Israeli incitement against Qatar has escalated markedly in recent days, in a development that goes beyond traditional political disputes and raises broader questions about the motives behind the escalation and its implications for Gulf security and the future of regional mediation.
The inciting rhetoric against Qatar is no longer limited to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers or to figures on the far right but also involves prominent opposition figures, including former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who has called for Qatar to be designated as an "enemy state".
The position on Qatar has become part of Israel's domestic political competition as elections are in late October.
The Israeli rhetoric is particularly significant because it comes a year after the Israeli attack on Doha on 9 September 2025. Doha is the capital of a Gulf state that was, at the same time, playing a mediating role between Israel and Hamas, in coordination with the United States and other international and regional parties.
Observers believe that part of the Israeli rhetoric against Qatar can be understood in the context of domestic Israeli politics, where foreign policy often becomes a tool in internal political conflict.
In this context, presenting Qatar as an "adversary" or "threat" can become a means of strengthening hardline political rhetoric and demonstrating the ability to adopt tougher positions towards countries that maintain relations or channels of communication with Hamas.
One of the most serious consequences of this rhetoric lies here: when attacking a sovereign state becomes part of domestic political competition, the boundaries of political rhetoric may gradually expand to include new political, economic or security pressures.
Recent attempts have emerged to portray Qatar as a party to the Israeli war on Gaza or to hold it responsible for crises falling out from the war.
Such claims ignore the nature of Doha's role as a mediator, as well as the nature of its official relations with various parties.
Qatar maintains in its political and diplomatic discourse that it operates openly and through official channels with the states it deals with and that its role as a mediator does not mean adopting the positions of the parties with which it communicates.
In this context, attempts to hold the mediator responsible for the outcomes of the war or the failures of the warring parties raise a political issue, particularly when it concerns matters such as occupation, settlement activity and Israeli security and military policies.
The escalation of Israeli incitement against Qatar, coinciding with the first anniversary of the Israeli attack, gives it a different significance.
Talk of targeting a Gulf state is no longer merely a hypothetical scenario or political rhetoric detached from reality but comes after a military incident targeting the Qatari capital.
Ultimately, the escalation in Israeli rhetoric against Qatar appears to intersect with three main tracks: Israel's domestic political struggle, the repercussions of the war in Gaza, and Gulf concerns about the conflict spilling into its security sphere.
At a time when the region needs more channels of communication and mediators capable of bringing together opposing parties, turning mediation itself into a reason for targeting could lead to precisely the opposite result.
Israel is hostile to peace
Jaber Al-Harmi, editor-in-chief of the Qatari newspaper Al Sharq, told The New Arab that Israel represents a party hostile to anyone seeking to achieve peace, stability and security in the region, and that its establishment has historically been associated with a state of turmoil, chaos and instability in the region.
Al-Harmi added that countries working to promote security, peace and coexistence in the region naturally do not align with Israel's approach and that the positive role played by Qatar, whether through mediation or diplomatic efforts, is not accepted by Israeli political circles.
He pointed out that mediation efforts by Doha to reach a ceasefire in Gaza represent one of the most prominent issues exposing the extent of the divergence between the Qatari position and Israeli positions.
Al-Harmi said that the campaigns of incitement and attempts to distort Qatar's image by the Israeli government and its official figures, as well as some opposition voices, are part of a broader campaign that is not limited to Israel but extends to the United States and various political and media spheres to undermine Qatar's role and attempt to influence its image and international standing.
Such attempts have taken place before, he said, and Qatar confronted them and managed to overcome them.
The current campaigns will not achieve their objectives because Doha does not operate in secret and has nothing to hide. Rather, it acts clearly and openly, in coordination with official authorities in the countries where it is involved in political or diplomatic matters.
Qatar carries out its mediation and diplomatic roles according to a clear vision and through official and public channels, he said.
The nature of its relations and communications with different parties falls within its efforts to address crises and advance dialogue and negotiation.
Domestic calculations
Abdullah Bandar Al-Otaibi, an assistant professor in the Department of International Affairs at Qatar University, said the escalating Israeli incitement against Qatar comes in the context of domestic Israeli calculations and an attempt to export internal crises and shift their consequences onto an external party, as this rhetoric expands to include different parts of Israel's political landscape rather than only the far-right government.
Al-Otaibi told TNA that, politically, the more important point is that Israel's own conduct has become one of the factors contributing to a negative image of Israel internationally, amid the continuation of its operations and violations of the sovereignty of countries in the region, including Syria and Lebanon.
