Qatar’s Reaction to Netanyahu’s New Threat After Attack in Doha -

Qatar’s Reaction to Netanyahu’s New Threat After Attack in Doha

Background: The Strike in Doha and Netanyahu’s Threat

Qatar’s Reaction to Netanyahu’s New Threat After Attack in Doha On 9 September 2025, an Israeli airstrike targeted a meeting of Hamas leaders in Doha, Qatar, a meeting that was reportedly part of efforts to negotiate a ceasefire. The attack killed at least six people, including five members of Hamas and a Qatari security officer.

Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, defended the strike as part of its campaign against Hamas, assertzng that Hamas political leaders had taken refuge in Qatar. When questioned about future actions, Netanyahu made a stark threat to Qatar: either shut down Hamas’s offices or expel its members, or else Israel may take action itself. He accused Qatar of being a safe haven and financier of Hamas

Qatar’s Prime Minister’s Response

Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim al-Thani strongly condemned both the attack and Netanyahu’s threats. His responses have come in multiple statements and interviews with major media outlets, including CNN. Key elements of his reaction include accusations against Israel, legal warnings, calls for regional solidarity, and reaffirmation of Qatar’s mediation role.

Below are the main points:

Condemnation of the Attack
Sheikh Mohammed described the Israeli strike as “state terror” and a blatant violation of international law. He stated that the attack targeted a meeting that was publicly known, under mediation efforts, thereby undermining Qatar’s sovereignty and the process of peace.
“Killed Any Hope” for Hostages
He declared that Netanyahu’s actions “killed any hope” for the release of hostages in Gaza. The implication: by attacking during ceasefire talks and negotiations, Israel destroyed trust and possible leverage for securing a deal.
Violation of Sovereignty and International Law
Qatar’s PM accused Israel of violating Qatar’s state sovereignty. He emphasized that many in the international community view the attack as breaking international norms. He said the U.S. was notified only after the attack began, and described the idea of targeting mediators on Qatari soil as “treacherous.
Legal Response and International Accountability
Doha has begun gathering legal teams and exploring “all legal avenues” to hold Netanyahu accountable. This includes international law, rights of states, sovereignty, human rights etc.
Right to Retaliate / Regional Response
Sheikh Mohammed asserted that Qatar reserves the right to respond to the attack. He also called for a collective regional response—not just from Qatar alone, but from Arab, Gulf, and Islamic states. The goal: to deter further attacks and to defend sovereignty.
Reaffirmation of Mediation Role
Despite the attack and threats, Qatar’s PM stressed that mediation is part of Qatar’s identity and that Doha will not be deterred from playing that role. He emphasized that Qatar has hosted many negotiation rounds, often at the request of actors including the U.S. and Israel, and that this role is transparent.

The Stakes: What’s at Risk

Qatar’s responses point to several broader concerns and stakes:

Peace Process Credibility: The attack risked derailing ceasefire negotiations. Since Qatar has been a key mediator, such assaults cast doubt on whether future negotiations are possible or safe. Parties may lose trust that Doha can protect talks and participants.
Hostage Situation: A pressing concern is for the many hostages held in Gaza. Qatar’s PM explicitly linked the strike to the endangerment of any chance they had to secure release or negotiate effectively.
Territorial Sovereignty & International Norms: Strikes on another sovereign state (Qatar) represent a serious escalation. Qatar sees this as a violation of international law and as problematic not just for itself but for regional stability.
Regional Stability and Escalation: Qatar’s PM warned that the “entire Gulf region is at risk.” There are fears that this might trigger further escalation, retaliatory actions, or destabilization.
Diplomatic Fallout: Tensions with Israel risk wider diplomatic conflicts. Allies of Qatar are reacting. Some countries are issuing condemnations, considering legal measures or political pressure.

Netanyahu’s Position and the Threat

Netanyahu’s position has been firm:

Israel claims its operation targeted legitimate Hamas operatives, including political leaders, operating from Doha. From Israel’s perspective, these are valid targets in its counterterrorism framework.
The threat to Qatar is explicit: either expel or prosecute those affiliated with Hamas operating from your soil, or Israel may take matters into its own hands. This reflects a pattern: Israel is asserting that harboring Hamas (political or otherwise) carries consequences.
Netanyahu reportedly views Israel’s response as justified retaliation or pre-emptive action in response to attacks or threats emanating from Gaza or linked with Hamas.

International Reaction and Alignment

Qatar is not alone: Several regional and global actors have expressed concern or support for Doha.

Countries in the Gulf, including the UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, among others, are voicing solidarity with Qatar. They are condemning the attack and warning Israel about consequences.
International legal observers, human rights groups, and maybe non-aligned states are likely to point to violations of sovereignty, human rights, and international humanitarian law.
The United States is in a tricky position. While it often supports Israel’s right to defend itself and act against Hamas, here the issue is that the strike took place on Qatari territory, which is an ally, and during ongoing mediation efforts that U.S. is involved in. There are reports the U.S. was only notified after the attack had begun.

