From Gaza to Ukraine: when the wrong voices call for peace

In a meeting held Thursday in Moscow, Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, blamed Israel for failing to uphold a ceasefire agreement in Gaza, originally brokered in January by Qatar, Egypt, and the United States.

While the Emir expressed his country’s intention to “continue bridging views” to end the suffering in Gaza, the credibility of Qatar as a neutral mediator is increasingly under scrutiny.

Despite public claims of supporting peace, Qatar has long been accused of enabling instability in the region through its political and financial support for Hamas, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, and others. 

Doha’s ties with Hamas are no secret; the Qatari government has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the group over the past decade under the guise of humanitarian aid.

Critics argue that this money has helped Hamas sustain its military operations rather than serve the needs of Palestinian civilians.

Adding to the geopolitical theater, Russian President Vladimir Putin joined the Emir in calling for a resolution based on the two-state solution, describing the situation in Gaza as a “tragedy.” 

While this statement aligns with international norms on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is deeply ironic coming from a leader whose own military invasion of Ukraine continues to devastate civilian populations, displace millions, and destabilize global peace.

Putin’s appeal for peace in the Middle East lacks moral weight as long as Russian missiles continue to strike Ukrainian cities. His government’s violations of international law and human rights in Ukraine undermine any attempt to present Russia as a constructive player in other global conflicts.

If lasting peace in the Middle East is to be achieved, it must be guided by mediators with true neutrality and a proven track record of upholding international law—not by regimes accused of fueling extremism or committing acts of aggression themselves.

The international community must take a hard look at who is allowed to shape the terms of peace, and whether their actions live up to their rhetoric.