By David Hess
Since the Watergate scandal forced the resignation of U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1974—the same president who famously insisted until the end that he was “not a crook”—the suffix “-gate” has become a global shorthand for political scandals tinged with betrayal, cover-ups, and abuse of power. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, whenever leaders or their confidants are entangled in murky affairs, a “-gate” is sure to follow.
The case currently shaking Israel—already dubbed “Qatargate” in local media and unrelated to the corruption affair in the European Parliament—inevitably invites comparisons to its historic namesake. Not only do “Qatargate” and “Watergate” rhyme, but for those who remember the original scandal, the parallels are striking. Watergate was about following the money trail that led to illegal operations targeting the president’s political opponents. Here, the trail leads from Qatar—a state widely seen as a key supporter of Hamas—straight into the inner circle of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Or, to borrow the phrasing of legendary Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein: the money leads to “all the prime minister’s men.” And this isn’t merely about questionable public relations efforts or financial irregularities. What’s at stake is the suspicion that a hostile foreign actor has actively sought to influence the highest levels of Israeli government—at a time of unprecedented political and security turmoil. The Watergate comparison, then, is not just a rhetorical flourish; it points to a scandal with potentially explosive consequences.
Unlike Watergate, which centered on the illegal surveillance of political opponents, planted operatives, and the systematic concealment of election-related misconduct, Qatargate carries even more severe implications—both politically and in terms of national security. This is not about wiretaps or dirty tricks in an election campaign. What’s under scrutiny is the possibility that senior advisers from the prime minister’s inner circle accepted money from a foreign power—specifically, from Qatar, which for years has been one of the main financial and political backers of Hamas, an organization openly committed to Israel’s destruction.
If these allegations prove true, the issue isn’t merely corruption. What looms is the specter of foreign infiltration at the heart of the Israeli state. This would not be a standard bribery case—it would be a betrayal of the most vital interests of the nation. The idea that funds from Qatar could have found their way into decision-making circles of the Israeli government, while the country is engaged in a war with forces backed by Qatar, is nothing short of staggering.
But the scandal doesn’t end there. As in Watergate, the real outrage also lies in how the affair is being handled. Nixon’s infamous “Saturday Night Massacre,” in which he fired the special prosecutor investigating him—leading to the resignations of both the U.S. Attorney General and his deputy—was a textbook case of obstruction. Something eerily similar is now playing out in Israel. In recent weeks, Netanyahu and his allies have made a concerted effort to discredit or remove key officials involved in investigating Qatargate, including Shin Bet security chief Ronen Bar and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. This campaign to sideline law enforcement poses as great a threat to democracy as the allegations themselves—undermining the independence of the very institutions that safeguard the rule of law.
Netanyahu and his supporters have zeroed in on firing those leading the investigations into Qatargate: Ronen Bar, the head of the Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency, and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. As if the parallels weren’t stark enough already—while the Watergate scandal unfolded against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, today it is the unrelenting war in Gaza and the horrifying plight of Israeli hostages that fuel the public outrage surrounding Qatargate.
The journalist who was questioned as a suspect in the affair—centered on financial ties between Qatar and Netanyahu’s advisers—had amplified a message aimed at the Jewish community as part of a Qatari PR campaign. At the time, Netanyahu was not serving as prime minister.
Internal documents from Perception Marketing—a company run by Netanyahu’s former aide, Israel Einhorn—revealed plans to invite Israeli and Jewish journalists from various media outlets to Qatar. The stated goal of the trip was to “get a close look at the warm preparations being made for Israelis and Jews” and to improve Qatar’s public image.
The campaign—whose messaging was picked up by several media outlets and journalists, not just the one who was questioned—highlighted Qatar’s role as a mediator between Israel and Hamas and was part of a broader strategy to attract more Jewish visitors to the FIFA World Cup. The materials emphasized that kosher food and Shabbat services would be available in one of the stadiums.
Documents also show that Einhorn and Yonatan Urich—Netanyahu’s adviser who has since been arrested—proposed the construction of a temporary synagogue in Doha, Qatar’s capital, to signal how welcome Israelis and Jews would be during the tournament.
To support Qatar’s PR initiative, Perception Marketing partnered with the Israeli firm Koios to launch a project called Lighthouse. Perception provided content and strategic direction, while Koios executed the campaign through a network of avatars and websites.
An analysis conducted by researchers revealed that these websites and avatars continued to disseminate pro-Qatari content even after the World Cup had ended—well into the Hamas war that began in October 2023. Sources speaking to Haaretz confirmed that the campaign remained active throughout the war.
In February, Channel 12 News revealed that Feldstein—who is already indicted in the so-called Bibileaks affair—was also involved in Qatar’s PR operations. He had reportedly been hired by Jay Footlik, a U.S. lobbyist working on behalf of Qatar.
Their collaboration began in April of the previous year, after Feldstein failed a security clearance. According to sources close to Footlik, he was unaware at the time that Feldstein was working for Prime Minister Netanyahu. Once Feldstein became a suspect in the classified documents case, the relationship was immediately terminated.
Earlier this year, Kan 11 News aired a recording in which businessman Gil Birger admits to transferring money to Feldstein while Feldstein was serving in Netanyahu’s office. According to the report, Birger acted as an intermediary for payments from Footlik to Feldstein. Following the broadcast of the recording, both Urich and Feldstein were arrested and questioned. They were later formally detained on multiple charges, including suspicion of contact with a foreign agent, bribery, fraud, breach of trust, and money laundering. As part of the investigation, Netanyahu was summoned to testify—with the consent of Attorney General Baharav-Miara—in an effort to preempt any potential obstruction of justice.
In addition to Urich and Feldstein, two other individuals are currently under investigation—including the journalist mentioned earlier and another key figure in the affair. Initially, the journalist was not treated as a suspect, but over the course of questioning, police reclassified his status. He was formally cautioned that he was now being investigated on suspicion of contact with a foreign agent, having allegedly served as a go-between for Feldstein and Birger.
At this point, many questions remain unanswered. In the best-case scenario, the involvement of top advisers to the Israeli prime minister in a foreign PR operation could be chalked up to gross negligence—a shocking display of incompetence. The worst-case scenario is far more dangerous: a prime minister who knew about the foreign influence campaign, or worse still, one who was actively complicit in it.
One fundamental difference between the two scandals remains, however: Nixon resigned in August 1974 after three senior Republican lawmakers informed him that his party’s support had collapsed and impeachment was inevitable. Such a scenario is unthinkable in today’s Israeli politics. The leadership of the Likud party lacks the courage to hold such a conversation—and based on his record, Netanyahu would never resign voluntarily. He will fight to the bitter end.