What Qatar Is Likely to Do Next (Based on Statements)

Based on Sheikh Mohammed’s statements, the following steps are likely or possible:

Legal Action
Qatar is forming a legal response: collecting evidence, working with international lawyers, possibly raising grievances at international forums (UN, International Court of Justice, etc.).
Diplomatic Pressure
Engaging with regional partners to issue joint condemnations, possibly imposing political or economic pressure on Israel. This could include mobilizing support in Arab and Muslim-majority states.
Retaliatory Measures
Although Qatar has not spelled out military retaliation clearly, they have reserved the right to respond in kind or through other measures. More likely could be diplomatic or legal retaliation first.
Reassessment of Mediation Role
While Qatar insists mediation is central to its identity and that it will continue, there’s likely to be an internal reassessment of how to protect mediation efforts. Perhaps restructuring how talks are hosted, safety guarantees sought, transparency increased.
Public and Regional Mobilization
Qatar may call for regional meetings, summits, or conferences to galvanize unified responses. The Prime Minister already called for collective response from the Gulf.

Challenges and Tensions Moving Forward

As dramatic as the rhetoric is, there are challenges and risks for Qatar:

Risk of Escalation: Any form of retaliation—legal or otherwise—could provoke further Israeli action or countermeasures, risking a broader regional conflict.
Maintaining Neutrality While Mediating: Qatar’s role as mediator requires some degree of acceptance or at least non-hostility from all sides. Strong diplomatic retaliation may complicate its relationships with Israel or actors aligned with Israel.
Balancing Relations with the U.S.: The fact that the U.S. was only informed after the strike (or very shortly before or during) could strain Qatar-U.S. relations. Qatar must navigate carefully so as not to alienate a strategic partner.
Trust from All Sides: After such an attack during peace negotiations, trust is eroded. Hamas, Israel, international actors—each may doubt whether Doha can guarantee security or impartiality going forward.
Legal and Moral Arguments vs. Realpolitik: Qatar’s appeal to international law, sovereignty, norms is strong, but enforcement is difficult. Israel and its allies may resist such narratives, especially in contexts of counterterrorism.

The Broader Middle Eastern & Geostrategic Implications

The incident has implications beyond just Israel-Qatar relations or even just the Israel-Hamas conflict:

Gulf States under Risk: As Qatar’s PM said, the strike signals that no country in the Gulf may be safe if Israel believes groups like Hamas are operating there. This could push Gulf states to reconsider how they host, monitor, or limit such political entities.
Mediation Fatigue / Risk: International mediators (US, Egypt, Qatar) might find the situation worsening—if peace talks are disrupted, political will may fade, and the war may prolong or even escalate.
International Legal Precedents: If Qatar (or others) succeed in bringing legal action, or if international bodies censure Israel’s attack, this could influence future conduct in similar conflicts. It may raise questions about the legality of strikes in third countries even when targeting non-state actors.
Public Opinion & Soft Power: Qatar’s global image as a mediator, as a country abiding (or at least appealing to) international law, may be bolstered among Arab and Muslim populations. Conversely, Israeli justification of such attacks may face international criticism.
Diplomatic Alliances: This could shift alliances or change diplomatic behavior. Some states may be forced to more explicitly choose sides or more vocally support one position, which could increase polarization in the region.

Assessment: Effectiveness and Possible Outcomes

How effective could Qatar’s response be, and what outcomes might ensue?

Short-term Impact: We can expect heightened diplomatic tension, public condemnation of Israel, possibly resolutions in international institutions (UN General Assembly or Security Council), and legal proceedings. Qatar will likely consolidate regional support.
Medium-term: If negotiations resume, Qatar may demand guarantees of protection and transparency. Israel may respond by tightening its position, perhaps demanding Hamas’s removal or limiting its political presence. The U.S. and others may attempt to mediate the fallout between Doha and Jerusalem.
Long-term: If international legal action takes hold, the case could influence norms about cross-border counterterrorism strikes. Also, regional stability will hinge on whether this becomes an isolated incident or part of a pattern. If more states become targets, escalation may spiral.

It’s also possible that diplomatic pressures will force Israel to moderate its threats or behavior, especially if its partners, including the U.S., distance themselves or call for restraint.

What Must Be Watched Closely

Legal Filings & International Court Proceedings: Will Qatar bring the case to the International Court of Justice or involve the International Criminal Court?
U.S. Role: How the United States responds — whether it will press Israel to limit operations like this, whether it will support or oppose Qatar’s legal or diplomatic initiatives.
Israel’s Next Moves: Will Israel press forward with further operations on Qatari soil? Will it try to pressure Qatar in other ways (economic, political)? Will Israel take up Qatar’s challenge to expel or prosecute Hamas officials?
Effect on Negotiation Dynamics: Will Hamas or Israel decide to withdraw from or significantly alter the ceasefire negotiation framework? Will trust be so damaged that mediation is delayed or discontinued?
Public Opinion and Media Reaction: How do populations in Gaza, Israel, Qatar, the wider Arab world, and globally respond? Public pressure can make a difference, especially on democratic or semi-open governments.

Conclusion

The strike in Doha and Netanyahu’s subsequent threat has pushed Qatar into a confrontational posture, one that combines legal, diplomatic, moral, and regional dimensions. Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani has denounced the attack as state terrorism, asserted that it has destroyed hope for hostages, affirmed Qatar’s ongoing mediation role, and called for regional collective response.

At the same time, there is a high risk of escalation. Qatar’s ability to respond effectively will depend on regional support, international legal and diplomatic channels, and whether the U.S. and other major powers choose to rein in Israel’s more aggressive posture.

This is a defining moment for Qatar’s foreign policy: whether it can maintain its mediator credentials, protect its sovereignty, and help shape a constructive path forward, or whether the event will deepen divisions and prolong conflict.