Doha / New Delhi: An unprecedented Israeli strike in Doha has sparked intense debate over Qatar’s role in the Gaza conflict. The attack, which targeted senior Hamas leaders during a high-level meeting in the Qatari capital, has fuelled speculation that Doha may have either knowingly permitted the strike or failed to prevent it. Analysts have now outlined three theories explaining how Israel carried out such a bold operation in the heart of Qatar.
The strike in Doha
The incident unfolded when Hamas political leaders convened at a residential building in an upscale neighbourhood of Doha to discuss a ceasefire proposal. The meeting included figures involved in prisoner-exchange talks and ongoing negotiations mediated by international actors.
Despite the area being considered secure, close to foreign embassies and under heavy surveillance, Israeli forces successfully carried out the targeted strike. This has raised questions over whether Qatar’s security infrastructure was compromised or whether the country allowed the action to go ahead.
Theory 1: Qatar viewed Hamas as a liability
Some experts argue that Qatar, which has long positioned itself as a mediator between Hamas and the West, may have grown frustrated with the group’s unwillingness to accept ceasefire proposals.
According to this line of thought, once Hamas ceased to be useful as diplomatic leverage, Qatar may have quietly shifted its stance. By not preventing the strike, Doha could be signalling its intent to distance itself from the group, while maintaining credibility with Western allies.
Theory 2: Tacit approval or prior knowledge
Another theory suggests that Qatar may have had advance knowledge of the operation. Given the precision of the strike in a densely populated, well-guarded neighbourhood, many observers find it unlikely that Israel acted without external facilitation.
Some reports indicate that the United States may have been informed in advance. Analysts believe it is possible that Qatar, too, was at least partially aware but chose not to intervene, either due to diplomatic pressure or strategic calculation.
Theory 3: Converging interests between Israel, the US, and Qatar
The third perspective highlights overlapping interests among the three countries. For Israel, eliminating Hamas leaders reduces its adversary’s negotiating strength. For the United States, a weakened Hamas could create space for a more favourable ceasefire deal.
Qatar, which has sought to act as mediator, might have seen the strike as a way to reset the dynamics of negotiations. While publicly denying involvement, Qatar could benefit from repositioning itself as an indispensable but neutral actor in future talks.
Regional and global implications
The strike has sparked outrage in some quarters, with critics questioning whether it constitutes a breach of Qatari sovereignty. It also casts doubt on Qatar’s ability to remain an impartial mediator, especially given its longstanding ties to Hamas.
International legal experts warn that such cross-border actions undermine sovereignty and set a dangerous precedent. Meanwhile, regional allies are watching closely to see if Qatar can retain credibility on the global stage.
Conclusion
Whether Qatar actively cooperated, gave tacit approval, or was blindsided, the Israeli strike in Doha marks a turning point in the Gaza conflict. Theories about Qatar’s role remain unproven, but the incident has significantly altered the perception of the Gulf state’s position as a mediator. As the conflict deepens, Doha’s diplomatic balancing act will face greater scrutiny than ever before.