On the afternoon of 9 September this month, the Qatari capital, Doha, witnessed an Israeli airstrike that targeted a meeting of a leadership delegation of the Hamas movement that was discussing a new American proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza, put forward by US President Donald Trump. The attack resulted in a number of deaths, without hitting the negotiating delegation.
According to Qatari media, the delegation was the target of an attempted strike in the capital, but survived without injuries. The Reuters agency confirmed, citing two sources in Hamas, that the members of the delegation participating in the Doha negotiations emerged unharmed from the attack.
For its part, the Qatari Ministry of Interior revealed on Tuesday evening the names of the victims who fell as a result of the strike, indicating that three people were martyred, namely: Momen Jawad Hassouna, Hammam Khalil Al-Hayya (son of the prominent leader Khalil Al-Hayya), and Lance Corporal Badr Saad Mohammed Al-Humaidi Al-Dosari, a member of the Internal Security Force (Lekhwiya), who was martyred while performing his duties at the targeted site. A number of civilians and security personnel were also injured to varying degrees, while the competent authorities are continuing field verification operations using Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) techniques to identify the missing, with a promise to announce updates as soon as they become available.
The Israeli occupation army announced that the operation, which was carried out in cooperation between the air force and the internal security service, the “Shin Bet”, was named “Summit of Fire”, and targeted senior Hamas leaders. The army claimed that it had taken measures to limit harm to civilians, including the use of precision munitions and updated intelligence to identify the targets. It also vowed to continue its military operations, holding the movement responsible for what it described as the “massacre of 7 October”.
In a statement issued by his office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the operation “was wholly Israeli in terms of planning, execution and responsibility”, adding: “Israel initiated it, carried it out, and bears full responsibility for its consequences”. Meanwhile, the Speaker of the Knesset, Amir Ohana, considered in a post on the “X” platform that the operation represents “a message to the entire Middle East”.
The “CNN” network quoted two Israeli sources as saying that the attack had been in planning for a period of between two and three months, and that its execution was accelerated in recent weeks until it obtained the approval of the political leadership. The network explained that the operation was carried out using a precision strike, in coordination with the “Shin Bet”, and targeted senior leaders of the movement.
For its part, the State of Qatar condemned the Israeli attack in the strongest terms, and described the targeting of residential headquarters in Doha as a “cowardly attack”. The Qatari Ministry of Interior confirmed that the sound of the explosions heard in various parts of the city resulted from the Israeli bombardment of the buildings in which a number of members of the Hamas political bureau reside.
Recommended reading: The gas deal as a pressure card: how will Cairo respond to Netanyahu’s threats?
Repercussions
In a related context, a statement issued by the White House on Tuesday explained that President Donald Trump did not approve the location of the Israeli strike, and had informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of this. The statement affirmed that the United States views the State of Qatar as a close ally, and that the president is “very unhappy” about the place where the attack was carried out, considering that “this unfortunate incident could serve as an opportunity to achieve peace”.
For his part, Ambassador Barakat Al-Farra, former Palestinian ambassador to Egypt and former deputy secretary-general of the League of Arab States, believes that the targeting of the Hamas delegation in Doha reveals that Israel does not care about any Arab party. He tells Zawia3: “Israel does not want peace, nor does it seek to stop the war, and all the negotiations it conducts are nothing but meaningless bubbles in the air”.
He adds: “Netanyahu, and with him Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, insist on continuing the war, without regard for the detainees or the prisoners, because its continuation is his only means of staying in power, as he knows that if the war stops, he will face prison”.
Al-Farra considers that the airstrike represents a flagrant attack on yet another Arab state, after Lebanon and Syria, which expresses clear Israeli arrogance and obliges Arab states to take a firm position towards what he describes as the “rogue state”. He points out that this attack, despite its seriousness, may push Hamas towards greater flexibility in the ceasefire negotiations, if it decides to proceed with them, especially since the raid took place while they were discussing an American proposal.
He also stresses that the operation represents a warning to the rest of the Arab states, adding: “Qatar, which has relations with Israel and plays the role of mediator between it and Hamas, was subjected to a military operation that targeted its civilians on its own territory, which is a direct attack on its sovereignty”.
He believes that what happened confirms that Israel gives weight to no one, and adds: “This operation was carried out with an American green light, and did Netanyahu’s office not announce that they carried out the attack and bear responsibility for it? What more do we need than this?”.
He concludes: “The League of Arab States must go beyond the stage of formal statements and verbal declarations that neither nourish nor satisfy hunger”.
For his part, Zaid Al-Ayoubi, a Palestinian writer and political analyst, believes that the targeting of Hamas leaders in Qatar was not surprising. He tells Zawia3 that the strike confirms that Israel is not looking for any negotiating track to end the war, but rather seeks to preoccupy Hamas internally and to weaken its ability to engage in the political process.
He explains that the operation will complicate the channels of communication between the mediators and Hamas and weaken Qatar’s mediating role, noting that targeting the movement’s leaders in the host country raises question marks about Qatar’s ability to continue as a neutral and safe mediator.
