Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: European leaders denouncing the strike against Hamas leaders in Doha.
Speaker 2: Joining us now is a former UK ambassador to Kuta
Speaker 2: and a number of other countries, Nicholas Hopton, who is
Speaker 2: non resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Nicholas, good morning,
Speaker 2: and thank you for being with us. I wonder whether
Speaker 2: we could start with your thoughts on how much of
Speaker 2: an escalation you believe this is on Israel's part.
Speaker 1: Good morning. I think this is a significant development and
Speaker 1: looks like a major escalation taken by the government of Israel.
Speaker 1: The arguments they have put forward yesterday to justify the attack,
Speaker 1: the assassination of Hamas leaders obviously a terrorist organization, but
Speaker 1: they were sitting in a sovereign country which has a
Speaker 1: right not to be attacked, and it's also a great
Speaker 1: ally of the Western Powers, particularly the United States. So
Speaker 1: the arguments put forward yesterday to justify the attack, while
Speaker 1: in line with perhaps premise Netanya, who's stated war objectives
Speaker 1: from the word go to destroy Hamas, are actually failing
Speaker 1: to justify under international law what has happened and to
Speaker 1: explain why they felt it was necessary to do this
Speaker 1: violating Katar's sovereignty and also without informing their ally the
Speaker 1: United States as well.
Speaker 2: Bureau chief Ethan Bonner that we were just speaking to
Speaker 2: Bloomberg's is Well Buia chief. We're saying that other Gulf
Speaker 2: states want to be rid of Hamas, and so you know,
Speaker 2: other countries may actually not be that sorry that this
Speaker 2: is what Israel is doing.
Speaker 1: Your view, well, there's a big difference between having a
Speaker 1: policy and how you carry it out. And I think
Speaker 1: it's true that country across the Arab world, including in
Speaker 1: the Gulf, and in Europe and elsewhere in the world,
Speaker 1: see Hamas as a terrorist organization which committed appalling atrocities
Speaker 1: on the seventh of October against Israeli citizens, and they
Speaker 1: need to be held accountable and brought to justice for that.
Speaker 1: But there's a difference between having a policy of doing
Speaker 1: that and then breaking international law as a country to
Speaker 1: carry it out, and that seems to be what Israel
Speaker 1: has decided to do and which puts it on the
Speaker 1: wrong side of the international community, all of whom, almost
Speaker 1: without exception, including the United States, Israel's main remaining ally
Speaker 1: in their way, they're prosecuting the war in Gaza has
Speaker 1: They've all come out and unequivocally condemned what Israel did yesterday.
Speaker 3: Nicholas, you talked about the US's role in defending Cutter.
Speaker 3: It has its biggest military base in the Middle East
Speaker 3: in Doha. Does it appear to you that Trump has
Speaker 3: lost control of Benjamin Nettinya who here? Should we be
Speaker 3: worried that perhaps Netanya who would next target Turkey for example,
Speaker 3: where it's thought that how mass leadership is as well well.
Speaker 1: I think this is a deeply embarrassing moment for the
Speaker 1: White House. And it was interesting that after a few hours,
Speaker 1: the White House and then Donald Trump himself came out
Speaker 1: and were very clear that they were unhappy and disagreed
Speaker 1: with what Primeister nessenya Who had done. I think that
Speaker 1: was a decisive move. It's the most most critical statement
Speaker 1: we've seen from the US administration under Donald Trump of
Speaker 1: Israel's prosecution of the conflict in Gaza and elsewhere in
Speaker 1: the West Bank. And I think the question now is
Speaker 1: how does the US follow this up with Israel. Apparently
Speaker 1: there was a conversation between Donald Trump and Benjaminyatu Netahu yesterday.
Speaker 1: I imagine that would have been a difficult conversation. But
Speaker 1: do those critical words turn into a new American engagement
Speaker 1: which tries to bring about a meaningful negotiation towards a
Speaker 1: ceasefire and the release of the hostages, which seems to
Speaker 1: be very far away at this point. I think all
Speaker 1: the questions at the moment are how does the White
Speaker 1: House and the US administration now act following this military
Speaker 1: strike by Israel.
Speaker 2: What's your view on the UK's position in all of this?
Speaker 2: Obviously quite distant, but the Prime Minister putting a post
Speaker 2: on x Kiirs Darmer saying condemning the Israeli strike on Doha,
Speaker 2: saying that it violates Qatar's sovereignty and risk further escalation
Speaker 2: across the region, is that it from the UK government?
Speaker 2: Is what's the UK government's position going to be here? Well?
Speaker 1: I think both Kirs Starmer and President Macron France led
Speaker 1: the European reaction yesterday in condem what it seems to
Speaker 1: be a clear violation of international law. And the next step,
Speaker 1: of course, is something that has already been scheduled, which
Speaker 1: is a meeting in New York in the United Nations
Speaker 1: General Assembly coming up in the next ten days, and
Speaker 1: at that meeting. Britain, France and Canada and maybe others
Speaker 1: have said they will recognize Palestine as an independent sovereign state.
Speaker 1: Now that may be just to politics in the eyes
Speaker 1: of some, but it is a significant step, and I
Speaker 1: think so far Kirstanmer's resolved to do that will have
Speaker 1: been strengthened by what happened yesterday.
Speaker 3: I do just want to come back to the Turkey point,
Speaker 3: because the US complained that they hadn't been given enough
Speaker 3: warning of this attack before it took place. What are
Speaker 3: your thoughts on whether the US had no knowledge of
Speaker 3: the attack and whether we should expect more like this
Speaker 3: in the future.
Speaker 1: Well, briefly on Turkey, it is of course a NATO
Speaker 1: member state and therefore covered by Article five of mutual
Speaker 1: defense if attacked. It's a different situation. Should Israel decide
Speaker 1: to attack Turkey and hamas targets there as opposed to
Speaker 1: attacking Katar, which is not a member of NATO, I
Speaker 1: think that would be an even more significant escalation. Also
Speaker 1: because of course Kata is a Turkey is a much
Speaker 1: more significant global security player than Katar, and Turkey has
Speaker 1: I think, still the biggest standing army in Europe. So
Speaker 1: I would imagine that the Israeli Prime Minister will think
Speaker 1: twice before doing that. As for your second, part of
Speaker 1: the question was on the US.
Speaker 3: And whether they had any knowledge of the attack or
Speaker 3: enough knowledge. Do you believe that they had no knowledge
Speaker 3: of the attack before it took place?
Speaker 1: Well, I've seen different analyses. Frank Gardner, the bb very
Speaker 1: respected security correspondent, was clear yesterday that this attack could
Speaker 1: not have taken place without the American military having been
Speaker 1: in many ways complicit to that. At the same time,
Speaker 1: I think we should take serious note of what the
Speaker 1: White House has made clear and the US spokespeople that
Speaker 1: they didn't have advanced warning, or if they did, then
Speaker 1: it was very not enough in order to stop the attack.
Speaker 1: There's also further confusion in this position because the catteries,
Speaker 1: the cateri primes to shake. Mohammad yesterday, in his press statement,
Speaker 1: said that the catteries were only warned about the military
Speaker 1: strike ten minutes after it happened.