The Israeli airstrikes on Hamas leaders in Qatar jolted the region, and beyond.
For the past two years, Israel has struck targets in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and even deep inside Iran. But Tuesday’s assault on Doha marked an unprecedented breach of the region’s unwritten rules of engagement.
The operation, codenamed “Summit of Fire”, was conducted with more than ten fighter jets, according to reports. It followed months of preparation and employed long-range missiles launched from outside Qatari airspace, underscoring both the reach and the risks of Israel’s expanding campaign.
Hamas, which the United States designates as a terrorist organization, said five of its members were killed in the strike, including the son of Khalil al-Hayya, the group’s Gaza leader and chief negotiator. The movement confirmed that its senior leadership had survived.
Israel has not officially disclosed the outcome of the operation. But the fact that it unfolded in the Qatari capital unleashed a political and security storm on par with its military impact.
“There was opposition from many security officials in Shin Bet and in the army, but Netanyahu insisted on carrying out this operation,” Israeli Broadcasting Authority political analyst Shimon Aran told Alhurra.
In Tel Aviv, Netanyahu and his defense minister, Israel Katz, sought to justify the strike in a joint statement, framing it as a response to the October 7 assault and to more recent attacks, including one in Jerusalem.
But the explanation rang hollow: Shin Bet itself had stated that the Jerusalem attackers had no ties to Hamas and no prior security record.
But this justification appeared contradictory: Shin Bet had announced that the perpetrators of the Jerusalem attack had no links to Hamas and no prior security record.
Moreover, the October 7 attack had taken place two years earlier, raising further questions about the timing—particularly since the strike coincided with a Hamas leadership meeting in Doha to discuss U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal on hostages and a possible ceasefire.
The Israeli military insisted that the targeted leaders were “directly responsible” for the war against Israel, stressing that precision munitions were used to minimize civilian casualties. Speaking later at a U.S. embassy event in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu made no mention of Qatar, an omission observers interpreted as an attempt to avoid a direct confrontation with the key mediator in ongoing negotiations.
Another notable aspect was the absence of Mossad in the official account. Unlike other long-range operations often linked to the agency, Israel stressed that the strike was planned and carried out by the military and Shin Bet.
Analysts interpreted this as a deliberate signal to shield Mossad from suspicion, especially since its chief has made frequent visits to Doha to coordinate with Qatari officials. Any explicit acknowledgment of its role, they argued, could jeopardize a crucial communication channel.
“I don’t assume Mossad had no role, nor do I know why it wasn’t mentioned. The agency provides intelligence worldwide, and it likely contributed to the preparation,” analyst Shimon Aran told Alhurra.
The paradox did not end there. At the very moment Israeli jets were striking Doha, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar was in Zagreb announcing that the war could end “tomorrow” if all hostages were returned and Hamas was disarmed—stating Israel’s acceptance of Trump’s latest initiative.
The contrast was striking: diplomatic overtures abroad, while Netanyahu ordered strikes on Hamas leaders in Qatar. The contradiction underscored the tension in Israel’s messaging between negotiation and escalation.
For hostage families, the stakes were personal. The “Families Forum” warned that the strike put the lives of 48 captives in greater danger, insisting that “the true image of victory will not be a successful airstrike, but the safe return of all hostages home.”
The concern extended into Israel’s security establishment. Reserve General Nitzan Alon, head of the Hostage Affairs Directorate, opposed the timing of the operation. According to the Israeli Broadcasting Authority, the chief of staff and several Mossad officials shared his view.
They urged advancing a partial deal to secure the release of some hostages. But Netanyahu, true to his past resistance to limited agreements on Gaza, chose to override their advice.
Regional reactions were swift.
Within hours of the strike, Qatar condemned the “cowardly attack,” calling it a blatant violation of international law.
Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani warned that the airstrike threatened to derail peace talks that Qatar has been mediating.
Regional powers quickly echoed Doha’s anger. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the UAE, joined by other states, denounced the operation as a grave breach of Qatari sovereignty. Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, went further, pledging support for “any Qatari steps to defend its sovereignty.”
Qatar has hosted Hamas leaders for years. The group still holds 48 hostages in Gaza, and Doha, working with Egypt and backed by the United States, has been mediating efforts toward a ceasefire that would include their release.
In Washington, confusion mounted after The Washington Post reported that just weeks earlier Qatar had secured assurances from both Mossad and the White House that its territory would not be targeted.
Qatari officials said they were “completely surprised” by the strike. According to reports, Trump instructed his special envoy to alert Doha at the last moment—an action Qatari officials dismissed as a mere formality rather than genuine coordination.
These developments raised questions about the nature of U.S.-Israeli coordination.
While Trump permitted the Doha strike, he had halted an Israeli airstrike planned over Iran in June, after the jets had already flown nearly 2,000 kilometers.
The inconsistency between these two decisions raises questions about White House priorities: why reject a strike on Iran but allow one on Qatar, a U.S. ally and key mediator in the hostage issue?
“I don’t think this operation will affect U.S.-Israeli relations. Washington and many countries around the world are comfortable with targeting Hamas leaders, even if they don’t say so openly,” said Aran.
The “Summit of Fire” operation was more than a military score-settling with Hamas. It was also a calculated political maneuver. For Netanyahu, it offered the chance to recast his image at home, not beholden to Doha, as alleged in the “Qatar-gate” scandal, but the leader who struck at its core.
Yet at the same time, it threatens to derail any diplomacy under U.S. and Qatari mediation and further endanger the hostages’ lives.
“Many in Israel were not happy or comfortable with planning this operation. Important elements in the Israeli intelligence community thought it was the wrong step—and certainly carried out in the wrong way,” said former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy.
“Israeli public opinion is deeply divided. Many believe this gamble should not have been taken and that the danger to the remaining hostages in Hamas’s hands is now greater than ever,” Halevy told Alhurra.
And while Netanyahu may see this gamble as strengthening his political position, its regional and international repercussions may weigh far heavier than the immediate gains it achieved.
