For decades, Israel has attempted to hold its conduct to Western standards. Diplomatically, it has looked to the West as a model for democracy, and its military has operated within the constraints of Western diplomatic norms. These include measured responses, careful escalation ladders, and endless rounds of negotiations that often reward the very actors who orchestrate violence against Israeli civilians. Tuesday’s strike in Doha may mark a fundamental shift: Israel is speaking the language the Middle East actually understands.
The assassination attempt against Hamas leaders in the Qatari capital, including acting leader Khalil al-Hayya, former head Khaled Mashaal, and finance chief Zaher Jabarin, was a declaration that the rules of engagement have changed.
For 30 years, the Hamas leaders have enjoyed what The Jerusalem Post’s Seth Frantzman aptly described as “Hamas privilege” in Doha, “living in luxury abroad” while orchestrating terror from their Qatari safe haven.
Israel took matters into its own hands
On Tuesday, Israel, sick of Hamas’s games in dragging its feet in negotiations to end the war in Gaza, took matters into its own hands.
Speaking to the Post, Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, explained how, with the growing rise of European nations intending to recognize a Palestinian state, Western powers have consistently tried to impose their own cultural framework onto Middle Eastern dynamics.
This approach treats negotiations as good-faith exercises between rational actors, where compromise is a virtue and escalation is failure. However, this misreads how power operates in the Middle East, a geopolitical powder keg like none other on the planet.
Hamas’s leadership has spent decades exploiting this Western mindset. They position themselves as reluctant participants in peace processes while simultaneously celebrating massacres such as October 7. The result is a perverse system where Israel finds itself “negotiating by Hamas’s rules,” where delays in hostage negotiations are rewarded with international pressure on Israel, rather than consequences for Hamas.
There is also the fact that continuing the Israel-Hamas War and, therefore, the Palestinian people’s misery is a means to an end for Hamas, which twists the international media narrative to its liking – hospital bombings, indiscriminate shootings at aid sites, and famine. The terror group has been able to pump out the story lines for the Western world, which can look down on the Middle East with a Western mindset and cry, “Injustice!”
The traditional Western approach created what Diker called a false assumption, “that Israel wouldn’t dare attack Hamas leadership on Qatari soil because it assumed that the Americans would prevent it.” This assumption became Hamas’s shield, allowing it to operate with impunity while its foot soldiers died in Gaza tunnels.
The Middle East, as Diker noted, “only understands victory and defeat.”
This isn’t cultural stereotyping but rather a recognition that this region is different. In a region where state collapse is more common than most and tribal dynamics remain strong, strength signals legitimacy, while weakness invites aggression.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that “the days when terror leaders enjoy immunity anywhere are over” could represent more than tough talk. It could indicate a change in how Israel projects power. Rather than seeking Western approval for each escalation, Israel is demonstrating that it will act unilaterally to protect its interests.
This shift is particularly significant given the timing.
Mossad chief David Barnea reportedly told ministers during a recent cabinet meeting: “You can’t eliminate senior Hamas officials abroad while negotiations are still ongoing with them.” The Doha strike suggests Netanyahu has rejected this Western-influenced logic entirely.
Israel has previously acted in a similar manner, most notably in 2024’s assassination of Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh in the heart of Tehran and of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah at his headquarters, as well as the coordinated pager and walkie-talkie attacks on Hezbollah operatives.
Tuesday’s strike was different. It was a response, Netanyahu claimed, to Monday’s terror attack in Jerusalem, which left six people dead, and to the death of four IDF soldiers in Gaza. This was Israel taking firm action in response to Hamas’s acts and speaking the language of strength.
Diker also pointed out the alignment between Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump in “defeating radical extremist Islamism.” This partnership liberates Israel from the diplomatic constraints that characterized previous US administrations, such as that of former president Joe Biden.
This matters because Middle Eastern actors closely watch the US-Israel dynamic. When they see daylight between Washington and Jerusalem, it emboldens rejectionist strategies. When they see coordination, it forces recalculation of what’s possible.
The choice to strike in Qatar specifically sends multiple messages.
First, it ends the fiction that Hamas’s “political wing” operates separately from its military operations. Hamas leaders “cheered the October 7 massacre” from their comfortable exile, directly complicit in every rocket fired and every hostage taken.
Second, it challenges Qatar’s double game of positioning itself as a mediator while providing sanctuary to terror leadership. The Gulf state has leveraged its hosting of Hamas leaders to gain influence in peace processes, but Israel’s strike suggests this arrangement no longer serves Israeli interests.
Third, it demonstrates that geographical distance no longer provides immunity. If Israel can strike in Doha, no Hamas leader anywhere can assume safety based on their location’s diplomatic sensitivity.
The real test of whether Israel has truly adopted “Middle Eastern language” will be in the follow-through.
Regional actors will be watching to see whether this was a one-off Israeli operation or something more. Whether Israel maintains this approach despite inevitable international pressure and whether it extends beyond Hamas to other Iranian proxies remains to be seen.
The Doha strike “could open the door to the end of the war in Gaza,” Diker suggested. This isn’t because the operation eliminated Hamas’s military capacity but because it demonstrates Israel’s willingness to forgo diplomatic rules and be willing to pay any possible diplomatic price for victory.
When Middle Eastern actors believe their opponent is truly committed to total victory rather than managed conflict – Israel has attempted to balance out Western commentary and intervention in the war – they begin calculating exit strategies rather than endurance contests.
Monday marks the fifth anniversary of the Abraham Accords.
While the Middle East is considerably different five years on, the accords have largely succeeded precisely because they abandoned the Western-imposed framework of Israeli-Palestinian centrality and instead reflected regional states’ actual interests and threat perceptions. Arab states increasingly see Iran and its proxies as their primary threat, making tactical cooperation with Israel logical. And Arab states don’t behave like Western democracies. They do not have the same mindset.
Can Israel continue with this approach amid Western diplomatic pressure and international media criticism, and can it finally force Hamas to admit defeat? The Doha strike showed the Jewish state’s willingness to prioritize an immediate short-term victory over international approval and never-ending roundtable discussions.