined by both Israel and Hamas, amid fierce demonstrations within Israel designed to pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to show greater flexibility and go for a deal.

The interview with Al-Ansari took place at a complex located not far from where Israel’s delegation has gathered in recent months for negotiations.

The decision to be interviewed by Haaretz at this moment (alongside an interview with Israeli news outlet Kan), and to allow a journalist with Israeli citizenship to have his passport stamped at the local airport, indicates a change in direction: Amid a tainted relationship with Netanyahu, Qatar is showing increased openness to engaging in direct dialogue with the Israeli public.

In your opinion, is it still possible to reach a hostage release deal?

“Well, you know, we’ve been working tirelessly from day one on this. We reached out directly on October 8 to both sides. As soon as we knew that there were hostages, as we knew that there were lives at stake, we immediately reached out to both sides, and since that day, our negotiations have not stopped. Looking for every possible way, every possible venue for every idea. 

“Also in the first deal that collapsed after seven days, we understood that we needed a more robust agreement between both sides that would return all the hostages back home to their families and help us save lives on both sides, and we were hoping to see much more flexibility, much more seriousness, much more commitment on both sides, all through the the process, from day one.

“And I think we’ve been positively engaging with the negotiating teams here in Doha. We believe that there was a lot of sincerity in the process itself, in offering ideas and understanding ideas and taking back ideas. Sadly, that did not materialize to this day, and that certainly led us to reassess our mediation, reassess the commitment to both sides, and reassess the seriousness of both sides.”

Al-Ansari declines to assess the chances that talks will move foward. 

“Let me tell you what I can share on this. We are now at the point where the talks have effectively stopped and both sides are entrenched in their positions, and therefore it would be very difficult to get any calculations on the numbers or other things right now. But if there is a renewed sense of commitment on both sides, I’m sure we can reach a deal that would be able to bring more people home to their families.”

When you say you are re-evaluating your role in the talks, do you really think it’s possible that Qatar will step back from the part it plays in the mediation efforts between Israel and Hamas?

“Well, in the end, our role is based on finding a way to reach a deal between both sides, to reach peace, and to end this discomfort. We have been doing this since 2006 when the U.S. approached us and asked us to open a channel of communication with Hamas, especially and precisely for this kind of scenario. We’ve conducted countless mediations since then, especially since 2014.

“We absolutely understand that a paradigm shift has happened since the attacks of October 7 and this is a totally different reality. But we believe that the way towards peace is through talking, is through mediation, and through getting the hostages back to their families. This can only be done through our efforts in the mediation process with all our partners in the region.

“However, if we see that it’s a hopeless endeavor, then we need to reassess our position and see how we can be useful in the process itself. Because to be honest, we do not want to be used as part of prolonging this conflict.”

Do you feel that you’ve been used?

“Of course. As I said, we are reassessing the commitment of both sides, and one of the main reasons for this is that we’ve gotten all of these statements that contradict the show of commitment to the talks themselves.

One of the critics of your conduct is the prime minister of Israel.

“I don’t want to talk about certain individuals, because I think this is bigger than the people themselves. We were surprised by a lot of the statements coming out, because most of them came from people who know the process, who know our role in the process, and for years those people have worked with us on it, it has accomplished a lot of peace throughout the years and has accomplished the return of 109 hostages during the current conflict.”

Al-Ansari did not directly name Netanyahu as the object of criticism at any point during the interview, but the strained relationship between the Israeli prime minister and Qatar’s leadership has become visible in recent months. Netanyahu’s public calls to urge Qatar to exert pressure on Hamas are seen in Doha as an expression of ill faith in their efforts thus far.

During a meeting with the families of hostages in January, Netanyahu claimed that Qatar was more problematic than the UN and the Red Cross, and said that he did not trust them. In February, he called on the leaders of Jewish communities in the U.S. to pressure Qatar to use its leverage over Hamas.”Qatar has the ability to put pressure on Hamas more than others. They host Hamas’ leaders, Hamas depends on them financially,” Netanyahu said at the time.

Do you feel that Netanyahu or other senior Israeli officials are trying to scapegoat Qatar because the deal is not progressing?

“Well, there is a lot of political posturing and I can say very clearly that our feeling is that a lot of these statements have to do with very narrow political ambitions, and that Qatar is being used as a political punching bag for those who are looking either to safeguard their political futures or to find more votes in the next elections. 

