Security, Sovereignty, and International Law: The Israel–Qatar Strike as a Turning Point in Gulf Politics

The Israel–Palestine conflict has always been more than a localized struggle; it is a multifaceted contest of history, identity, and power that radiates far beyond its geographic core. For the Gulf, this conflict has long carried a deeply personal resonance with the broader population of the Middle East, shaping both regional diplomacy and the very language of sovereignty. Over the past fifty years, the relationship between Israel and the Gulf countries has oscillated between confrontation and cautious cooperation, moving from oil embargoes and diplomatic boycotts to tentative openings and unprecedented normalization.

It is against this backdrop that Israeli pre-emptive strikes against Hamas, a terrorist organization recognized by Western powers, on Qatari soil must be understood. While Israel framed the attack as a counterterrorist measure, citing national security reasons, its decision to target Hamas negotiators in Doha raises an important question: can counterterrorism justify the violation of another state’s sovereignty? Far from an isolated incident, the strike represents one of the most consequential escalations in Gulf politics in decades—an event with the potential to redraw the boundaries of regional diplomacy and test the resilience of fragile alliances. By breaching Qatari sovereignty, Israel has introduced a new level of risk into the conflict, forcing Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and other Gulf capitals to reconsider not only their alignments but also the nature of their regional engagement.

When Israel first declared independence in 1948, Arab states collectively challenged the state’s legitimacy, citing the dispossession of Palestinians and their right to self-determination. The Arab League, which then consisted of Egypt, Iraq, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen, responded with trade boycotts that left Israel regionally isolated and without legitimate recognition. Confrontation between the Arab states and Israel intensified following the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel seized key Arab territories. It reached new peaks in 1973, when the Yom Kippur War prompted Saudi Arabia, joined by Gulf oil producers like Qatar, to impose an oil embargo on Israel’s Western backers—turning energy into a political weapon and tying Gulf leverage directly to the Palestinian cause. In the decades that followed, public ties remained closed, and until only a few years ago, direct travel between Tel Aviv and Dubai was unimaginable. The Abraham Accords of 2020, spearheaded by the Trump administration, marked a dramatic turn from this strained relationship, as the UAE and Bahrain agreed to normalize relations with Israel -opening flights, trade, and diplomatic exchanges. This shift was driven by shared concerns over Iran’s influence, U.S. security incentives, and the lure of economic and technological cooperation with Israel. The UAE Embassy described the accords as a “catalyst for wider change in the Middle East.” Up until the strike, Arab allies largely maintained these ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords, even after the October 7th attack—but the escalation in Doha now threatens to unravel this fragile balance.

In the last five years, The Guardian highlighted the tangible benefits of peace through the Abraham Accords, noting that trade between Israel and the UAE exceeded $3.2 billion in goods last year, and more than two million Israelis have traveled to the Emirates since normalizing relations. Qatar, though not a signatory, positioned itself as an indirect mediator in the Middle East. As NPR reported, Qatar was mediating real ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas to end the war in Gaza, while maintaining its status as a close ally of the United States. In addition to Gaza, Qatar’s record includes sponsoring the 2011 Doha Document for Peace in Darfur and hosting the 2008 Doha Agreement that resolved Lebanon’s political crisis. Qatar also hosts Al Udeid Air Base, one of the largest U.S. military installations in the region. Israel, however, contends that Qatar bears major responsibility, given that it has hosted and housed numerous Hamas’s political officials in Doha since 2012—an arrangement interpreted as providing sanctuary to a terrorist organization. Yet, Qatar defends the decision as part of its mediation process. Meshal bin Hamad Al Thani, Qatar’s ambassador to the U.S., stressed that Washington supported the Hamas office to allow indirect communication, noting, ‘the presence of the Hamas office shouldn’t be confused with endorsement but rather establishes an important channel for indirect communication,’ underscoring Doha’s claim that hosting Hamas is necessary to facilitate negotiations, broker ceasefires, and deliver aid to Gaza. Israel’s strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha thus signaled its willingness to push the limits of international law and undermined a key avenue for diplomacy. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari confirmed that talks facilitated by both U.S. and Egyptian representatives were in their final stages after months of negotiations. By targeting negotiators in the midst of diplomacy, Israel set a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes both the current ceasefire and future peace efforts.  According to Al Jazeera, Israel breached established principles of international law by staging its strike in a densely populated district of Doha, near foreign embassies and schools. The attack killed five lower-ranking Hamas officials along with a Qatari Internal Security Force officer. Currently, Qatar has decided to pursue legal action against Israel through the International Criminal Court (ICC), accusing it of war crimes and acts of aggression. The United Nations condemned the strike, explaining, “This attack violates the human right to life, the UN Charter prohibition on excessive use of force, and Qatar’s sovereignty.” Shortly after the attacks, Doha hosted an emergency Arab-Islamic summit in which a diplomatic advisor to the UAE President confirmed “Qatar does not stand alone… Israel’s treacherous aggression only strengthens our solidarity.” Emir of Qatar–Sheikh Tamim ibn Hamad Al Thani questioned, “If Israel wishes to assassinate the Hamas leaders, why then engage in negotiations?” Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani also chimed in, “If you wish to insist on the liberation of hostages, why then do they assassinate all negotiators?” These remarks underscore the contradictions in Israel’s approach, highlighting how its actions risk undermining the very negotiations it claims to pursue. That contradiction leaves Israel’s strategy not just in question but increasingly difficult to reconcile with the principles of diplomacy and peacebuilding.