He adds: “I do not believe that the attack was carried out in coordination with the United States; rather, it carries a message directed at the Israeli domestic front, in light of the pressures Netanyahu faces from the opposition. Through this operation, he wanted to show Israelis that he is continuing to take revenge on Hamas, and that he will not be lenient with those who stand behind the 7 October attacks”.
Al-Ayoubi concludes by saying that this targeting will destroy whatever hopes remain among Palestinians in Gaza of the possibility of reaching an agreement that ends the aggression, and will open the door to a long war without a clear political horizon.
Recommended reading: The war expands into every inch of Gaza, and the safe zones are “under bombardment”
Egypt condemns the attack and stands in solidarity with Qatar
Egypt condemned in the strongest terms what it described as the “flagrant Israeli aggression” against the State of Qatar, which targeted the political bureau of the Hamas movement in the capital, Doha. The Presidency of the Republic considered in an official statement that the attack represents a dangerous precedent and a blatant violation of the provisions of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and constitutes a direct attack on the sovereignty of an Arab state that plays a pivotal role in mediation efforts for a ceasefire in Gaza.
The statement affirmed Egypt’s full solidarity with Qatar, its leadership, government and people, in the face of what it described as the “shameful attack”, warning that this escalation undermines international efforts towards de-escalation and threatens regional security and stability. The statement called on the international community to shoulder its legal and moral responsibilities, and to work to stop the aggression and hold those responsible for it accountable, so that it is not added to the chain of Israel’s impunity.
In a separate statement, the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed that the aggressive Israeli approach reflects a premeditated intention to undermine any opportunity for de-escalation or for reaching an agreement on a ceasefire and the release of the hostages. It affirmed that the absence of political will in Israel shows persistence in violating international law, and a rejection of any serious political path towards peace.
The Foreign Ministry affirmed Egypt’s categorical rejection of any attack on the territory of Arab states, considering that Qatar’s security is an integral part of Arab national security, and that any infringement of it is an extremely serious development that cannot be accepted under any justification. It also warned of the repercussions of the “unprecedented” Israeli escalation, and of the risks it entails for the stability of the region and the widening of the scope of confrontation at the expense of civilians.
Ibrahim El-Darawy, a researcher specialising in Palestinian-Israeli affairs, believes that the airstrike on Doha essentially carries an American message more than an Israeli one, explaining that Washington gave the green light for carrying out the operation, despite conflicting reports about the fate of the targeted delegation. He tells Zawia3: “The attack taking place while an American initiative was being discussed is a slap in the face to the international community, and confirms that Israel is not looking for peace, but is implementing its expansionist and displacement project without any regard for international legitimacy”.
El-Darawy points out that Qatar, despite being one of the first Arab states to establish economic relations with Israel in the 1990s, did not receive any respect from the Israeli side, which directed a military strike at its territory, in clear violation of those relations. He believes that this event should be a message to the states that rushed towards the “Abraham Accords” without real guarantees.
The expert continues that Israel “spreads corruption in the land”, but does not dare to touch major states such as Egypt, which has a strong army independent of the American system. He recalls the experience of the October 1973 war, considering that Israel today focuses on the territories it controls militarily, such as Lebanon, Syria and the Golan, while Egypt remains in a fortified position thanks to its military strength and its political leadership.
On the repercussions of the strike for Egyptian-Israeli relations, El-Darawy explains that Cairo has previously taken decisive political and diplomatic positions towards Israel because of its policies in Gaza, and categorically rejects any scenarios of displacing Palestinians. He adds: “The Egyptian response to the targeting of Doha will be within the framework of condemnation statements, but it carries important connotations as a position on an attack on an Arab state that cannot be overlooked, whether by Egypt or by the League of Arab States”.
El-Darawy concludes by affirming that Egypt’s position is “firm and strategic”, and is not linked only to Qatar or the recent incident, but stems from its historical commitment to the Palestinian cause and its rejection of any infringement of Palestinian rights under any circumstances.
Recommended reading: Amid the rubble, bombardment and hunger: Egyptians stranded in Gaza for a year and a half
A clear Israeli message
Ambassador Rakha Ahmed Hassan, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, a member of the Egyptian Association for the United Nations and a former assistant foreign minister, affirms that the targeting of the Hamas delegation in Doha will have direct repercussions on the course of the negotiations. He tells Zawia3 that “the final position will depend on the American role, in light of Israel’s declared refusal to withdraw from Gaza or to allow reconstruction before its conditions are met, most notably the displacement of Palestinians”, noting that these objectives intersect with the American vision in some respects.
The ambassador raises a question about the possibility that the Israeli aircraft that carried out the attack received logistical support or facilities from the American base in Qatar, considering this possibility plausible in light of the strategic understandings between the two sides.
He adds: “The operation reflects behaviour closer to the practices of organised crime and state terrorism, as the delegation was targeted as soon as it met to discuss American proposals that it had rejected, in an attempt to liquidate Palestinian leaders, whether from Hamas or the Authority, in a way that obstructs efforts for de-escalation and reconstruction”.
He affirms that assassinating leaders will not end the resistance, pointing to fedayeen operations carried out against Israeli soldiers in Jerusalem and Gaza in recent days.
