In the ongoing battle against international terrorism, safe havens for militants play a crucial role in enabling violent acts. Israel recently conducted a precision strike in Doha, targeting key Hamas leaders involved in the October 7 massacre and hostage-taking. This operation has been described as a lawful act of self-defense. However, Canada's Foreign Minister Anita Anand responded by stating that Ottawa is "evaluating" its relationship with Israel and criticized the operation as a violation of Qatari sovereignty.

Critics argue that this stance reflects a misunderstanding of international law and undermines the global fight against terrorism. They contend that Canada, which values the rule of law, should be condemning Qatar's support for Hamas rather than Israel's actions. The Hamas officials targeted in the strike were not mere diplomats; they were high-ranking members of the organization’s political bureau, which orchestrates both governance and acts of terror.

The political bureau of Hamas is often mischaracterized as a simple political wing. In reality, it is responsible for strategies that lead to attacks on civilians, including rocket strikes and suicide bombings. According to the U.S. Law of War Manual, individuals who are part of a non-state armed group like Hamas and share its hostile intent can be considered legitimate military targets. Even under stricter guidelines from the International Committee of the Red Cross regarding direct participation in hostilities, these leaders qualify as targets due to their roles in planning and executing hostile acts.

For instance, Khalil al-Hayya, one of the individuals targeted, coordinated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps in preparation for the October 7 attack. Zaher Jabarin, another target, was responsible for overseeing suicide operations from the West Bank. Reports indicate that these leaders were also meeting to discuss hostage negotiations, a term that obscures the reality of their involvement in the kidnapping of innocent individuals.

The Israeli operation is characterized not as an act of vengeance but as a necessary disruption of an ongoing threat. International law does not grant terrorists immunity simply for crossing borders into supportive nations. This principle was famously articulated by U.S. President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, when he stated that the U.S. would not differentiate between terrorists and those who harbor them. This principle was also the basis for the United Nations Security Council's resolution that authorized action against Afghanistan, despite the Taliban's claims of non-involvement with al-Qaida.

The same rationale justified the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, a country that was considered an ally. Canada and its NATO partners invoked Article 5 of the NATO charter to support these actions, emphasizing that an attack on one member is an attack on all. More recently, the rise of ISIS led to a coalition response, with military strikes in Syria and Iraq based on the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Canada used this doctrine to justify its involvement in the war, affirming the right to self-defense when a host government fails to address threats from its territory.

This precedent applies to Qatar, which is seen not as a neutral party but as a willing supporter of Hamas. Qatar has provided political cover, financial support, and a safe haven for Hamas leaders, including Khaled Meshaal and Mousa Abu-Marzouk, for many years. Critics argue that there must be consequences for Qatar's role in facilitating terrorism.