For months, Israeli negotiators have described a repeated scene in Doha: a question is sent to the Hamas team, and then a countdown starts.
One veteran envoy told me that Hamas Rep. Osama Hamdan and his colleagues would “go quiet” on issues that could have been answered in a day, then reappear three, four, and even seven days later with a partial reply that initiated a new loop.
Another negotiator recalled entire weeks in which Jerusalem could not move to the next bracket because Hamas’s Doha office had not replied. The message to Israel, the arbitrators believed, was deliberate: time is a tactic.
On Tuesday, explosions in Doha hit what Israel says was Hamas’s senior political leadership, including, reportedly, figures tied directly to the ceasefire-for-hostages channel.
Qatar condemned the “cowardly” violation of its sovereignty. Reuters and others reported multiple blasts and smoke columns in the Katara District. Simultaneously, our newsroom confirmed that Khalil al-Hayya was among the intended targets, with his fate unclear at the time of writing.
The Israeli calculus is not subtle. If Hamas was using time as leverage in Qatar, then Jerusalem intends to take that leverage away.
The ‘time strategy’ that broke the talks
Throughout the summer, mediators cycled proposals that required simple yes-or-no answers on sequencing, such as lists, ratios, and timelines. Instead, responses from Hamas in Doha typically arrived slowly, often contingent on new side demands.
Israel, the US, Qatar, and Egypt were repeatedly “waiting for Hamas’s response,” as even public summaries noted. In late July, Washington began signaling that it was exploring “alternative options” to bring hostages home if the Doha track remained stuck.
Jerusalem echoed this rhetoric, warning that if the last Israelis were not released, pressure would intensify. Today’s strike is what “alternative options” look like when diplomacy is treated as a delay tactic.
From the Israeli and American vantage points, Hamas believed that time favored it, that global opinion and political pressure would keep Israel at the table indefinitely. This belief also fed a narrative regarding war crimes in relation to Gaza aid.
Israel has long claimed that Hamas diverts or taxes assistance. Yet, what matters for understanding what occurred in Doha on Tuesday is not about adjudicating every aid claim. Rather, it is about grasping the Israeli conclusion: the talks were being slow-rolled while the narrative battle raged, and that leverage had to change.
Why strike in Doha of all places?
Qatar is not just a mediator. It hosts both Al Udeid, the largest American air base hub in the Middle East, and the Combined Air Operations Center for the US Central Command.
Hitting Hamas’s leadership in a capital so closely intertwined with US operations sends a message to multiple audiences at once. To Hamas, that “safe” rear bases for negotiations are also target sets; to Doha, that sheltering the terrorist organization’s decision-makers carries costs; and to other mediators, that the window for incrementalism has closed.
Qatar’s government has protested “in the strongest terms.” Whether it can continue as the primary venue after this shock remains to be seen.
What is known, and what is still murky
Firm facts: explosions struck Doha; Israel says Hamas’s leadership was the target; Qatar condemns the violation of its sovereignty.
Open questions: Who, exactly, was hit? Was the core negotiating team killed or scattered? Did Washington have foreknowledge? Is Doha going to try to salvage its mediator role or decide to step back? Some outlets asserted US approval, but there was no official White House readout substantiating that claim by press time.
Will this bring a deal closer or vice versa?
Two opposite dynamics are now in play. The first relates to acceleration via shock.
If the Doha cadre was the choke point, removing or rattling it could force faster, more binary decisions by any surviving leadership abroad. The US and Israel have spent weeks hinting that there were “other ways” to advance the hostage file. This is one of them.
The second dynamic concerns a freeze via decapitation. Killing the negotiators can also kill the negotiations. Hamas may harden its demands or pause entirely while it reconstitutes. Qatar may curtail its role, and Egypt alone may not be able to carry out a comprehensive framework.
Jerusalem is betting that the first effect will dominate. The risk is that the second effect wins the week.
Hamas played for time in Doha. It treated each day as a bargaining chip, each delay as a way to increase outside pressure on Israel. With Tuesday’s strike, Israel is trying to make time work oppositely.
These upcoming days will reveal whether the shock prompted decisions on a comprehensive release-for-ceasefire package, or whether it fractured the channel that, despite its flaws, was the only one left.