On September 9, 2025, Israel launched an airstrike on a residential compound in Doha, Qatar, reportedly targeting Hamas's political leadership. Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed authorising the strike and linked it to retaliation for a Hamas attack in Jerusalem on September 8. Hamas's chief negotiator, Khalil al-Hayya, was believed to be a key target.
A damaged building, following an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, according to an Israeli official, in Doha, Qatar, September 9, 2025. REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa (REUTERS)
Hamas stated that its senior negotiating team, including al-Hayya, survived the strike. A Hamas official said the attack killed five of its lower-level members, including al-Hayya's son and office manager. There was some collateral damage: One Qatari security official was killed in the attack.
The Israeli airstrike targeting Hamas leaders in Doha has been interpreted in different ways. While Israel and its supporters view the strike as a demonstration of a new strategy to eliminate Hamas leaders wherever they operate, others see it as a reckless escalation that undermines peace efforts and weakens the US’s standing in the region.
The strike has been condemned by many nations and drew criticism from the US, highlighting several unintended consequences and demonstrations. Qatar, a key mediator in the Israeli-Hamas conflict, was furious about the violation of its sovereignty. Qatari officials stated that the attack had "killed any hope" for a hostage deal and damaged mediation efforts, demonstrating the fragile nature of diplomatic channels.
Since Qatar hosts a major US military base, the attack on its soil has raised concerns among Gulf States about the value of their defence agreements with the US. It demonstrated that America's closest allies could still be vulnerable to attack from Israel, potentially disrupting regional security and alliances.
The strike has been viewed as a blow to efforts to normalise relations between Israel and other Arab States, such as Saudi Arabia. It demonstrated that aggressive Israeli military action can undermine diplomatic progress and reinforce perceptions of Israel as a destabilizing force. The strike prompted a show of solidarity for Qatar from other Gulf nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, indicating that aggression against one Gulf State is a threat to the collective security of the region.
The strike violated Qatar's sovereignty, which had maintained a neutral ground for mediation at the request of the US. Following the attack, Qatar's PM announced that the incident effectively halted the ongoing Gaza ceasefire negotiations, stating he didn't think there was anything "valid right now" regarding the talks. This puts future mediation efforts at risk, as other nations may be hesitant to host such talks.
The Hostages and Missing Families Forum expressed "deep concern and heavy anxiety" after the attack, recognising that the chances of freeing the remaining Israeli hostages have become "more uncertain than ever". Most hostages released previously were freed through Qatari and Egyptian mediation, not military operations.
The attack could dangerously escalate regional tensions. It follows a fragile ceasefire with Iran in June 2025, which saw military exchanges between Israel and Iran. The US officially criticised the attack, stating it did not advance US or Israeli goals. The UN Security Council, with US backing, condemned the attack and called for de-escalation. The move is viewed as a rebuke of Israeli actions by its chief ally, showing the seriousness of the breach. However, the strike took place after Israel's last-minute notification to the US, raising questions about the US's security assurances to its allies in the region.
While Qatar remains committed to diplomatic solutions, there is no clear path to reviving the negotiations immediately. For talks to resume, a new framework is needed to address the profound loss of trust. A neutral third party, outside the Gulf, may need to step in to mediate, but finding a suitable and willing host will be challenging. An end to the conflict now requires stronger pressure from international actors, possibly including the US, but also a clear signal from Israel that it is committed to a diplomatic, not military, solution. Some analysts suggest that as long as Netanyahu remains in power and views peace as a political liability, diplomatic efforts will be fruitless. His actions suggest a continued preference for military action over diplomacy.
The immediate prospects of resuming the ceasefire talks in their previous format are low due to the collapse of trust between Israel and Qatar, the primary mediator. The US administration's ability to facilitate a ceasefire is diminished after the strike on its ally's sovereign soil. The incident may lead to a collective response from regional partners, though no specific action has been decided yet. The continuation of the war remains likely, as Israel proceeds with its military campaign in Gaza.
This article is authored by Prabhu Dayal, former ambassador.
E-Paper
