Qatargate lays bare Israel’s gamble on Hamas rule

In recent weeks, the unfolding of the “Qatargate” scandal in Israel has drawn fresh scrutiny not only to the inner workings of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, but also to a decades-long strategic approach that has helped shape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the core of the scandal is a simple but revealing premise: Israel, through political and media operatives, allegedly sought to elevate Qatar’s role in mediation with Hamas while minimizing Egypt’s. But why?

To understand the logic behind this maneuver, one must first grasp the deep ideological and geopolitical divide between Egypt and Qatar when it comes to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the broader vision for the Palestinian territories.

Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood: Strategic partners

Qatar’s relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood dates back to the 1950s. With no internal Brotherhood threat of its own, Qatar offered sanctuary and funding to the group and its affiliates. The ideological and media ecosystem built around figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi helped position Doha as a regional safe haven for political Islam. This continued into the Arab Spring, where Qatar backed Brotherhood-aligned movements across North Africa, and most notably, Hamas in Gaza.

Qatar’s approach to Hamas is pragmatic: it funds and hosts the group while positioning itself as a mediator. This gives Qatar regional relevance and international legitimacy. It also offers Hamas a way to maintain governance in Gaza without full isolation. For Israel, this has been convenient. While officially enemies, Hamas and Israel have for years maintained a functional relationship centered on deterrence and containment. Qatar’s funding helped sustain that arrangement.

Egypt and Hamas: Irreconcilable enemies

In contrast, Egypt views the Muslim Brotherhood as an existential threat. Following the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, the Brotherhood was declared a terrorist organization and violently repressed. Hamas, as its Palestinian offshoot, has been treated with suspicion and hostility.

Egypt’s regional policy reflects these interests. It backs the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and views any solution in Gaza as necessarily including the PA. From Cairo’s perspective, weakening Hamas is not just a diplomatic aim but a security imperative.

This makes Egypt a fundamentally different kind of mediator than Qatar. Egypt aims to integrate Gaza back into the Palestinian political system. Qatar helps Hamas maintain its separate rule.

Israel’s strategic choice: Divide and manage

Since the early 2000s, Israeli policy has been grounded in the belief that a fragmented Palestinian national movement works to its advantage. A united front led by the PA could reenergize international demands for a two-state solution. A divided landscape, with Hamas ruling Gaza and the PA in the West Bank, reduces pressure on Israel to negotiate final-status issues.

This belief has translated into concrete actions. In 2018, when the PA tried to pressure Hamas by cutting funding to Gaza, Israel had a choice: support the PA and isolate Hamas, or allow Hamas to survive. Israel chose the latter. It facilitated Qatari cash transfers to Gaza, kept water and electricity flowing, and publicly framed these moves as humanitarian. Behind the scenes, it helped keep Hamas in power.

In 2015, the then-MK Bezalel Smotrich, now Israel’s Finance Minister, said it clearly: Hamas was an “asset.” The goal was not peace through unity, but quiet through division.

Qatargate: The scandal that exposed the strategy

Enter Qatargate. According to police and court records, Netanyahu’s close aides Jonatan Urich and Eli Feldstein were allegedly paid by a Qatari-linked lobbying firm to shape Israeli media narratives in favor of Qatar and against Egypt. This included overstating Qatar’s role in mediation efforts to resolve the hostage crisis that started after the October 7th attack by Hamas in which 251 people were kidnapped, 59 of whom still remain in Gaza, and casting doubt on Egypt’s influence.

While Netanyahu himself is not a suspect, the optics are damning. That officials close to the prime minister may have manipulated public messaging to favor a foreign state with ties to Hamas raises troubling questions. Was this media strategy part of a broader effort to ensure that Hamas, and not the PA, remained the dominant force in Gaza? Was Egypt’s sidelining part of a deliberate plan to maintain Palestinian political disunity?

The charges under investigation include contact with a foreign agent, breach of trust, money laundering, and potentially leaking classified information. But the deeper issue is not legal – it is strategic.

The cost of convenience

For years, Israel’s alignment with Qatar’s approach has delivered short-term quiet in Gaza and avoided the difficult choices required for a two-state solution. But this came at a price. October 7 revealed the limits of deterrence. The belief that Hamas could be contained and managed, even while being indirectly empowered, collapsed under the weight of tragedy.

Qatargate isn’t just about media manipulation or shady payments. It is about a strategic choice that backfired. Israel’s effort to sideline Egypt and elevate Qatar was not a random lapse. It was consistent with a broader policy that saw Palestinian division as a safeguard. That safeguard has failed.

Time for strategic accountability

The Qatargate affair reveals more than political corruption. It exposes the fault lines in Israel’s Gaza strategy. Choosing Qatar over Egypt was not merely a diplomatic preference; it reflected a deeper strategic calculus that prioritized division over resolution.

Now, with the region on edge and the war ongoing, Israel faces a moment of reckoning. Will it double down on a broken strategy, or finally begin to consider that Palestinian unity – and a credible path to statehood – may serve its long-term security better than perpetual fragmentation?

This moment demands more than legal accountability. It demands strategic honesty.