Israel in early September 2025 carried out an airstrike in Doha, Qatar, targeting senior Hamas figures. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu authorized the strike, even though Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, raised serious concerns. The disagreement revealed deep tensions within Israel’s security establishment over timing, strategy, and diplomatic risk. The operation has already stirred international condemnation, strained relations with Qatar, and renewed doubts over ongoing ceasefire and hostage negotiations.
Mossad Opposed a Ground Operation Netanyahu Chose the Strike
Mossad leadership, including Director David Barnea, had previously considered a ground-based operation to neutralize Hamas leaders in Qatar. They abandoned that plan due to concerns it could severely damage Israel’s relationship with Qatar, which has played a mediating role in past Gaza ceasefire talks. Mossad believed that a ground mission might undermine these diplomatic channels.
Instead, Netanyahu ordered an airstrike. At least fifteen of Israel’s fighter jets reportedly fired dozens of missiles toward a complex in Doha where Hamas political leadership were meeting to discuss a U.S.-proposed deal for ceasefire and hostage release. Israeli officials claimed key Hamas targets were present.
Why Timing and Strategy Sparked Internal Dissent
The Mossad opposed the strike for several reasons. First, it noted the timing risk: the meeting in Doha was not arbitrary but part of ongoing mediation efforts involving the U.S. and Qatar. Striking then risked unraveling fragile diplomatic work aimed at freeing hostages and negotiating peace.
Second, Mossad feared operational fallout: using force in Qatari territory could violate sovereignty norms and provoke diplomatic blowback, possibly harming Israel’s broader regional standing. There were fears that the strike may do more harm than good strategically.
Netanyahu and his close supporters rejected the warnings. They appear to have concluded that waiting further would give Hamas more time, reduce the chance of catching leadership in one place, and diminish leverage for Israel. Some allies felt that decisive action was required to maintain pressure.
Diplomatic Fallout and Qatar’s Role under Threat
Qatar responded sharply. The Qatari government condemned what it called a violation of its sovereignty, calling the strike “state terrorism” and arguing that Israel undermined the mediation processes it had helped facilitate. Qatar warned that its willingness to serve as a mediator might change if its territory and diplomatic posture are not respected.
International institutions also responded. The U.N. Security Council condemned the strike, with the United States supporting a resolution that decried attacks on Qatari territory. Although the resolution avoided explicitly naming Israel in its text, the nature of the condemnation made clear which country was implicated
Other regional actors voiced concern that Israel’s move could destabilize ongoing efforts toward hostage release or a ceasefire. Countries in the Gulf, diplomatic partners, and mediators worried that this action might derail negotiations and inflame tensions further.
Why Netanyahu May Have Felt He Needed to Move
Netanyahu seems to have acted from several overlapping strategic motivations. Publicly, he framed the strike as a response to what he perceived as hostile behavior by Hamas, including recent attacks in Israeli territory. He insisted Israel could not allow Qatar to harbor those who plan violence against it and demanded that Qatar either expel Hamas leaders or face consequences.
There also appears to be internal political pressure. For some in his administration, the diplomatic process seemed slow or ineffective regarding hostages and ceasefire proposals, and taking direct military action carried domestic appeal as a strong stance.
Netanyahu Meets Trump, Nominates Him for Nobel Peace Prize 
Biden says Trump and I are one team