Hassan believes that the Israeli message is clear: pursuing everyone who rejects its conditions, wherever they may be, especially in light of international pressure ahead of the convening of the United Nations General Assembly, which may witness moves to discuss recognition of the Palestinian state, and coinciding with Britain’s threat of formal recognition if the war continues.
Regarding the reports of American and British aircraft flying over Doha shortly before the operation, he points out that “carrying out an attack of this kind cannot happen without coordination, or at least without an American turning of a blind eye, given the close relationship between Washington and Doha”.
He affirms that “Israel’s continued impunity will make it a permanent threat to the stability of the entire Middle East”, noting that Egyptian-Israeli relations are going through a state of severe tension, especially after the halt of gas pumping, the destruction of the Rafah crossing and the occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor, in direct violation of the peace treaty.
He continues: “The Arab response may oscillate between formal condemnation statements and taking practical steps, if states realise that the real danger is Israel, not Iran”. He proposes that measures begin with an economic and trade boycott, along the lines of the Turkish position, asking: “Will the Gulf Cooperation Council take a practical position after the targeting of a member state? Or will it settle for a statement of denunciation?”.
For his part, Ambassador Mohamed El-Orabi, former Egyptian foreign minister and member of the House of Representatives, believes that the strike carries a “clear Israeli message”, namely that there is no room for mediation or negotiation, and that Israel is pressing ahead with its military operation inside Gaza to settle the situation by force. He tells Zawia3: “What happened represents a continuation of the series of Israeli follies since 7 October, follies that go beyond all political and diplomatic tracks”.
El-Orabi affirms that Israel has moved to a new stage of confrontation that relies entirely on the military solution, without any real intention of de-escalation or of reaching an agreement, considering that the future of the Gaza Strip has today become hostage to coordination between Tel Aviv and Washington, after the collapse of all the initiatives put forward for a ceasefire.
He adds: “Although Israel has carried out operations outside its borders before, it does not have the full capacity to expand the scope of confrontation comprehensively. The targeting of Hamas leaders did not achieve the goal that Tel Aviv announced, but it confirmed the halt of the negotiations and Israel’s reliance on the military option alone”.
El-Orabi points out that the issuance of an official statement by the Presidency of the Republic, and not only by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reflects the seriousness of the event and its regional repercussions, calling for an urgent meeting of Arab foreign ministers at the Arab League, especially in light of the violation of the airspace of the State of Qatar. He concludes by affirming that the current facts portend the continuation of Israeli military operations in the coming phase, which calls for a unified Arab response that goes beyond verbal condemnation.
Recommended reading: The harvesting of lives begins in Rafah: the occupation is indifferent to threatening Egypt’s security
Political cover for the massacre
In the same context, Ahmed Sultan, a researcher in regional security and terrorism, believes that the ongoing negotiations on Gaza were not aimed at ending the massacre but at providing political cover that allows it to continue, explaining that the latest proposal, announced under the auspices of US President Donald Trump, was nothing but an “American ruse” to gather Hamas leaders in order to target them.
He tells Zawia3: “Israel does not care about the mediators or the states sponsoring the negotiations, as it seeks neither peace nor negotiation, but is pressing ahead with the displacement plan. The message directed at the Arab region is clear: this is an entity that does not believe in coexistence, and sees excessive force as the only means of subjugating everyone, and the region will not be stable as long as it exists”.
He affirms that the strike that took place in Doha has the United States, Israel and other states that coordinated with it behind it, considering that Washington is a main partner in this operation and that Trump dealt with the file as a “new economic deal”, along the lines of his failed real-estate projects.
On whether there is a link between the targeting of the Hamas delegation in Doha and the drone attack on a ship that was part of the flotilla to break the siege on Gaza near the Tunisian coast, the researcher explains that these strikes are part of an Israeli strategy based on “savagery through force”, which rests on targeting any state that it estimates will not respond, noting that Tunisia was previously the scene of assassinations of Palestinian leaders from “Fatah” and “Jihad”, and now the maritime targeting comes within the same approach, as happened in Qatar.
On the future of the conflict, Sultan considers that the war has been regional since 7 October, and that negotiations will not end it, expecting that “the war will inevitably expand, but not at the present moment”, and that its escalation in the region is inevitable as long as the current Israeli policies continue.
In conclusion, it can be said that the Israeli aggression on Doha, which targeted leaders of the Hamas movement, reveals a dangerous turn taken by the Israeli war of extermination on Gaza, as the conflict is no longer confined within the borders of the Strip, but has extended to strike the heart of an Arab capital, with the political and security messages this carries, which go beyond Hamas and the mediators to the future of the entire region.
As Arab and international condemnations follow one after another, and warnings mount about the repercussions of the operation on mediation efforts and the chances of de-escalation, the scene remains open to more complex possibilities, amid Israeli insistence on a military resolution and international division over the mechanisms for stopping the torrent of Palestinian blood. In light of this escalation, the questions seem bigger than the answers: will this strike push the parties towards serious negotiations, or is it paving the way for a prolonged war without a political horizon?
Editorial correction: The first version of the report described Donald Trump as the former US president; in fact, he is the current US president, having begun his second term in January 2025.
