In recent years Israel has conducted military operations and/or violations on several countries including in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Qatar. In every instance, Israel justified its violations on national security or self-defence. The violations on the Occupied Palestinian Territories were the only case where an international court found Israel liable for violating international law. Yet, to only one country did Israel apologize for its actions – Qatar.

On 9 September 2025, Israel conducted a military operation against Hamas leaders in Qatar – which was hosting negotiations between Hamas and Israel following the October 7 2023 attacks. Six Hamas officials were killed as well as a Qatari security guard. Israel’s president said that the attacks were significant and necessary in order to target Hamas’s leadership. Further, the Israeli Prime Minister announced that “today’s action against the top terrorist chieftains of Hamas was a wholly independent Israeli operation. Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility.”

Israel notified the US prior to the attack and the US President Trump communicated this to the US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to inform Qatar, but the notification of the attack came late and it was not possible to stop it. Qatar said that the attack by Israel was in contravention to international law and affected the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Qatar. The government has also called the attack as reckless and cowardly.

Under the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law, the principle of jus in bello governs the law related to conducting military operations during the use of force. Under this principle, conducting any military operation needs to abide by the three principles during the use of force. These principles are distinction, necessity, and proportionality. Under the principle of distinction, any attack must be limited to military objectives only, which by their very nature make an effective contribution to military action. Israel needs to substantiate that attacking Hamas provides a military advantage. The attack ultimately targeted lower-level Hamas officials than Israel planned, which was to attack the Hamas leadership. Nevertheless, even in the event that Israel does meet the distinction threshold, it needs to abide by the principle of necessity, which indicates that any military attack needs to use a specific degree and force that is required to achieve a legitimate military purpose, strictly in order to secure the defeat of the enemy, even if it is directed against a military objective.

Israel needed to also abide by the principle of proportionality, where it should refrain from any armed attack if there is an expected loss of civilian life, damage to civilian objects, or potential injury in relation to any potentially gained military advantage. Israel has failed to satisfy these criteria. Notably, the attack was directed towards the civilian heart of Doha. Military leaders need to weigh any military gain against the harm that will potentially result towards civilians. If any of the three principles were not met, then the attack would be considered in contravention to international law. Even if Israel argues(d) that its military operation satisfied the above three principles and was in accordance to international law, it still apologized to Qatar, which is a form of satisfaction or reparation for an injury caused by a state’s internationally wrongful act, under Article 34 of ARSIWA.

After the Israeli attack, President Trump announced that “I view Qatar as a strong Ally and friend of the US and feel very badly about the location of the attack,” and that “such a thing will not happen again on their soil”. Trump also indicated that

Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals. However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.

Unilaterally bombing inside Qatar, a Sovereign Nation and close Ally of the United States, that is working very hard and bravely taking risks with us to broker Peace, does not advance Israel or America’s goals. However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal.

Less than three weeks later, Netanyahu had an official visit to the White House. During the trip, Trump organized a phone call between Netanyahu and the Qatari Prime Minister, where the former apologized to the latter for conducting the attacks. Netanyahu has also reiterated that Israel violated Qatari sovereignty and affirmed that it will not conduct any similar attack on Qatar in the future.

Under Article 2 of the the ILC’s Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA),  an internationally wrongful act of a State exists when its action: (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State. Furthermore, ARSIWA dictates that if a state, in this case Israel, has committed an internationally wrongful act through its action, which is attributable to it under international law and constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State, and it was not related to any circumstances precluding wrongfulness, such as self-defence or necessity, then Israel is under an obligation to cease the act, offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, or provide full reparation for the injury caused, including restitution, compensation, or satisfaction. Previous practices of the law on state responsibility dictates that apologies could be a form of satisfaction. Therefore, Qatar found Israel’s apology to be sufficient reparation and accepted it.

Qatar’s substantial influence on, and ties with, the United States are at the heart of why the apology was made. Qatar has been designated a “major non-Nato US ally“, has invested over 45 billion dollars in the American economy, and has imported over four and a half billion dollars’ worth of American-made goods. Moreover, Qatar has allowed the US to play a critical role in its rich energy sector. Losing such a strong economic partner would be detrimental to the Trump administration. Moreover, Qatar pays billions to the US in security and defence partnership, and Qatar hosts the Al Udeid Air Base, which is the largest U.S. Air Force installation outside the United States and is the regional headquarters of the US Central Command. This allows a substantial US presence in the Middle East and allows it to have a strategic upper hand in the event of regional conflict, such as in June 2025 – and something underlined in importance yet again in the current Israeli/American war with Iran.

Author note: All views expressed are strictly my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any institution I have worked at or studied in.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

Great Power Rivalry and Israeli Selective Neutrality: ‘Walking Between the Drops’

State Social Media and National Security Strategy: Israel’s Operation Protective Edge

Reflecting on International Terrorism after the Hamas Attacks on Israel

The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process: Lessons from Oslo

Assessing One-State and Two-State Proposals to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Iraqi Kurdistan and the Failure of Capitalizing Kurdish-Israeli Relations

Ali Alabdali is a Doctoral candidate in Public International Law at Utrecht University. He appeared before the International Criminal Court and has represented his Saudi Arabia before the international law committee (Sixth Committee) of the United Nations General Assembly. He holds an LLM from UC Berkeley and an LLB from City University of London.

© E-International