HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hamas loses Iran funds fo...

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 08:41 PM

 

Hamas loses Iran funds for backing Syria rebels

Source: gulf news

Gaza City: Iran has cut up to £15 million (Dh83.7 million) a month in funding for Hamas as punishment for the movement backing the uprising in Syria, the Palestinian Islamist group’s leaders have admitted.

The two once-close allies have also ceased military cooperation, effectively ending a warm relationship in which Tehran provided weapons, technical know-how and military training to Hamas fighters.

The rupture has been caused by Hamas’ refusal to toe the Iranian line by supporting President Bashar Al Assad, whose Alawite regime has a loose religious relationship to Iran’s ruling theocracy. Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip, has sided with its Sunni co-religionists who are trying to unseat Al Assad, in common with other mainly Sunni countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Gazi Hamad, Hamas’ deputy foreign minister, frankly described relations with Iran as “bad”. Asked about Iranian funding, he said: “I can say it is not like the past. I cannot give you the exact amount. For supporting the Syrian revolution, we lost very much.

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/hamas-loses-iran-funds-for-backing-syria-rebels-1.1191194


Read more: http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/hamas-loses-iran-funds-for-backing-syria-rebels-1.1191194

18 replies, 2764 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hamas loses Iran funds for backing Syria rebels (Original post)
jessie04 Jun 2013 OP
freshwest Jun 2013 #1
happyslug Jun 2013 #13
riderinthestorm Jun 2013 #2
jessie04 Jun 2013 #3
riderinthestorm Jun 2013 #4
jessie04 Jun 2013 #5
mallard Jun 2013 #6
azurnoir Jun 2013 #7
jessie04 Jun 2013 #8
azurnoir Jun 2013 #9
oberliner Jun 2013 #11
azurnoir Jun 2013 #12
oberliner Jun 2013 #15
azurnoir Jun 2013 #16
jessie04 Jun 2013 #14
riderinthestorm Jun 2013 #10
jessie04 Jun 2013 #17
jessie04 Jun 2013 #18

Response to jessie04 (Original post)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 08:53 PM

1. The ties between Russia, Iran and Syria go back much farther than the USA has existed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 02:13 AM

13. Not quite true

Syria, as we now know it, did NOT really exist prior to the French Occupation after WWI. Like most of the "Fertile Crescent" outside of the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, each valley and each city tends to be its own "Nation-State" even when they were paying tribute to someone else. The classic situation is Judea under the Romans. Rome ruled Judea, but the Jewish religious hierarchy, which controlled the Temple of Jerusalem, where pro-Persia (At that time ruled by the Parthians, who were related to the Pushtans of modern day Afghanistan). Rome wanted Palestine to make sure Persia could NOT use it to take Egypt, Palestine had long been a major invasion based to Egypt (See my Side note below):

Even under Rome, Byzantine, Arab, and Turkish rule, these ruling "powers" were just looking at who would pay what taxes, not loyalty as noted in most "Modern" countries. Tribe and trade relations was more important then who ruled the Country (For example, long after the Crusades had ended France would send troops and supplies to the Christians of Lebanon and Syria, even while both were ruled by Turkey.

One of the reason the Father of Assad moved into Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War, was that his tribe's long time trading partners, the Christians in Lebanon was losing out the the Shiite Moslems lead by what later would become Hezbollah. At the same time the President of Syria was trying to make his branch of Islam (Alawis) more Sunni, then the mix of Christianity, Shiite and Ismali Islam it has been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Syria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismailism

Now this can be a problem. Alwais celebrate not only Islamic Holidays, but Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday (And thus often called "Christians" by the radical Sunni Moslems that is they main opposition and thus you read of such Moslem Radicals celebrating they fighting with "Christians").

The Alwais are also called "Seveners". In Shiitte Islam, they are two large branches, those that recognize the descendants of Ali to the Seventh Generation as the Legitimate Caliphs (And thus called "Seveners", and those that recognize that "Rule" to the 12th descendant of Ali (Thus called "Twelvers") . Iran are "Twelvers", while the Alwais are "Seveners" (as were the "Assassins" of the Middles Ages).

More on the Assassins (But ignores the fact that the main protectors of the Assassins after the Mongol invasion was the Hospitaliers in lands of Palestine they still held till driven out).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

Now some maps do reveal some points: Here is one on Religion in Syria:





Here is a Map where the fighting is occurring:


http://www.polgeonow.com/2013/03/syria-uprising-map-march-2013-9.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

Here is one on population Density:


http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/maps.shtml

In simple terms, most of the Sunni majority areas is where the fighting is, once the revolt hit the Shiitte and Christian areas, it started to die out. The Huge Area in the South East of Syria is a low population area that everyone is ignoring for few people live there (for it is desert).

