Israel’s Use of Force: A Pattern of Violations and the Case of Qatar
In recent years, Israel has undertaken military operations and/or violations in several countries, including the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Qatar. These actions have consistently been justified by Israel on grounds of national security or self-defense. Still, the only instance where an international court found Israel liable for violating international law involved actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Notably, Israel apologized to only one country for its actions – Qatar.
The September 2025 Attack on Qatar
On September 9, 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 and a Qatari security guard were killed. Israel’s president stated that the attacks were significant and necessary to target Hamas’s leadership, and the Israeli Prime Minister announced that the operation was solely initiated, conducted, and taken responsibility for by Israel.
Prior to the attack, Israel notified the US, who in turn informed Qatar. However, Qatar stated that the notification came too late to prevent the attack, and characterized it as a contravention of international law and a violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty, describing the attack as reckless, and cowardly.
International Law and the Principles of Jus in Bello
The law of armed conflict, or international humanitarian law, governs the conduct of military operations. Under the principle of jus in bello, any military operation must adhere to three core principles: distinction, necessity, and proportionality. The principle of distinction requires that attacks be limited to military objectives that contribute to military action. The principle of necessity dictates that any military attack uses only the degree and force required to achieve a legitimate military purpose. Finally, the principle of proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Israel needed to demonstrate a military advantage from attacking Hamas. Even if Israel met the distinction threshold, it also needed to abide by the principle of necessity. Israel was obligated to refrain from any armed attack if the expected loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects was disproportionate to the potential military gain. The attack was directed towards the civilian heart of Doha, and military leaders must weigh any military gain against potential harm to civilians. Failure to meet these criteria constitutes a violation of international law.
Apology and Reparation Under International Law
Despite potentially violating international law, Israel apologized to Qatar. Under Article 34 of the ILC’s Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), an apology can constitute a form of satisfaction or reparation for an injury caused by a state’s internationally wrongful act. Qatar accepted Israel’s apology as sufficient reparation.
The Role of US-Qatar Relations
Qatar’s substantial influence and ties with the United States played a significant role in securing the apology. Qatar is a “major non-Nato US ally,” has invested over $45 billion in the American economy, and imports over $4.5 billion worth of American-made goods. The US also relies on Qatar, which hosts Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US Air Force installation outside the United States and the regional headquarters of US Central Command, providing a strategic presence in the Middle East, particularly relevant in the context of the ongoing conflict 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.
Related reading