Israel’s operation, dubbed the “Fire Summit,” which targeted senior Hamas officials involved in ongoing negotiations, marks a significant shift in Tel Aviv’s approach to talks and the hostage file following the events of Oct. 7. In fact, a leaked audio recording of former Shin Bet chief, Ronen Bar surfaced after Oct. 7, in which he stated that Israel would target Hamas leaders anywhere in the world. On Aug. 31, 2025, Israeli army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir reiterated this stance, saying many Hamas leaders are abroad and that they, too, would be targeted. Unlike the Mossad-led assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, meanwhile, the Fire Summit was carried out directly by the Israeli Air Force. This strike signals the end of Israel’s previous restraint toward Hamas figures in Qatar and indicates a turning point.
As will be recalled, on Oct. 7, 2023, 251 hostages were taken to Gaza. The vast majority of those who returned were released by Hamas through negotiations mediated by third parties, while only a small number were rescued through operations conducted by the Israeli military and intelligence services. Of the 48 hostages currently believed to be in Gaza, an estimated 20 are thought to be alive. Doha has been one of the two key centers for ongoing hostage negotiations. The other major negotiation site has been Cairo, with a smaller number of meetings held in Paris. In this context, the U.S., Qatar and Egypt have emerged as the three main mediating countries. Qatar’s ties with the U.S. and the presence of Hamas’ senior leadership in Doha naturally positioned it as a key mediator throughout the process. As such, Qatar has played an active role in the hostage negotiations and exchange efforts, while also taking serious initiative to pressure Hamas. However, the recent Israeli strike has significantly undermined the continuity of hostage talks. Hamas is finding it increasingly difficult to remain engaged in negotiations, and Qatar’s mediating role has suffered a major blow. It is also worth underscoring a notable contradiction: just three weeks ago, Mossad Chief David Barnea was in Doha for negotiations, yet the city has now been bombed by Israel. With this latest attack, Qatar has become the fifth country targeted by Israel since Oct. 7.
Strategic deadlocks at home and abroad
Israel’s targeting of senior Hamas officials in Doha who were involved in hostage negotiations can be seen in the context of both the ongoing war in Gaza and the international reactions to it. However, the “Fire Summit” operation, which followed the Sept. 8, 2025, attack in Jerusalem — an incident that placed the Israeli government under pressure and led to the collapse of hostage negotiations — clearly signals a shift in Israel’s negotiation and hostage policy.
First, statements from countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Australia expressing their intent to recognize Palestinian state have placed Israeli diplomacy in a difficult position, further undermining the sustainability of the ongoing war in Gaza. In response, the Israeli government launched urgent efforts to end the war in Gaza on its own terms, initiating a new operation aimed at fully occupying Gaza City, the main urban center in the north. At the same time, there has been significant domestic mobilization around the hostage issue. Since early 2023, the streets, rarely empty due to continuous protests, have been especially active over the hostages. This public pressure has created a strong sensitivity that has become one of the main constraints on Israeli military operations. In other words, the primary factor limiting Israel’s operations in Gaza has not been concern over Palestinian civilians, but rather the approximately 20 Israeli hostages believed to still be alive. As a result, the Israeli government has found itself needing to keep the door open to negotiations, even while refusing to accept Hamas’ terms. This position has drawn pressure from the domestic opposition and led to growing international isolation. Prior to the latest military operation, Hamas stated, following a call from U.S. President Donald Trump, that it stood by its mid-August 2025 proposal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, avoided reaching an agreement while opting for a new political maneuver.
The recent attack in Jerusalem, which left six Israelis dead, is being skillfully instrumentalized by the Israeli government to balance out the growing public backlash over the hostage issue. In the aftermath of the Jerusalem attack, the targeting of Hamas’ negotiation team in Doha led to the collapse of ongoing talks — yet it is unlikely to provoke strong opposition within Israel. This, in turn, creates political cover for the government to deflect responsibility for any potential future loss of hostages in Gaza. In recent months, opposition figures such as Naftali Bennett, Gadi Eisenkot, Yair Lapid and Yair Golan have been gaining momentum in polls, showing growing electoral potential. In response, Netanyahu is expected to use the Doha strike as a strategic lever in domestic politics, positioning it as a move that distances him from direct accountability for the hostages.
In light of recent developments, Israel is likely to adopt an even more aggressive posture in Gaza, the West Bank, and its cross-border engagements. As such, the only significant obstacle to the Israeli government advancing its agenda in Gaza through harsher measures will be international pressure.
