Israel went after Hamas in Doha and not after Qatar as a country. Does this really prove your point?

EDIT: exploring the legality of this with AI:

The "Unwilling or Unable" Doctrine: A major debate in international law is whether a state can use force in self-defense against a non-state actor located in another sovereign state. Some nations (like the US and Israel) argue for the "unwilling or unable" standard. This doctrine suggests that if a host state (e.g., Qatar) is unwilling or unable to stop a non-state actor (e.g., Hamas) from using its territory to direct or launch attacks, the victim state (Israel) has the right to use force within the host state's borders to defend itself.

Violations of Sovereignty: Conversely, many states and legal experts reject the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. From this viewpoint, executing a strike in Qatar without Qatari consent or a UN Security Council mandate would be viewed as an illegal act of aggression and a violation of Qatar's sovereignty.

I think my overall point still stands though that in the absences of aggression towards Israel Israel would not be attacking. The exact threshold though is obviously something we debate- e.g. whether simply hosting the leadership of Hamas is enough of a reason to take military action. But it's a reason (i.e. Israel had some self-defense justification).