Authorities are investigating allegations involving Qatar-linked actors and the Prime Minister’s Office – allegations that arrive against a backdrop of Qatar’s long-reported regional activities, including its ties to Islamist movements and its ownership of Al Jazeera. While all claims remain unproven, the gravity of the questions raised makes rigorous examination unavoidable.
That imperative has been sharpened by recent public testimony from Eli Feldstein, the former military spokesman to the prime minister, who gave an extended interview to KAN. In his first public remarks since being accused in connection with the so-called “Qatargate” and “Bild” investigations, Feldstein offered detailed descriptions of internal dynamics inside the Prime Minister’s Office and commented on how responsibility for October 7 was framed internally.
Those statements – now part of the public record – differ in important respects from other accounts and, because they were made in public by someone intimately connected to these events, have intensified calls for clarity.
Qatar’s regional posture itself is not obscure. For years, Israeli and international media have documented Doha’s political and financial backing of Islamist movements across the Middle East, including Muslim Brotherhood-linked networks, as well as its ownership and funding of Al Jazeera. These are not minor details; they form the context against which any alleged contact, coordination, or influence must be examined.
At the same time, Israel has engaged with Qatar in limited and pragmatic contexts, particularly in mediation efforts related to hostages and cease-fire negotiations. That engagement has been framed by officials as tactical rather than strategic, and its utility in narrow cases does not eliminate broader strategic concerns.
This is precisely why the investigations cannot be treated simply as political inconveniences. Police are examining suspected contacts and messaging activities connected to the Prime Minister’s Office.
Due process applies fully, but the existence of multiple strands of investigation, together with conflicting public narratives from inside the Prime Minister’s Office, cannot be waved aside.
The problem is not only what may or may not have happened; it is also how these matters have been handled publicly.
Failure to properly handle the Qatargate scandal
Here, the failure appears to unfold on two planes.
The first concerns the period under investigation itself – the questions raised about judgment, oversight, and safeguards at a time when the country was facing its gravest security crisis in decades. Feldstein’s interview does not resolve those questions; it deepens them. When a former senior aide offers a version of events that diverges from official statements, the only responsible response is to establish facts – not to dismiss publicly aired discrepancies.
The second failure lies in the aftermath. The public has been confronted with contradictory statements, partial denials, and shifting explanations from multiple actors. This pattern has not reassured the public; it has contributed to confusion and eroded confidence at a moment when clarity and coherence are essential.
For a public already grappling with a profound sense of vulnerability, this sequence matters. Israelis experienced a catastrophic breach of security on October 7. They now face a prolonged period in which trust in their institutions is tested anew, not because of untested allegations, but because divergent accounts and inconsistent messaging leave the public unsure whom to believe.
None of this requires prejudging outcomes. It requires insisting that investigations be conducted fully, independently, and without interference. It demands answers to straightforward questions: who communicated with whom, in what capacity, with what authority; what information was shared, if any; what safeguards were in place; and whether they failed.
Qatar’s regional stance is not ambiguous. Israel’s security environment is unforgiving. In such conditions, strategic fog at the top is not a luxury the country can afford. Engagement, where necessary, must be tightly bound and supervised. And when credible questions arise about the Prime Minister’s Office itself – amplified by the public testimony of a former senior aide – the response must be clarity, not confusion.
A thorough investigation is not a threat to leadership; it is the minimum requirement for restoring public confidence and ensuring that, even in the most difficult moments, Israel remains governed by accountability rather than expediency.
In addition, as a society, we need to make it clear that, though some of the acts of Netanyahu’s aides may not be illegal, this cannot be the norm. A senior adviser to the prime minister cannot be running a campaign for another country, especially one that is hostile towards Israel.