This conduct also comes shortly after the Israeli attack targeting Qatar, which caused casualties, including a member of the Qatari security forces.
According to Al-Otaibi, this attack, along with Israeli operations in other countries, raises a fundamental question about the extent to which Israel is committed to international law and respects the principle of state sovereignty.
He added that the problem lies in reinforcing the perception that there is an exception in the application of international law, with Israel treated as though it were a state above the rules of sovereignty and accountability, allowing violations of the sovereignty of other states to be justified under headings such as national security or security necessities.
This situation threatens not only a particular state but also affects the entire regional and international security and stability system.
Therefore, the issue is not only about Qatar's position towards Israel or political disputes between the two sides, in his view, but about a broader principle concerning the need to apply international law equally, respect state sovereignty and prevent national security from becoming an open-ended justification for violating international rules.
Al-Otaibi noted that, by presenting Qatar as an "enemy", Israel is attempting to convince the Israeli voter that the source of the problems it faces comes from abroad rather than from its own policies and practices.
He said the aim is to create an external enemy that can be held responsible for political, diplomatic and humanitarian repercussions.
He stressed that international rejection of and dissatisfaction with Israel are not the result of campaigns carried out by other countries but a direct result of what he described as aggressive conduct, the war in Gaza and its accompanying humanitarian repercussions and violations, in addition to Israeli policies in the region.
Qatar's soft diplomacy
Sadiq Al-Emari, director-general of the Qatari Press Centre, told TNA that Qatar has become a thorn in the side of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the right-wing opposition in Israel.
Qatar's soft diplomacy has caused clear annoyance on the Israeli side, he said, adding that this is a source of pride.
He added that Qatar's position in confronting Netanyahu, whom he described as a war criminal, represents an honourable position.
Statements by Netanyahu and opposition figures about targeting Doha in retaliation for its political and diplomatic positions represent further evidence condemning the state terrorism practised by Israel, he said.
Regarding Israeli accusations concerning Qatari aid provided to Palestinians, Al-Emari said claims about how the aid was directed are incorrect.
He noted that Qatari aid was provided directly to Palestinian families, in limited amounts not exceeding $100 per family.
According to him, this amount contributes only to covering a small part of Palestinian families' needs and does not allow it to be converted into funding for the purchase of weapons or military equipment.
He stressed that Qatar is a "state seeking peace" and that it is making continuous diplomatic efforts to establish peace and calm conflicts in the region.
It cannot, under any circumstances, be described as a party seeking to destabilise the region or support violence, he said.
He concluded by stressing that Israeli recognition of the role Qatar has played through its diplomatic and political positions on the Palestinian issue, even when it comes in the context of accusations and criticism, reflects the extent of the influence Qatari diplomacy has come to exert in the region.
Escalating incitement
Omani researcher Abdullah Baabood told TNA the escalating Israeli incitement against Qatar should be taken seriously, particularly because it is no longer limited to figures within Netanyahu's far-right government but is also present in the rhetoric of prominent opposition figures.
This suggests, in his view, that the position towards Qatar is no longer merely a passing political dispute but has, to varying degrees, become part of political competition and internal political conflicts in Israel, particularly as elections approach.
Baabood said it is natural that when an attack on the capital of a sovereign Gulf state becomes something that can be politically celebrated, followed by calls for further political, economic and security pressure on it, this would raise concerns extending beyond Qatar to the rest of the Gulf states.
The paradox, he said, is that Qatar was not a party to the war but played the role of mediator, working in that capacity in coordination with the United States and other parties.
Its channels with Hamas were a key part of efforts to reach a ceasefire and secure the release of Israeli hostages.
Therefore, attacking Qatar for maintaining these channels contains an obvious contradiction: a mediator cannot be asked to perform its role and then be punished because of the tools and channels that make mediation possible, he said.
Baabood added that the issue should not be viewed from a Gulf perspective merely as a Qatari-Israeli dispute.
An attack on the sovereignty of any Gulf Cooperation Council member state, or a threat to repeat such an attack, affects the security of the entire Gulf and raises serious questions about the role of GCC states and the effectiveness of the regional deterrence and protection system.
A precedent that passes without a clear collective response may, over time, become something that can be repeated.
The Omani researcher added that the first anniversary of the attack on Doha should not merely be an occasion to remember what happened but an opportunity to reconsider what can prevent such an attack from being repeated against Qatar or another Gulf state.
What is required at the Gulf level, he said, is a clearer position considering any infringement on the sovereignty of a member state to be an infringement on the collective security of the GCC states and translating this principle into more effective political and security arrangements.
Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here.