An Israeli airstrike hit Doha on the afternoon of 9 September 2025, targeting a meeting of senior Hamas representatives discussing a US proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza. Several people were killed, but Hamas said the negotiating leadership survived.
Qatari media reported that the delegation escaped unharmed. Reuters also cited two Hamas sources saying the negotiators had survived.
In an initial identification of victims, Qatar’s Interior Ministry named Moamen Jawad Hassouna, Hammam Khalil Al Hayya—the son of senior Hamas official Khalil Al Hayya—and Lance Corporal Badr Saad Mohammed Al Humaidi Al Dosari of the Internal Security Force, Lekhwiya. The ministry said Al Dosari was killed on duty at the site. Authorities were still identifying victims and missing people using disaster-victim-identification procedures. The three names were not a final death toll.
The Israeli military said its air force and Shin Bet security service carried out the operation, which it called “Summit of Fire”, against senior Hamas figures. It said precision weapons and intelligence had been used to reduce civilian harm. These were the military’s claims about its conduct of the strike.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said Israel had initiated, planned and executed the operation and accepted responsibility for it. Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana described it on X as a message to the wider Middle East.
CNN, citing two Israeli sources, reported that preparations had taken two to three months and accelerated in recent weeks before receiving political approval.
Qatar condemned the attack on residential buildings in its capital. Its Interior Ministry said the explosions heard across parts of Doha came from Israeli strikes on buildings housing members of Hamas’s political bureau.
A blow to mediation
The White House said on 9 September that President Donald Trump objected to the location of the strike and had made his position clear to Netanyahu. It stressed Qatar’s status as a close US ally.
Analysts interviewed for this report disagree about Washington’s role. Some allege prior US approval or logistical involvement; the report does not establish those allegations independently, and they should not be read as confirmed facts.
Barakat El Farra, a former Palestinian ambassador to Egypt, tells Zawia3 that the attack shows Israel’s disregard for Arab states. In his view, the negotiations have not reflected a genuine Israeli intention to end the war.
He argues that Netanyahu and far-right ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich want to continue fighting, and that Netanyahu sees the war as a way to remain in power and avoid the political and legal consequences he could face afterwards.
El Farra describes the strike as an attack on another Arab state after operations in Lebanon and Syria. He calls for a firm Arab response. He also raises the possibility that Hamas could become more flexible if it chooses to continue negotiations after being attacked while considering a US proposal.
“The Arab League must move beyond formal statements and empty declarations,” says El Farra, who views the strike as a warning to other Arab states as well as an assault on Qatar’s sovereignty.
He believes the operation had a US green light. That is his interpretation; Israel’s statement accepting responsibility does not, by itself, establish American approval.
Palestinian writer and political analyst Zaid Al Ayoubi offers a different assessment of Washington’s role. He tells Zawia3 he does not believe the operation was coordinated with the United States.
Al Ayoubi sees the attack as a message to Israel’s domestic audience amid pressure on Netanyahu. In his view, it was intended to demonstrate continuing retaliation against Hamas while distracting its leadership and weakening its engagement in negotiations.
He warns that striking negotiators in the host country complicates communication with mediators and undermines Qatar’s ability to provide a secure setting for talks. He fears it will further diminish hopes among Palestinians in Gaza for an agreement ending the war.
Egypt condemns the attack and backs Qatar
Egypt’s presidency condemned the strike as a violation of international law and Qatar’s sovereignty. It emphasised that the targeted country was playing a central role in mediation for a Gaza ceasefire.
Cairo expressed solidarity with Qatar’s leadership, government and people, warning that the escalation threatened regional stability and efforts to secure calm. It called for international action and accountability.
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry likewise argued that the attack undermined prospects for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. It rejected attacks on Arab territory and described Qatar’s security as part of collective Arab security.
Ibrahim El Darawi, a researcher specialising in Palestinian and Israeli affairs, interprets the strike as carrying an American message as much as an Israeli one. He alleges that Washington authorised it, while acknowledging uncertainty surrounding the targeted delegation. No independent evidence establishing such authorisation is presented in this report.
