Israel’s strike on Qatar was a serious blow against diplomacy in the Middle East

The recent Israeli strike on Hamas leaders in Doha, where they had gathered to discuss a US-brokered peace proposal, has triggered substantial repercussions throughout the Middle East and beyond. Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, characterised it as a “justified” operation against a militant organisation.

But, by conducting the strike against a nation widely acknowledged as a neutral facilitator in peace negotiations, Israel has not only intensified its confrontations with Hamas but also destabilised the delicate framework of diplomacy and conflict resolution in the region.

The BBC headlined its report by veteran Middle East correspondent: “diplomacy in ruins”. The strike event raises urgent questions about the future of mediation, the erosion of international norms on sovereignty, and the trust required for both governments and armed groups to engage in negotiations.

Its implications go beyond the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It will affect the very principles of how peace efforts are carried out in today’s divided world. It is also likely to affect the future of the Abraham Accords, the agreements by which Israel has been normalising relations with Arab states.

To fully understand why Israel’s strike against a target in Qatar was such a significant disruption, it helps to consider Qatar’s historical role in international diplomacy. For 20 years, Qatar has served as a neutral platform for diplomatic negotiations in the Middle East.

The city has hosted talks between the Taliban and the United States, contributed to mediating Sudan’s civil conflict, and consistently facilitated indirect discussions between Israel and Hamas amid crises regarding Gaza ceasefires.

Qatar’s compact size and substantial wealth position it as an unparalleled global hub for dialogue and diplomacy. Its reputation as a secure and neutral meeting place attracts rivals and world leaders alike, especially when other venues are unavailable or unsuitable for any of the parties involved.

This strategic role not only bolsters Qatar’s international influence but also offers the global community a vital platform for meaningful engagement and conflict resolution.

The strike in Doha undermines this carefully cultivated image. If even Qatar cannot assure safety to those involved in negotiations, other groups and governments might start doubting the worth of such mediation entirely.

Equally significant is the impact on sovereignty. International law makes it clear that using force inside another country’s borders without permission is a breach of that country’s sovereignty. This principle is a cornerstone of international relations, designed to protect weaker states from the actions of stronger ones.

For smaller states such as Qatar, who offer their territory for negotiations, this raises a troubling dilemma. Can they still provide a safe and neutral venue for peace talks if their sovereignty is not respected?

If mediating states are no longer seen as safe hosts, fewer will be willing to take on the role. That leaves the world with fewer neutral venues at a time when conflicts are multiplying and diplomacy is more necessary than ever.

The damage is not only legal but psychological. Peace talks rely on trust – both in the process and in the safety of the participants. For non-state actors such as Hamas, or others considering talks, the Doha strike signals that negotiations may expose them to deadly risk.

This perception could make groups less willing to engage in dialogue, even when talks are the only realistic path to de-escalation. The Taliban, for example, only agreed to negotiate with the US because they believed Doha was a safe zone. Without that confidence, the 2020 peace deal might never have been reached.

Geopolitical ripple effects

The strike also complicates broader regional politics. The US, for example, has long depended on Qatar as the host of its largest military bases in the Middle East – a vital centre for its operations in the region. Washington now has to balance its strong alliance with Israel against its strategic reliance on Qatar.

Iran, meanwhile, is likely to interpret the strike as evidence of Israeli aggression, using it to bolster relations with groups opposed to Israel. Other Gulf states, some of which have been cautiously normalising relations with Israel, may pause to reconsider whether such actions promote stability or introduce new risks. Such actions also act as spoilers in the peace process, increasing the relative motivation of such groups not to accede to the demands.

Rather than creating space for dialogue, this strike has pushed both sides further from the negotiating table — leaving the peace process in tatters. To compound matters, Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to rule out further strikes abroad targeting Hamas leaders.

More broadly, the incident illustrates how modern conflicts are increasingly spilling into areas once reserved for diplomatic efforts, and these actions also extend beyond the bounds of “coercive diplomacy”.

This is a carrot-and-stick approach to diplomacy which relies on positive inducements as well as threats of force to modify or influence the adversary’s behaviour. Israel’s strikes were not coercive diplomacy, but an act of war – an attempt to decapitate Hamas leadership. The attack shows how the boundary between war and negotiation has become increasingly blurred – with military actions now directly disrupting peace efforts.

The challenge facing the international community must not be understated. In the absence of secure and impartial venues, such as Doha, organising peace negotiations becomes significantly more complex. Multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, in conjunction with major powers, have a duty to strengthen safeguards for mediating nations and to denounce infringements on sovereignty that jeopardise them.

Qatar’s credibility as a mediator may have been damaged, but the principle it embodies remains vital. If neutral venues fail, the foundations of diplomacy also crumble. This would result in more conflicts having no peaceful solutions and lead the world closer to endless confrontation.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: M. Waqas Haider, Lancaster University

M. Waqas Haider does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.