“Sadly, while we have in front of us and as the main driver behind everything we do human lives that are being lost as a result of this conflict, we believe at times that narrow political calculations deliver these statements, with disregard for the lives of both Israeli and Palestinians.”

In February, you harshly criticized Netanyahu, claiming that his calls to urge Qatar to exert pressure on Hamas were “an attempt to prolong the fighting for obvious reasons.” What did you mean?

“Well, as I said, these statements are impeding the mediation. I mean, I could tell you that since we started working with both sides on this for many years now. And our relationship, especially with the security establishment in Israel over mediation and over ending all of these conflicts and escalations that have taken place throughout the years, has always been productive. 

“We have always been able to engage in a very open way and engage very sincerely, but right now, what we are seeing is that every time we get close to a deal, every time we find new ideas to present to the table, there is sabotage talking place, and that sabotage is in the form of statements or actions that, of course, impede the message.”

From the Israeli side?

“From both sides. And this is why we were hoping that with our help, and with the help of the international community, we could pressure both sides.”

But do you also believe that Netanyahu prefers to continue the war rather than reach an agreement at this point in time?

Al-Ansari considers his answer. 

“If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck. It the end, these statements do not show us a real commitment to end this conflict as soon as possible. 

“I don’t think [this current conflict is] in anybody’s interest. It’s not in the interest of the Israeli people, its not in the interest of the Palestinian people, not in the interest of all the peace-loving people in the region here for this war to continue, or for a regional spillover to result in the region. 

“It is all of our duty together to our peoples to end this conflict in a peaceful manner and to reach a situation where the security of the Israeli people and the security of the region as a whole is the paramount concern, not narrow political calculations.”

Al-Ansari expressed great concern in the inteview over the possibility that an Israeli operation in Rafah will cause harm to the Israeli hostages and the mass killing of innocent people in the area.

“We have the same point of view that we have always had all through this process: Every escalation on the ground impedes the process. Every escalation on the ground puts the hostages lives at risk. Every escalation on the ground means more death for civilians in Gaza. 

“We know for sure that such an operation will result in countless civilian deaths, and we have voiced our concern along with our partners in the U.S., and Europe, all around the world, that this needs to stop now.

“This needs to stop now and there is no other option than sitting around the table and getting a deal done.”

Qatar-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh speaks to journalists in Doha in December.Credit: Iranian Foreign Ministry/AFP

Is Hamas interested in a deal?

“We were hoping to see more commitment and more seriousness on both sides. We are, with the help of our international partners, hoping that we can pressure both sides to an agreement, but right now we are seeing from both sides a lot of lack of commitment to the process itself and to the mediation.”

Senior Israeli officials portray Qatar as a terror-supporting country.

“We did not enter into a relationship with Hamas because we wanted to. We were asked by the U.S. We reviewed that request in 2006. 

“At the time, it was very clear to us that this was a role that could only be done by us. That there was very little appetite for everybody else to enter into that arena, and that if we shy away because of narrow political calculations from our side – although we understood the heat that would come as an result of this – this would mean less chance for peace, and more conflict and more escalation in the Palestinian territories and Israel. 

“As a result, we took – and, I think, our leadership – a brave decision to take on the political responsibility of being mediators and the channel of communication between both sides. That has accomplished and affected [things] so many times right now, so it has proved its success, and it is the only option we have right now.”

How does Qatar define Hamas’ attack against Israel on October 7? Is it terrorism? Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

“We have made it very clear since the beginning of this that we condemn any targeting of civilians in any way, anyhow, for any reason. There is absolutely no possible justification for killing civilians in any kind of conflict, regardless of who is doing the killing or who is being killed. A human life is a human life. Whether it is Israeli, Palestinian, or anywhere else. 

“We cannot accept in our country – this is a peaceful country, one of the most peaceful countries in the world. We cannot accept the images of civilians being killed as the result of political conflict, military conflict or otherwise, and therefore we have made it very clear that we condemn these attacks and we condemn the killing of civilians, as we are condemning now the killing of Palestinian civilians in the war.”

Al-Ansari rejects the claims made by Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials that Qatar needs to increase pressure on Hamas in the negotiations and that it is not doing enough to encourage the organization to be flexible and adopt the proposals that have put on the table thus far.

“One needs to understand the role of a mediator in any kind of mediation. If you are impartial in mediation, then obviously it will succeed.

“You need tactical neutrality, you need to be able to show both sides that you are addressing their concerns, that you understand their point of view and you are working to reach a situation where both sides can sit at the table and agree on a formula that will not be the formula that both sides are asking for. 

