Mediation Under Fire: Should Qatar resume between Israel and Hamas?

During his recent visit to Doha, Senator Marco Rubio urged Qatar to continue mediating between Israel and Hamas, despite Israel’s unprecedented strike on the Qatari capital which killed six people, including a Qatari officer. The request raises a difficult question: should Qatar accept?The answer is not straightforward. Qatar’s role as mediator has often been indispensable, particularly in efforts to halt the Gaza war and negotiate hostage releases. Yet the attack on Doha represents a fundamental breach of diplomatic norms, one that calls into question whether mediation can continue under existing arrangements. Any resumption must therefore rest on clear conditions: Israel, with international guarantors, must provide assurances that restore trust, protect Qatari sovereignty, and ensure mediation is not instrumentalised as cover for violence.If Qatar emerged from the crisis with its reputation enhanced, Washington’s standing was weakened. The United States has long presented Al-Udeid Air Base as proof of its central role in Gulf security. Yet Israel’s strike, carried out without visible American restraint, exposed the limitations of U.S. guarantees. For Gulf states, the lesson is unsettling: if Qatar, with its close partnership and strategic importance, can be struck with impunity, what value do American assurances hold?Rubio’s visit underscored this contradiction. In Israel, he endorsed the campaign to eliminate Hamas leadership. In Doha, he called on Qatar to continue mediation. Washington depends on Qatar’s access but appears unwilling to restrain Israeli actions that jeopardise it.Israel’s Miscalculation in DohaIsrael appears to have assumed it could strike Doha as it has Damascus, Sana’a, or Beirut — with little consequence. That assumption was gravely mistaken. Qatar is not Syria: it is neither a fractured battlefield nor a failed state. It is one of the world’s richest, most stable countries, a cornerstone of the global energy market, and host to the United States Central Command at Al-Udeid Air Base. It is also one of the few remaining venues where adversaries can sit across a negotiating table.By targeting Hamas negotiators in Doha, Israel not only violated international law but also ruptured the conventions that sustain diplomacy. Although the attack failed to eliminate Hamas leadership, it succeeded in undermining the fragile trust on which mediation depends. For Qatar, it was both a violation of sovereignty and an assault on decades of careful investment in building its reputation as the region’s indispensable mediator.Doha had even extended hospitality to Israeli delegations under the most difficult of circumstances, offering neutral ground for indirect talks at significant reputational risk. That decision reflected not only political calculation but also cultural values rooted in the sanctity of hospitality. To answer such openness with force was a profound breach of diplomatic norms — and a serious strategic miscalculation.The strike was also self-defeating. Israel has long sought to portray itself as a pragmatic actor, capable of calibrating force to achieve political ends. By treating Qatar like Syria or Yemen, it underestimated both the symbolic weight of striking a Gulf state and the centrality of Doha to mediation.The regional response was immediate. Arab and Islamic leaders convened an emergency summit to issue a rare joint condemnation. Even states traditionally cautious in their alignment emphasised that mediators cannot themselves become targets. The United Nations warned of dangerous precedents, while European leaders expressed concern. In one move, Israel handed its critics proof of recklessness and alienated states that might otherwise have remained neutral.Qatar’s Risky Bet on MediationFor over three decades, Qatar has sought to build credibility as a neutral broker. At Washington’s urging, it opened political offices for Hamas. It hosted the Taliban’s political bureau during the U.S.–Taliban talks. It has mediated in conflicts from Lebanon to Afghanistan, Ukraine, Central Africa, and most recently Colombia.Such efforts came at considerable cost. Hosting actors regarded as illegitimate exposed Qatar to criticism and smear campaigns. Yet Doha persisted, convinced that mediation requires inclusivity and that difficult conflicts demand an interlocutor willing to take risks.In Gaza ceasefire talks, Qatar — together with Egypt and backed by the United States — has repeatedly brokered pauses in fighting, arranged prisoner exchanges, and secured humanitarian access. For the families of Israeli captives, Qatar’s willingness to engage has often been the only thread of hope. Against this backdrop, Israel’s strike in Doha appears particularly counterproductive, undermining the very channel that kept negotiations possible.Mediation rests on three essential foundations: the neutrality of the mediator, the safety of the venue, and the confidence that talks will not become a trap. Israel’s decision to strike Doha undermined all three. How can Hamas negotiate in good faith if the negotiating room itself may be targeted? How can Qatar risk its reputation and citizens if neutrality is met with airstrikes? Once trust collapses, mediation is replaced by suspicion and violence, leaving civilians — above all those trapped in Gaza — to pay the heaviest price.Rethinking Mediation in Light of the Hamas DilemmaFor years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has demanded that Qatar expel Hamas, portraying its political office as complicity in terrorism. Yet Israeli families seeking the release of their relatives know that negotiations are possible only because Hamas remains in Doha. Rubio’s call for continued mediation reflects this tension: Qatar is asked simultaneously to expel Hamas and to maintain the only channel through which dialogue can occur.Expelling Hamas would suggest that Israel’s raid succeeded in intimidating Qatar, while eliminating the only credible avenue for indirect negotiation. But retaining Hamas without enforceable guarantees risks further escalation and danger to Qatar itself, even though Hamas itself is not on the UN sanctions list. Given the explicit support by the US of the Israeli policy of "eleminating’ Hamas, Qatar cannot both protect its sovereignty and sustain its mediating role unless conditions for safe, legitimate dialogue are restored.The Doha strike demonstrates that the previous model of tacit assurances and unwritten courtesies is no longer viable. Mediation now requires explicit guarantees, protections, and international backing.The U.S.–Taliban talks in Doha illustrated what is possible when both parties respected the sanctity of the process. But such respect cannot be assumed with Israel, which has repeatedly disregarded norms designed to protect civilians, humanitarian workers, journalists — and now mediators. For Qatar, the lesson is clear: mediation is no longer simply about opening doors; it is about defending the integrity of the space in which dialogue occurs.Preconditions for Resuming MediationQatar should only consider resuming mediation if Israel accepts binding preconditions, guaranteed by international actors. These include:1. A public apology for the strike and a categorical pledge of non-aggression.2. Reparations to the State of Qatar, victims’ families, and the owners of the destroyed housing complex and surrounding properties.3. A binding commitment not to repeat such acts in Doha or elsewhere in the GCC.4. A formal written request for mediation, incorporating:

• • Safe passage guarantees for all delegates.
  • Recognition of venue sanctity, free from surveillance or intimidation.
  • Commitments not to pair talks with assassination attempts.
  • Guarantor signatures from the United States and the United Nations.

The lesson is clear: mediation today is no longer based on goodwill alone. It is about enforceability, guarantees, and the defence of diplomacy itself. Without Israel meeting the above conditions, credible mediation cannot exist, and responsibility for failure will rest with Israel and its backers.