From strategic wisdom to brinkmanship
In the wake of recent developments, Tel Aviv’s regional security policy has clearly diverged from the regional alliance-building efforts it pursued from the latter half of the 2010s through Oct. 7. The current approach, which centers on hard power and favors a rhetoric of threat over legitimacy and alliance-building, offers short-term solutions in response to vulnerabilities in Israel’s strategic deterrence. However, when viewed through the lens of long-term security interests, this policy appears more like a series of “patches” meant to cover its weaknesses and signals a notable lack of coherent strategy. Moreover, such a threatening posture toward all regional countries is likely to prompt alternative solutions in the Middle East — an evolution that will be clearly reflected in the region’s arms buildup dynamics in the coming period. At the same time, regimes reluctant to confront Israel and the U.S. are finding their room to maneuver shrinking as they seek to protect their national security interests against Tel Aviv’s aggression. This situation carries the risk of Israel generating short-term fixes that sow the seeds of long-term problems.
Doha’s dilemma: From mediator to target
With Israel’s attack targeting Hamas officials in Doha on the evening of Sept. 9, 2025, Qatar has once again become a targeted actor in the region due to recent developments, following a previous incident on June 23.
Israel’s attack on the Hamas delegation in Doha has once again confirmed the country’s role as a primary aggressor in the region. Attacks over the past month targeting Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Qatar demonstrate Israel’s systematic disregard for international law. This situation shows that Israel is not only at war with Hamas but effectively in conflict with regional stability and diplomacy as a whole. From Qatar’s perspective, the strike not only targeted its long-established role as a mediator but also stigmatized the dialogue with Hamas as a “crime.” The presence of the Hamas delegation in Doha was part of a broader diplomatic effort aligned with U.S. ceasefire initiatives. Israel’s disruption of this process has directly drawn Qatar into the conflict. At this point, Qatar-Hamas relations are seen by Israel not merely as “mediation” but as “taking sides.” Doha described the attack as a “clear violation of sovereignty” and has been compelled to defend its position.
This situation could have a twofold impact on Qatar’s diplomacy strategy. First, Qatar has condemned the Israeli attacks on the international stage, framing them as illegal and a direct violation of its sovereignty. In this context, Qatar aims to establish strong legal legitimacy primarily through the United Nations and regional platforms, turning Israel’s aggression into a process of further isolation. At the same time, although Qatar’s long-standing image as a “security diplomacy hub” has been damaged by the attacks, it remains a role the country is likely to maintain. However, following the June 23 attack by Iran and Israel’s Sept. 9 strike, Qatar may push for security guarantees and seek to reset negotiations under more controlled conditions to continue ceasefire talks.
Israel’s attack on Doha: Diplomacy in ruins
Israel’s attack targeted not only Hamas officials in Doha but can also be seen as an assault on diplomacy itself. Qatar is expected to emphasize the theme of “Israel’s attack on mediation efforts and diplomacy” to rally unity within both Western and Arab public opinion and keep attention on the threat the strike poses to regional stability. In this context, Qatar will seek support within the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The U.S. initially remained silent, and its embassy issued a “shelter-in-place” warning, leaving Washington’s position ambiguous and deepening Qatar’s security-political dilemma. If the U.S. fails to openly condemn its ally Israel, Qatar’s relationship with Washington could be characterized as a “strategic friend but vulnerable in security.” Going forward, Doha is likely to maintain dialogue with the U.S. while applying stronger pressure to ensure its security is not overlooked. At the same time, Israel’s security threat to Qatar poses risks to the country’s economic appeal and diplomatic standing.
Another key point is the potential rupture in Qatar’s dialogue with Israel. Qatar, which never officially joined the normalization process, has already faced criticism within Israeli circles due to its ties with Hamas and other Gaza-based groups. However, the timing of the attack — carried out during a period when Doha was actively engaged in diplomacy — signals that Israel leaves no safe haven for Qatar. The Gulf country’s mediation efforts through Hamas require it to maintain coordinated relations with the U.S., but from Israel’s perspective, the fundamental reason for its strained relations with Qatar stems from these very ties, despite Israel’s formal participation in talks.
The key question for Doha now is this: Does the U.S. truly guarantee Qatar’s security, or is it tacitly endorsing Israel’s regional attacks? If the latter possibility gains ground, Doha will be forced to reconsider its strategic dependence on Washington. After all, Israel’s strike on Qatar can be seen not as an attack on diplomacy, but as a direct challenge to Qatar’s sovereignty.