For the second time in three months, a Gulf state has felt the material consequences of a war that has expanded far beyond its original front. The strike illustrates not only the costs of mismanagement but also the stakes of a broader contest over security, sovereignty, and Middle Eastern order. President Trump recently told ABC reporters he was ‘very unhappy’ about the strikes, and the special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, reassured Gulf leaders that such a strike would not happen again on their soil. But such statements contrast sharply with Israel’s actions, leaving Gulf leaders to question whether verbal assurances from Washington are sufficient to guarantee their security. At a press conference in Jerusalem, Netanyahu justified the attacks on Qatar by asserting that “every country has the right to defend itself beyond its borders,” and insisting that Hamas would not have immunity “wherever they are.” The strikes have unsettled Gulf capitals, raising doubts about the reliability of U.S. security guarantees and exposing the vulnerability in a regional order long anchored on American protection. For Washington, this represents a deepening dilemma: the United States is bound to Israel as a historic ally, committed to condemning Hamas as a terrorist organization, yet also reliant on Gulf partners, such as Qatar, which hosts vital U.S. bases and maintains deep commercial ties. Balancing these competing interests is proving to be difficult, particularly as Israel commits to targeting Hamas affiliates abroad, even if it means striking U.S. allies.

For the Gulf, reliance on U.S. protection may no longer suffice. According to CNN, “recent perceived American failures to defend their territories could prompt the Arab nations to diversify their defense capabilities or demand stronger U.S. security guarantees.” HA Hellyer, senior fellow in Middle East studies at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies, asks, “What sort of security architecture should they need to now invest in, instead of relying on a partner that hasn’t been able to protect them even from one of its own allies?” Washington’s position appears unclear as it reassures Gulf allies of their security while its closest partner, Israel, violates their sovereignty. If that contradiction deepens, the Gulf may be compelled to look elsewhere for guarantees of stability. BRICS+ offers such an alternative by promoting multipolar security partnerships, economic integration, and reduced dependence on the U.S. Recent discussions have centered on expanding trade in local currencies, developing joint energy and infrastructure projects, and strengthening technology and investment funds that reduce dependence on Western markets. The choices Gulf states make in the aftermath of Doha will reverberate far beyond the region

The Israel–Qatar strike marked a decisive shift, spilling the conflict into the heart of the Gulf and exposing the limits of international order in restraining state behavior carried out in the name of counterterrorism. Condemned by the United Nations and met with firm Gulf solidarity, it underscored the fragility of existing alliances and left the United States caught between historic ties to Israel and its commitments to Arab partners. With BRICS+ now expanding to include Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, the Gulf faces a turning point: continue relying on U.S. protection or begin shaping a new world order through alternative alignments.