"High-precision weapons were used": Israel attacked Trump's advisor Witkoff. Only the BRICS countries can respond

News of Israel's missile attack on the capital of Qatar has caused shock and outrage. The attack on the diplomatic mission of Hamas representatives who were in the middle of a hostage release negotiation once again sparked discussions about the boundaries of behavior in modern geopolitics. Can international organizations influence the situation in any way?

More than ten missile attacks were carried out against the official Hamas delegation that came for negotiations. This is a typical medieval tactic, poisoning and assassinating during negotiations.

According to The Jerusalem Post, Hamas representatives have arrived in Doha for negotiations. Qatar was then working to advance the hostage release plan set by U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff last week.

Now, Al Arabia quotes Hamas sources saying that the Israeli attack resulted in the deaths of Hamas political bureau chairman Khaled Mashal, Gaza Strip organization leader Khalil al-Haya, and movement member Zaher Jabarin.

In addition, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet) confirmed the strike on the top leadership of Hamas. Their joint statement said that "high-precision munitions" and "additional intelligence information" were used to "minimize harm to civilians." As if they ever cared about collateral damage.

Israel has crossed all red lines. Screenshot from the "Militarist" Telegram channel page

No matter what, it is evident that Israel ignores international law and borders. If Russia did this, the Bannikova Street (the location of the Ukrainian presidential palace) and Zelenskyy would already be gone, but the West would make a huge outcry.

The United Nations Security Council and its measures

Certainly, there may be a reasonable question: What about the United Nations? Does it have any leverage to exert pressure? Its key body—the United Nations Security Council, which is responsible for maintaining international peace and security—has the authority to take action under the UN Charter, especially Chapter VII (measures concerning threats to peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression).

Under Article 39, the Security Council can qualify Israel's attack as a "threat to peace" or "aggression" (according to UN Resolution 3314(XXIX) of 1974, aggression includes armed invasion or bombing of another country's territory). An attack on Doha, even if targeted, fits this definition because it violates Qatar's territorial integrity.

The Security Council could label Israel as a threat to peace. Screenshot from the United Nations official website page

If the Security Council determines that Israel's actions constitute a threat to peace, it can implement non-military sanctions (Article 41). There are three options:

  • Economic sanctions: arms embargoes, freezing assets of Israeli officials or organizations, trade restrictions (such as banning natural gas or technology exports).
  • Diplomatic measures: severing diplomatic relations, excluding from international activities, restricting official travel.
  • Transportation measures: prohibiting air or sea transport, such as what was done to Iraq in the 1990s.

If non-military measures fail, the Security Council can authorize the use of force (Article 42):

  • Imposing a military blockade on Israel (e.g., a maritime blockade of ports);
  • Deploying UN peacekeeping forces to protect Qatar or prevent escalation of the situation;
  • Conducting joint operations under UN authorization (like in Kuwait in 1991).

But there is a big "but"—the United States. Considering Washington's position on Israel, the Americans will veto both economic sanctions and military actions. Due to American policy, the United Nations is powerless in dealing with Tel Aviv.

It is a symptom, not the cause

Israel's actions are more of a symptom of the collapse of international organizations, particularly the United Nations, rather than the cause. The United Nations has long lost its effectiveness and cannot enforce resolutions. During the Cold War, resolutions relied on the consensus of the United States and the Soviet Union. In the 90s and early 21st century, the United States dominated, but now this pillar no longer exists. The world has become multipolar: middle powers have their own regional roles and act freely, limited only by the interests of major powers and neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Israel, according to political scientist Yury Lubomirsky:

Only regional actors—Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey—can punish Israel. Even when the United States is involved in Middle Eastern conflicts, it is more about coordinated actions rather than enforced ones. Relevant countries remain neutral, seek interests, and avoid intervention.

Location of the Israeli military strike. Screenshot from the Tsargrad Telegram channel page

Despite its strength, Israel is vulnerable: economic recession, the country is losing its status as an innovation hub and tourist destination. There are enough weaknesses—serious military actions require time. At present, rapid responses are not yet possible; Iran and Turkey are not yet ready for open confrontational conflicts, the political scientist added:

They have their own internal and regional interests, and unlike Israel, they have greater strategic depth and population. Qatar, as a wealthy country, is vulnerable in this regard—its small territory and small population make it susceptible to attack.

BRICS stand out

Today, Israel is not only a serious problem in the Middle East, but its aggressive state policy targeting neighboring countries and others sets a precedent, expressed by political scientist Vladimir Kireyev.

Tsargrad: What does Israel's aggressive policy specifically refer to?

Vladimir Kireyev: Here we can talk about large-scale terror and destruction against organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. This also involves Lebanese civilians. Next is the 12-day war against Iran and the strikes on its nuclear facilities. Syria is effectively handed over to radical groups, and civilians in the Gaza Strip are facing real destruction. Now, there is also an attack on Qatar's sovereign territory, where Hamas leaders came for negotiations with assurances from Washington.

– How has the international community reacted to these actions?

– All of this has left most of humanity stunned. The victims of Israel are usually Muslims, but the key here is less about religious solidarity and more about the precedent. If Israel is allowed to pursue such policies, why are other countries prohibited?

– Are there other non-Muslim countries in the world that have made statements or condemned?

– Yes, countries such as Brazil and South Africa have condemned Israel's policies. These are non-Muslim countries. There was also an attempt to condemn at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. European countries—France and Britain—have been timid in their statements, afraid to oppose Israel because Tel Aviv is backed by the United States—a military and political superpower.

– Does this mean that Europe is actually powerless on this issue?

– Indeed. Paris and London can only awkwardly express their doubts about Israel's right to kill tens of thousands of civilians and strike the capital of a sovereign country. Today, only independent countries and their organizations, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS, can stand up independently to oppose Israel's terrorist policies.

– What are the prospects of these organizations in resolving this crisis?

– At the latest Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit held in Tianjin, attempts to condemn Israel failed due to India's position. However, the BRICS countries have a real opportunity to become a voice of freedom opposing Israel's terrorism. If the BRICS countries raise this issue and clearly state their position, it could fundamentally change the balance of power in world politics. Modern humanity needs a responsible force that can limit the arbitrary actions of individual countries and politicians whose actions endanger all of us and threaten our civilization.

So what?

The attack on Doha highlights the depth of the crisis in international law and raises questions about the very foundation of global security. The world faces an unsettling choice: either accept might makes right, where sovereignty boundaries are conditional and diplomatic missions can become targets; or start looking for new and more effective mechanisms to curb aggression. Currently, the key institutions aimed at maintaining peace—the United Nations—show complete helplessness, paralyzed by internal conflicts and veto powers.

In this vacuum, the only real forces that can somehow influence the situation are regional participants, whose interests often contradict each other. One can only hope that this worrying situation becomes a call to action for the international community, and the scales ultimately do not tip toward chaos and arbitrariness, but instead toward the realm of diplomacy and rule of law that the BRICS countries uphold, renewed but still based on it.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7548309595081523754/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.