“Your job is not to push one agenda over the other. Your job is to find a way of reaching a deal that will protect people’s lives.

“I don’t think that language is suitable within the mediation process. We are applying all the pressure that we can as mediators on both sides. We don’t have special leverage over Hamas or special leverage over Israel. The only leverage we have is the fact that we are willing to undertake the mediation and pay the political cost for this mediation. 

“But we have been doing all that we can. I mean, if you talk to our negotiating team, they have been working 24/7, day and night, for more than six months now, with very little time off. The only time they get to go back to their families is when the talks stop. We have been totally invested in this process and we hope that we find the same sincerity and the same commitment from both sides as we have seen in our negotiating team.”

Have you asked yourself, with hindsight after October 7, whether the money you transferred to the Gaza Strip for many years was a mistake? Was the money ultimately used for terrorist activities?

“First of all, let’s clarify a couple of things: One is we have never been passive mediators. The easiest way of doing mediation is by doing absolutely nothing except for exchanging messages between both sides. 

“When we mediated for peace in Lebanon, part of the deal that we reached was Qatar committing to reconstruction in south Lebanon. When we mediated between the separate and central government in Khartoum, part of the agreement that was reached was Qatari reconstruction and social programs, and development programs in that form.

“And when we started mediating between Hamas and Israel, part of the commitment from our side was to help reconstruct Gaza and to provide the Palestinians with a future of hope, living in peace and prosperity, and that was done, of course, through the reconstruction committee in Gaza. 

“When it comes to our aid to Gaza, it was done in complete coordination with the Israeli government and institutions, and the consecutive administrations that have come through since we started these programs agreed that construction funding would be done through two avenues. 

“One was buying fuel – which was done in coordination with the international agencies where fuel was bought in Israel – which then goes into Gaza. There were technicalities that guaranteed that none of that fuel gets misplaced. It goes directly to the electricity stations, and it’s sealed and opened there. And the fuel guarantees that the two million people living in Gaza have electricity for more than a couple of hours, which would happen if that fuel did not go in.

“The other side of it was the humanitarian system that was given to the most needy families, which amounted to $100 per family – which barely sustains the life of a family of three in any place in the world. That money was also carried out through Israel and in coordination with the Israeli government and across Israeli institutions. 

“Every family was vetted by the Israeli side before it got the funding, and proof of receipt of the funding was sent back immediately to the Israeli side, and that process was overseen by Israeli institutions for many years. As a matter of fact, we were asked to increase that aid, and on a number of times, we were asked to continue that aid when we were reconsidering providing aid to Gaza by the Israeli government. 

“I would be very surprised if people who had been party to this process throughout the years would criticize the process itself when they were overseeing it as it was happening. 

“You know, as I said, many times before: If you are going to attack Qatar by saying that Qatar funded Hamas – our partner in this funding was the Israeli government. And therefore questions need to be also asked over, but then, we believe in our role.

“We believe in the aid that was entered into Gaza and we believe that it has helped sustain the lives of innocent individuals and civilians in Gaza, and that as a result of having that reconstruction and that aid, lives but also hope in Gaza were saved. For people without hope.”

Still – did the money end up in the wrong hands?

“We are completely confident in the process that was in place. We believe that the checks that were in place were sufficient and that, as I said, the oversight by the Israelis and international agencies guaranteed that none of that money was leaked anywhere, and as I said, we stand by our policy, a policy based on humanitarian reasons.”

Al-Ansari speaks in general terms only when he tries to explain how Qatar sees the leadership in Gaza the day after the war.

“We have a long-standing commitment to the two-state solution as the only way to end this conflict. We believe in the two state solution, we believe in the peace process. We have been party to the Arab peace solution and the other peace initiatives. And I believe that the only way forward out of this is not more conflict, because our main concern here is the security of the people in the region – the security of our people, and the people of Israel and the Palestinians is based on finding an end to this conflict. 

“There were a lot of ideas that were thrown out throughout the past years. What we see right now makes it very clear that we need an end result, we need to end this conflict and we need to provide the Palestinians with hope and Israelis with security, for all of us in the region to enjoy the security and the prosperity that we need.”

So you don’t see it happening in the near future, as opposed to the possibility that Saudi Arabia may join the agreements?

“If there is a partner for peace, and if from the terrible events of what we have experienced now we can come up with a new chance for peace – everything is possible.”