Qatar’s measured yet resolute diplomatic response to Israel’s act of belligerence may prove to be more than a mere episode in the litany of Middle Eastern crises. It could well determine whether the United States and Israel’s much-vaunted “Abraham Accords” – those transactional pacts of rapprochement between Israel and four Arab states – expand further or begin to unravel. Diplomatic engagement, built precariously atop promises of restraint, already teeters as Israel indulges in aggression across the region, undermining both diplomatic norms and Arab sovereignty.

Last week, the United Arab Emirates issued an unequivocal warning: if Israel annexes substantial swathes of the occupied West Bank, Abu Dhabi would freeze or even withdraw from its commitments under the Accords. That statement was no mere rhetorical flourish. It was an admission of the fragility of an accord that was never rooted in popular legitimacy but rather in elite pragmatism and geopolitical convenience. Israel’s flirtation with annexation exposes the central paradox of the Abraham Accords: the framework of engagement was predicated not upon Israel’s good faith, but upon its temporary suspension of its worst impulses. The threat to annex vast portions of the West Bank demonstrates how hollow those assurances always were.

Qatar’s case is even more consequential. For decades, despite formidable domestic pressures, Doha has sustained a consistent role as mediator between Israel, Hamas, and the West. By disregarding Qatar’s diplomatic efforts and indulging in rhetoric and actions that undermine its sovereignty, Tel Aviv has violated not merely a political understanding but the sanctity of diplomacy itself. If sovereign Arab capitals that host mediation and dialogue are no longer immune from Israeli contempt, then the very concept of negotiation becomes hostage to the caprice of the Israeli security establishment.

The implications for Washington are profound. The Trump administration once trumpeted the Abraham Accords as the cornerstone of a “new Middle East,” a phrase as self-congratulatory as it was historically naïve. In his first term, Trump signaled a desire to expand this architecture to encompass more GCC states, thereby weaving Israel into the fabric of regional security arrangements. Yet how Washington responds to Israel’s escalating aggression – and Qatar is a paradigmatic test case – will decisively shape the trajectory of U.S.–GCC relations. To remain supine in the face of Israeli recklessness is to jeopardize the trust of partners such as Qatar, without whom the American presence in the region would be strategically hamstrung.

By deliberately bypassing the Palestinian question, the Abraham Accords attempted to create a façade of peace while leaving the wound of occupation untouched. Israel, emboldened by Arab acquiescence, interpreted this silence as a carte blanche for expansionism. But the UAE’s warning and Qatar’s outrage illuminate a truth that was missing: Arab states cannot indefinitely mortgage their legitimacy to enable Israel’s impunity. When annexation looms and sovereign capitals are disregarded, the fig leaf of regional engagement disintegrates.

Israel’s defenders may argue that such actions are necessitated by “security imperatives.” Yet security that tramples sovereignty and obliterates diplomacy is not security at all. A state that undermines its interlocutors while proclaiming itself a partner for peace is not a custodian of order but an arsonist masquerading as a firefighter. The Gaza genocide, the annexationist drumbeat, and now the affront to Qatar’s sovereignty all reveal the same pathology: an Israel intoxicated with impunity and convinced that military adventurism can substitute for political wisdom.

For Washington, the question is stark. Does it indulge Israel, alienating its own Gulf partners and dismantling the architecture it sought to construct? Or does it, at long last, impose genuine constraints on Israel, demonstrating that partnership with the United States is not a one-way licence for lawlessness? The answer will determine not merely the fate of the Abraham Accords, but the credibility of American diplomacy in the Middle East writ large.

If the U.S. abdicates this responsibility, the consequences may be swift and irreversible. The GCC states, already exploring hedges toward multipolar alignments, will not tether their security indefinitely to a partnership that subordinates their sovereignty to Israeli actions. Qatar’s stance may catalyze a recalibration, whereby Gulf capitals conclude that engagement with Israel is an albatross, not an asset.

Israel’s conduct represents not the assertion of strength but the revelation of insecurity. It betrays a state so enthralled by its own militarism that it undermines the accords designed to integrate it into the region. The Abraham Accords, marketed as the dawn of a “new Middle East,” may instead be remembered as a Potemkin peace, destined to collapse under the weight of Israeli excess.

Muhammad Siddique Ali Pirzada holds a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B. Hons.) from the University of London – Pakistan College of Law and most recently served as Visiting Policy Fellow—Legal & Strategic Research and Editor-in-Chief at the International Centre on Environment, Law, Innovation & Sustainability (ICELIS Global), based in the Qatar Financial Centre. He is a Student Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and a Member of the Young International Arbitration Group (YIAG). He has previously served as Managing Editor of the Legal Education and Access Portal (LEAP) and as President of the Study Circle Society. His scholarly work has appeared in prestigious international publications, most recently the Harvard International Law Journal, and he has also competed as an Oralist in the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. He is a prolific columnist for domestic and international media and has gained work experience with Al Tamimi & Co. (DIFC), Bhandari Naqvi Riaz, Mohsin Tayebaly & Co., and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, where his work focused on International Litigation & Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation & Advisory, Constitutional Law, International & Comparative Law, and Corporate Governance. He has also served as a Research Assistant at The Millennium Project, contributing to regional foresight studies on Artificial Intelligence, Foreign Policy, and Legislative Affairs across South Asia.”