Hacker News Reader

Comment by NewJazz | Hacker News Reader

Is Qatar a belligerent in the war? Belarus has allowed Russia to use their territory as a point from which to launch both ground assaults and missiles into Ukraine. Hard to say the same about Qatar and Hamas. If Al Jazeera were an Iranian publication the comparison might be more similar.

Israeli news reports and analysts say Qatar has sent more than $1 billion to Gaza over the past decade.

Qatar sent that aid through fuel to the Gaza Strip's Hamas government, which in turn sold it and paid partial salaries. In the past, the money was sent via suitcases stuffed with cash.

Israel allowed these transfers to Hamas. Supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu say the payments his government approved helped keep the status quo in the Gaza Strip and Hamas from escalating attacks on Israel.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/02/1210110109/qatar-israel-gaza-...

View on HN

Qatar is not exactly a belligerent but it hosts the Hamas leadership. It has been funding Hamas and other groups. It (partly) funds Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is considered by some to be its PR/Propaganda arm and has a low standard for factual reporting - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Isreal has funded Hamas directly too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...

Is that claim in the part behind the paywall?

The furthest the freely accessible part goes is to say Israel "encouraged" Qatari payments to Hamas.

non paywall version: https://archive.fo/lgtyM

from what I can see it never mentioned Israel directly giving money to Hamas. But encouraging payments seems close enough.

Israeli enabled money to go in to pay government salaries to prevent Gaza from descending in chaos. That said I think it's a matter of fact that maintaining Hamas as a counter to the PA was part of strategy of the Netanyahu government.

I think pretty much any money going into Gaza should be considered funding Hamas. It either went directly to Hamas or it was taxed or it allowed Hamas not to spent that money. This means Europe and the US also funded Hamas.

That's quite a take.

The reason for funding was to create chaos, not to remove it. Why else do you fund a group that destabilises the area. Basically Israel wanted Gaza to be more chaotic as they felt it gave them more control.

The decision to pursue power and chaos as opposed to seeking resolution and a path to peace has had obvious consequences.

The consequence, a violent one, has been incremental land capture

It’s so interesting that you’ve taken away all agency from the Palestinians, or you believe as an absolute rule that giving someone money automatically makes them do chaotic evil things. And that the encourager of the monetary transaction (not the giver or recipient) is solely responsible for any harm or chaos that ensues.

This whole thread is so strange, people keep claiming Palestinians cannot be trusted to rule themselves, while at the same time accusing Israel of genocide for not giving them the ability to rule themselves.

It's interesting that you don't acknowledge what is commonly acknowledged. It's almost like you were pushing an agenda.

Thank you for checking.

> But encouraging payments seems close enough.

Hmmm. I don't think I agree with that. It's such a polarized and emotional debate. It could really benefit from being precise with words.

Making everything sound just slightly worse than it is will help rile up the side that feels slighted and it will let the other side just pass the speaker off as a liar. The result is fewer shared facts, more polarization and a more emotional debate.

The truth of war is bad enough. It doesn't need to be stretched.

Yes, it's real.

Is this some kind of rhetorical question? Qatar is the main funder of Hamas regime. And hosting Hamas leadership. They fund Hamas more than Iran, according to Israeli intelligence (which may be wrong but that’s the source we have)

> Qatar is the main funder of Hamas regime

Iran is Hamas' main backer. Qatar funded Hamas with Israel's consent, so it's not really fair to hold this against Doha. (Their continuing to host Hamas' leadership is fair to criticise.)

In July 2017, former CIA director David Petraeus revealed that Qatar has hosted the Hamas leadership at the request of US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_and_state-sponsored_terr...

> Petraeus revealed that Qatar has hosted the Hamas leadership at the request of US

Sure. Hence why I qualified my statement with "continuing." Doha hosting Hamas in '17 was fine. Doha hosting them after October 7 is fair to criticise.

Discovering that request surprised me, it strikes me as pragmatic and forward thinking; it also suggests that Qatar is rather keen to accede to US requests. Has that US policy changed now? If so I would have expected Qatar to expel.

I wish I could source this but I was reading rumors earlier this weeks that the US is currently in talks with Doha to expel Hamas leadership.

> Has that US policy changed now? If so I would have expected Qatar to expel

Yes. Hamas was seen by even Israel as better than anarchy. That's why they let Doha fund them.

We're now seeing American lawmakers criticising Qatar [1]. That's prompting Dohas to "re-evaluat[e] its role as mediator in ceasefire talks" and weigh "whether to allow Hamas to continue operating [its] political office" [2][3].

[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-says-gaza-ce...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-says-gaza-ce...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/qatar-considers-fu...

> Hamas was seen by even Israel as better than anarchy.

Better then anarchy or better than peace? There is some people on both sides of this conflict which are happy to see it radicalized and I think those people all benefits from the other being strong on the other side.

Better than anarchy and better Palestinians divided between Hamas and the PA is fair statement. Most Israelis don't believe any Palestinians have an interest in peace (I don't have a survey handy but I'm sure we can find one) and their actions reflect that belief. But if you can make a reasonable argument how defunding Gaza would result in peace then I'd be interesting in hearing it.

All that said, the actions taken by the Israeli right are certainly not helping the possibility of a future peace agreement, but it's not clear whether this specific action belongs in that group. One might argue that a stronger central authority in Gaza means there is a partner for a future agreement and that if Gaza can transition to be a more peaceful place (and it seemed to be heading in that direction) that would also support a future agreement.

Yes, my (probably somewhat poor) understanding is that Israel actions over the past years tended to favor Hamas and weaken PA. From declarations I read in the press I can imagine how some people are happy that peace doesn't happen so they can justify eradicating the Gaza inconvenience.

I can point to a laundry list of atrocities committed by US. Should Qatar refuse to host US?

Qatar is not a western country, there is no reason to expect it to buy into western exceptionalism. This is not to defend Hamas but simply to point out that the western double standard doesn’t reach much beyond Europe.

> Should Qatar refuse to host US?

America is (a) a country and (b) major trading and security partner.

> Qatar is not a western country, there is no reason to expect it to buy into western exceptionalism

We are their security guarantor. It’s why Doha is publicly debating shutting down Hamas’ political office.

India pays a lot of money to Russia for oil, it doesn't make them a belligerent. China also has close ties, but arguably they've refrained from arming Russia.

Are missiles coming out of Qatar? Are they even supplying arms to Hamas, or do they simply fund the civilian portions of the government?

Both India and China produce their own fascistic propaganda supporting Russia. I wouldn't blame the EU for banning the Global Times.

But isn’t that just an argument in favor of censorship?

Yes it is?

Qatar plays both sides. They have friendly relations with Hamas, Houthis and Iran.

AlJazeera is known to be untrustworthy on matters of the middle east. Just as BBC is untrustworthy on matters of UK international politics and the NYT [1] can't be trusted on US foreign policy matters.

AlJazeera, NYT and BBC are weapons of mass propaganda just like Globaltimes or RT. The main (and admittedly stark) difference is how often these weapons are deployed.

[]1 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis...

Since when is the entire Europe a party in the war on Ukraine?

I didn't say that, and the matter is irrelevant to the status of Russia and Belarus and their media outlets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com