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)
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.)
> 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.
> 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].
> 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.
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?
