At the Gates of Qatar
Friday, September 12, 2025 –
Early this week, many of us were hopeful that we would learn of some progress made in negotiations for a ceasefire and a hostage return. Then, on Tuesday, that drastically changed when news broke of an Israeli strike in… Doha, Qatar of all places, targeting top Hamas leadership. The hope of a negotiated deal to be completed soon was quickly dashed. This week, I offer four thoughts on Israel’s strike in Doha, Qatar, attempting to see it from as many perspectives as possible.
- No Hamas Leader Should Feel Safe. Anywhere.
Israel’s strike at Hamas leadership in Doha carries a stark and deliberate message: no Hamas leader should feel safe. Anywhere. For years, Hamas has relied on exile, luxury, and the protection of foreign capitals to orchestrate terror against Israel while avoiding the costs borne by its people in Gaza. By targeting its leadership in Qatar, Israel is asserting that there are no sanctuaries for those who direct violence against its citizens. The move is not just tactical but symbolic—it signals that the architects of October 7th and the ongoing war cannot hide behind diplomatic cover or comfortable distance. Safety is a privilege reserved for those who choose peace, not those who plot murder. Israel’s effort to reach those orchestrating terror from afar is, in principle, an act of justice and deterrence. It asserts that the murder of Israelis and the holding of hostages will not go unanswered.
Israel hunted Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust in far-flung regions of the world. It went to great lengths to track down the terrorists of the Munich Olympics in 1972, all the more so after the massacre of October 7. It is wholly justified in pursuing Hamas leaders such as Khalil al-Hayya, the most senior Hamas official outside Gaza, who was fully aware of the October 7 attack plan. According to Qatar and Hamas, his son and one of his senior aides were killed by the Israeli strike, but his fate remains unclear.
While the attack is not hard to justify, and no one is shedding tears over Hamas leaders, the bigger question is, was it wise?
- Negotiations, Politics, and Diplomacy
The strike on Doha complicates but also reframes the landscape of negotiations with Hamas. On one hand, eliminating senior figures can create a leadership vacuum, making it harder for the group to present a coherent position at the table and potentially derailing short-term efforts toward a ceasefire or hostage deal. On the other hand, it sends a clear signal that Israel will not allow Hamas to negotiate from a position of impunity while its leaders live comfortably abroad. The message is that talks, if they happen, must be grounded in the reality that Hamas is under sustained pressure, militarily and politically. In that sense, the strike could harden Hamas’s resolve in the immediate term. Still, it may also accelerate the emergence of new intermediaries or pragmatic actors who recognize that survival, not luxury exile, is at stake. If Hamas’s political leadership and its interlocutors are taken out, it’s not at all clear with whom Israel would actually be able to negotiate a cease-fire and hostage release. Yes, there are still a few military commanders burrowed deep in Gaza’s tunnels, but unlike the Doha leadership, they have almost no contact with the outside world. They’re in no position to trade drafts or engage with the American, Qatari, and Egyptian mediators. From a purely practical standpoint, striking a deal with them would be infinitely harder, which may, in the end, be Netanyahu’s secret desire.
There’s no question that Netanyahu’s government has been under intense pressure regarding hostage release, ceasefire negotiations, war fatigue, security failures, etc. A bold strike, such as this, could be employed to signal toughness and resolve at a moment when negotiation processes are stalling or looking weak. An operation like this grabs headlines, appears decisive, and helps build him up as the only one who can fight terror. Fascinatingly, few people were involved in the decision to strike. The Mossad, which has been representing Israel in the negotiations in Qatar, was strategically kept in the dark, and many of the high-level cabinet ministers learned of the strike, like the rest of us, from Ynet (or other news sources) PUSH notifications on their smartphones. I’m not crying full out “wag the dog” on Netanyahu, because I believe that Israel saw both tactical opportunity (hitting leadership, sending a message) and political utility (signaling strength, responding to internal and external criticism). The cost-benefit calculation probably included the risk of diplomatic fallout, but Israel seems to have judged that the gains (or perceived gains) outweigh these for now.
Keep in mind that if Qatar (see more on Qatar-gate) is accused of paying aides to the Prime Minister, promoting its role, shaping narratives in Israel, then striking Hamas leadership in Doha puts additional pressure on Qatar. It’s a demonstration that Israel may no longer tolerate what it regards as the misuse of Qatar’s mediator role—or its involvement in what some in Israel see as problematic influence. The strike signals: “We’re not only watching diplomatic channels; we will act.” With the Qatar-gate scandal ongoing, Netanyahu is under domestic scrutiny. However, a strike in Doha might have helped shift the narrative domestically — it can be presented as decisive, a demonstration of strength, decisiveness, even while under criticism. It could be used to counter accusations that Netanyahu is too lenient or compromised.
- What does it mean for the hostages?
Israel’s strike in Doha raises a painful moral dilemma: how far can a state go in pursuing justice and deterrence without jeopardizing the innocent lives still being held in captivity? The message to Hamas was unmistakable—its leaders will find no haven while they continue to plot terror—but the cost of that message cannot be divorced from the fate of the hostages. Israel has a sacred duty to protect its citizens, including those still held underground in Gaza. Every decision, every escalation, must be weighed against the sanctity of their lives. To strike abroad while families at home wait for news of their loved ones is to walk a razor’s edge between strength and recklessness. The real measure of Israel’s power will not be in how far it can reach to punish its enemies, but in whether it can bring its people back alive, and not give fodder to the popular belief that PM Netanyahu decided over a year ago that the hostages were simply not his top priority.
4. U.S.-Israel Relations
The Doha strike puts U.S.–Israel relations at a delicate crossroads. On one level, Washington has long backed Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas, and the message that no terror leader is untouchable will resonate with many in the U.S. political establishment. But striking in Qatar—a close American partner that hosts a major U.S. airbase and has played a central role as mediator and just gifted the POTUS a brand-new shiny Air Force One—creates serious friction. It risks undercutting U.S. diplomacy, embarrassing an ally, and complicating the very channels through which hostage negotiations and regional stability efforts have flowed. For Israel, the move asserts independence and resolve; for Washington, it raises complex questions about coordination, trust, and whether Israel values American diplomatic cover as much as its military freedom of action. There are conflicting reports as to what President Trump knew and how much the strike was coordinated with the U.S.
As David Horovitz wrote in the Times of Israel:
“The first tangible hint that this may not have been a Trump-sanctioned Israeli strike came with an English-language statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office:
‘Today’s action against the top terrorist chieftains of Hamas was a wholly independent Israeli operation,” Netanyahu’s office said. “Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.”
It may also be the case that after the B.D.A. (military jargon for “battle damage assessment”) is complete, and how successful the strike was – experts are now saying that it was largely unsuccessful – may sway Trump’s opinion of it. We do know that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu held a lengthy phone call to discuss the matter. The strike may not rupture the alliance, but it tests its balance—between solidarity and restraint, between shared goals and divergent tactics.
The events of this week force us to ask: What is the strategic horizon? Is this a step toward restoring security and bringing our people closer to blessing—or another turn in a cycle of vengeance without end? Targeting Hamas leaders may offer satisfaction, but unless paired with a credible political plan—one that preserves Israel’s moral compass and lays groundwork for a different future—we risk inheriting the very curses our Torah warns about: isolation, moral erosion, and a life lived in permanent war.
Shabbat Shalom.