Israeli forces struck a site in Qatar reported to house Hamas leadership, an action an opinion columnist said was long overdue and that he argued exposed longstanding ties between the movement and the wealthy Gulf state.
In an opinion piece published Thursday in the New York Post, David Harsanyi, a senior writer at the Washington Examiner, wrote that every individual reported to have been targeted had been sanctioned by the U.S. government for terrorist activities and that the figures named were not diplomats or peacemakers but leaders who had pledged ongoing violence against Israeli civilians.
Harsanyi named several Hamas figures he said were among the reported targets, including Khaled Meshaal, whom the column described as a founder of modern Hamas and alleged to have accumulated a personal fortune estimated in the op-ed at between $2 billion and $5 billion; Khalil al-Hayya, quoted in the column as praising killings and the use of civilians as shields; Zaher Jabarin, identified as a financial figure who allegedly diverted international aid; Nizar Awadallah, said to have planned attacks on civilians; and Ghazi Hamad, whom the column quoted as promising repeated attacks.
The column characterized Qatar as a long-time host and financier for Hamas, arguing that Doha’s role allowed senior Hamas operatives to live and conduct operations from relative safety. Harsanyi asserted that the United States should reconsider its ties to Qatar and accused the state of using financial influence to shape U.S. domestic politics and public debate. He also said Qatar had blamed Israel “alone” for the Oct. 7 attacks, a framing he described as evidence of Doha’s complicity in emboldening Hamas.
Harsanyi wrote that Israel had spent nearly two years negotiating with Hamas leaders — negotiations he said were pursued mainly to secure the release of hostages — and that the strike represented a decision by Israel to act after what the columnist described as a prolonged period of ineffective diplomacy. He also asserted that it was implausible Israel would have launched operations in Qatar without notifying the United States, given the proximity of U.S. military installations, and suggested that American approval or at least coordination was likely.
The column laid out a broader regional view, arguing that the fallout from the Oct. 7 attacks and subsequent Israeli military operations had degraded Hamas and other Iran-backed groups, and had broader implications for regional actors. Those assessments were presented as the columnist’s analysis rather than independently verified facts.
Reaction to the reported strike and to the allegations of Qatari support has been mixed in international commentary. Qatar has long been a diplomatic interlocutor in various regional disputes, hosting offices for Palestinian factions and positioning itself as a mediator in some hostage and cease-fire negotiations. Doha has also faced criticism from some governments and commentators who argue its support for certain groups undermines regional stability; Qatar and its officials have repeatedly denied supporting terrorism and have defended their diplomatic engagement as a path to de-escalation.
Analysts say independent verification of the specific allegations about individual finances, the precise identities of those targeted, and the operational details of the strike will be crucial to assessing both the legality of the action and its diplomatic fallout. U.S. officials typically do not comment publicly on intelligence matters or on the specifics of coordination with key partners when military activity occurs in close proximity to American assets.
The op-ed framed the strike as a turning point, arguing that those who had sheltered and financed Hamas leadership could no longer do so with impunity. It urged a reassessment of diplomatic and economic ties with states accused of enabling militant groups.
The reported strike and subsequent commentary are likely to shape debates in Washington and capitals across the region over how to balance counterterrorism priorities, diplomatic engagement, and the protection of civilians. Independent news reports and official statements will be needed to corroborate the claims made in the opinion piece and to clarify the legal and strategic implications of the strike for Qatar, Israel and international partners.