He says attacking a meeting considering an American initiative signals disregard for international diplomacy and reflects what he describes as Israel’s expansionist and displacement policies.
El Darawi points to Qatar’s history of economic contacts with Israel in the 1990s and argues that the strike should prompt states involved in the Abraham Accords to question the security assurances available to them.
He believes Egypt’s military strength provides a deterrent, invoking the experience of the October 1973 war. This is his strategic assessment, rather than a guarantee about future Israeli action.
On Egyptian–Israeli relations, he highlights Cairo’s opposition to the displacement of Palestinians and its diplomatic positions on Gaza. He expects Egypt’s immediate response to the Doha strike to remain within diplomatic condemnation, but regards that position as significant because it concerns an attack on an Arab state.
He describes Egypt’s support for Palestinian rights as a longstanding strategic commitment extending beyond Qatar or this incident.
What message does the strike send?
Former Egyptian assistant foreign minister Rakha Ahmed Hassan, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, expects direct consequences for negotiations. He tells Zawia3 that much will depend on Washington’s role and Israel’s conditions regarding withdrawal from Gaza and reconstruction.
Hassan raises questions about possible logistical assistance from the US base in Qatar and reports of American or British aircraft in the area. He presents these as suspicions based on strategic relationships; this report does not verify either logistical support or coordination.
He characterises the operation as state violence intended to eliminate Palestinian leaders and obstruct de-escalation. In his view, killing leaders would not end Palestinian resistance.
Hassan reads the message as a threat to pursue those rejecting Israeli conditions wherever they are. He places it against the diplomatic pressure preceding the UN General Assembly and discussions over recognition of a Palestinian state, including Britain’s stated position at the time.
He warns that lack of accountability will make Israel a continuing threat to regional stability. He also describes Egyptian–Israeli relations as severely strained by developments involving Gaza, the Rafah crossing, the Philadelphi corridor and gas supplies.
He urges Arab states to consider practical economic and trade measures, citing Türkiye, rather than limit their response to condemnation. He asks whether the Gulf Cooperation Council will take meaningful action following a strike on one of its members.
Former Egyptian foreign minister Mohamed El Orabi sees a clear message: Israel is prioritising military force over mediation and diplomacy.
El Orabi tells Zawia3 the attack continues a pattern of Israeli actions since 7 October that bypass political channels. He believes Gaza’s immediate future is increasingly dependent on the relationship between Israel and Washington, as ceasefire initiatives struggle to produce results.
Although Israel has previously carried out operations abroad, he argues it cannot necessarily sustain an unlimited expansion of the confrontation. He says the Doha strike failed to achieve its declared aim of killing the targeted leadership, while seriously damaging negotiations.
El Orabi considers the Egyptian presidency’s involvement—not only a foreign-ministry statement—an indication of the event’s gravity. He calls for an urgent meeting of Arab foreign ministers and a coordinated response extending beyond verbal condemnation.
Fears of a widening war
Regional-security researcher Ahmed Sultan is more sceptical about the negotiations themselves. He argues they have provided political cover for continued warfare rather than a credible path to ending it.
He describes the latest American proposal as a possible trap to assemble Hamas leaders for targeting, and alleges coordination between Israel, the United States and other states. These are serious allegations reflecting his interpretation; the report does not substantiate them with independent evidence.
Sultan says Israel’s willingness to target negotiators in a mediating state reflects reliance on overwhelming military force rather than coexistence or a negotiated settlement. He also criticises Trump’s approach to the conflict as transactional.
Asked about a reported drone attack on a Gaza-bound flotilla vessel near Tunisia, Sultan links the incidents to what he sees as a strategy of striking actors believed unlikely to retaliate. His comparison does not establish who was responsible for the maritime incident.
He argues that the war has had a regional character since 7 October and predicts further expansion, although not necessarily immediately. That is a forecast made at the time of the interview, not a subsequent outcome.
The strike on Doha marks a dangerous escalation: an attack on Hamas negotiators in the capital of a state hosting mediation. Its implications extend beyond the targeted movement to the safety of diplomatic channels and the wider region.
As condemnations mount, the central question remains whether the attack will prompt a renewed commitment to negotiations or deepen a war with no clear political exit.
