In 1972, the term “Gate” was born into global politics with the Watergate scandal in the United States, when senior officials in President Richard Nixon’s administration became embroiled in a political espionage scandal that led to his downfall. The term later became synonymous with any political crisis that threatens a regime or exposes corruption. Since then, the media has seized every opportunity to attach “Gate” to any controversial case, as happened with the scandal now known as “QatarGate.”
The case exploded when two close advisors to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were accused of receiving money from Qatar to enhance its image within Israel. According to reports, Yonatan Urich and Eli Fieldstein allegedly received funds through an American company called “Third Circle Inc.” with the aim of influencing Israeli public opinion in favor of Doha, and even participating in sidelining Egypt’s role as the primary mediator in the Gaza issue. The Israeli investigations led to charges of bribery, fraud, and contact with a foreign agent.
The Israeli Penal Code criminalizes the acceptance or offering of bribes by government officials or advisors. Likewise, Israeli national security laws prohibit dealings with foreign entities if such dealings could endanger the interests or security of the state.
In addition, a draft law was introduced in November 2024 prohibiting any “third party” from mediating between Israel and Hamas—a bill that explicitly targeted Qatar—thus making any cooperation with Doha extremely politically sensitive.
Therefore, receiving foreign funds, particularly under these legal frameworks, could result in serious charges, potentially reaching the level of compromising national security.
Beyond the details of the charges, the case raises deeper questions: What does normalization mean today? Does merely communicating with the “enemy” necessarily constitute treason, or are there more dangerous degrees and nuances to consider?
In this context, Wael Qandil began a Facebook post with the phrase, “Dear friend, we are all normalized,” in which he spoke about the normalization of some Arab regimes with Israel—politically, economically, or militarily. He also pointed to an even more dangerous form: popular normalization with helplessness, with silence, and with the tacit acceptance of daily massacres and violations against Palestinians.
At this point, it becomes necessary to pause and reflect on the concept of normalization, which at its core means transforming relations with an occupying, land-grabbing entity into a natural state of cooperation and partnership as if nothing had happened. Normalization is considered political when states recognize Israel and open embassies; it is considered economic when goods and investments are exchanged; it is considered cultural when visits, ideas, and artistic works are exchanged.
The most dangerous form, however, is popular normalization, where the public accepts Israel’s existence as a normal entity in the region without resistance or protest.
Turning to Arab laws, we find that some countries—such as Algeria, Iraq, and Syria—legally criminalize any relationship with Israel, considering dealings with it an act of high treason.
Other countries, such as Egypt and Jordan, have abolished any laws criminalizing normalization, due to peace treaties signed with Israel.
Looking at the situation in the Gulf countries, we find that some of them have already signed the Abraham Accords with Israel, such as Bahrain and the UAE, where normalization has become official policy.
As for the others, there are rumors and unconfirmed reports surrounding their positions, similar to the recent QatarGate story.
Thus, there is no unified Arab legal stance on normalization. Instead, there is a sharp divide between countries that criminalize it and others that consider it part of their new political strategy.
This highlights the gravity of the issue. Amidst varying legal texts and contradictory official positions, the truth has been lost—along with the broader Arab position toward dealing with the occupation.
Under the cover of national interests or the pressure of international alliances, relations with Israel have turned into an almost public reality. Since the United States included Israel under the jurisdiction of its Central Command (CENTCOM) in 2021, joint military training exercises involving Arab armies alongside the Israeli army have taken place without causing genuine shock.
As Qandil pointed out, the decision placed the Arab soldier in a new reality: fighting side by side with the occupation soldier, hand in hand, in any war chosen by Washington.
Here, the ethical question becomes even more urgent:
Is normalization merely about official agreements?
Or is it—as Qandil warns—normalization with lies, with fear, and with the systematic killing of an entire people?
Dealing with Israel—if it must happen under international pressures—should never come free of charge or devoid of a moral compass.
It is not enough for regimes to justify their positions by invoking “national interests” while the occupier continues to kill, displace, and systematically annihilate Palestinians.
Nor is it enough for the people to shed silent tears while their armies march alongside occupation forces.
True normalization begins when the Zionist entity becomes a regular neighbor and partner in politics, economy, and security—while it continues uprooting the Palestinian people.
At that point, all the slogans of resistance turn into nothing but hollow noise.
In the end, “QatarGate” remains under investigation, and any judgment about it is still premature.
However, it serves as an indicator of a deeper illness: the illness of accepting normalization, partnership, and silence.
And we must always remember that the real danger lies not only in shady backroom deals, but in the moment when nations and peoples accept genocide and learn to live with it as if it were an inevitable fate.