Thus the groups inside Syria and Lebanon have had long ties with France (The Christians being Catholics in both Countries) and Iran (The Moslems along the coast of Syria are Shiites like Iran). Just like the Alawis are "Seveners" while the Iranians are "Twelvers" the French are Roman Catholics, while the Christians, while many recognize the Pope, tend to be of Eastern or Orthodox Church. Thus a clear division exists, but that is being ignored given the pressure on both Iran and the Alaiws by the Sunnis in full revolt.

As to Russia, till after WWI had a difficult time reaching anyone in Syria due to the only sea lane was via Istanbul. In the 1930s a treaty was sign permitting non-capital warships through the straits but all that permitted was shipment of goods to Syria and Egypt starting after WWII. Thus almost no contact between Russia and Syria prior to WWII.

As to Persia and Russia, prior to the Conquest of what is now often referred to as the "Former Soviet Central Asiatic Soviet Republics" in the 1870s, Persia relationship with Russia was in regards to areas now making up those Former Soviet Republics. With the overthrow of the Shah, the Former Soviet Union, and now the Russian Republic has increased exchanges with Iran/Persia but it is of recent origin not older then the 1980s.

Just a comment that this is NOT a long term alliance, but one that is convenient to all parties at the present time. All want to reduce US power in the Middle East and for that reason alone they are working together, not due to some "Long term Relationship".


Now one of the Concern when it comes to Syria, is Israel, Palestine, which is not Israel, has long been the base to invade Egypt (or to support an invasion from Egypt). Such invasions of Egypt have a long history, here are some example of such invasions:


1. The first recorded invasion is by the Hyksos around 1600 BC (which may just be an migration that later lead to them taking over Lower Egypt), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

2. Next was the Assyrians had done around 685 (Through the Assyrians did not rule Egypt, they installed a new, Loyal to Assyrian Pharaoh, who kick out the Assyrians when the Babylonians destroyed Assyria),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_dynasty_of_Egypt

3. Next was the the Persians under the son of Cyrus the Great had taken Egypt around 525 BC, lost it around, 402 BC. then retook it again around 343, and lost it to an invasion from Palestine lead by Alexander the Ground around 332 BC. Cambyses, the Son of Cyrus the Great of Persia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambyses_II

4. Alexander the Great invasion of 332 BC was via Judea

5. Ceasar's expedition to Egypt, while he traveled by ship, the Troops he needed to defeat the Eygptian Army came via Judea. http://www.roman-empire.net/republic/caesar-index.html

6. By the time of Augustus's invasion of Egypt, Judea was 100% loyal to him and no Navy existed to destroy his invasion force. Thus Judea/Palestine not needed, but that it was loyal was a huge factor.

7. 619 AD, The Sassanid Persian Conquest of Egypt, reversed by Emperor Heraclius in 629 AD (Heraclius won Egypt in a Peace Treay after invading Persia and all byt destroying the Sassanid Dynasty):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_conquest_of_Egypt

8. 639, the Arab Invasion of Egypt (An important factor had been the ten year rule by Persia, Persia had kicked out the old landlords and that reduced the rent the peasants had to pay, thus when Egypt returned to Roman Rule, it was disliked and when the Arabs appeared, Egypt refused to fight to remain in the Roman Empire).

9. The Fatimid's would take Egypt from the West (Tunisian and Libya) around 969, this was due to the Collapse of the Arab Empire and thus Palestine was controlled by no one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatimid_Caliphate

10. The Invasions of Egypt by the Crusaders in 1070-1072, just before the Third Crusade, the invasion was weak, and more an attempt to keep the Fatima's in power then a full scale invasion, but it shows the Palestine was the base needed to actual take and hold Egypt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusader_invasions_of_Egypt

The Ottoman Conquest of Egypt in 1517:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Province,_Ottoman_Empire

Now Egypt has been other invasions of Egypt, from other directions, some were successful (Napelon's conquest in the 1790s is a classics example), but most were failures, for example the Byzantine attempted invasion of 646, but without troops able to march from Palestine it failed, as did the various Crusades invasion of Egypt after the Third Crusade:
http://www.witness-pioneer.net/vil/Articles/companion/20_uthman_bin_ghani.htm

Thus the real contest here my be Egypt instead of Syria. If Iran can help Assad hold onto Syria, Iran and Hezbollah will have a very loyal ally as a result (Assad will own his rule to them). On the other hand, losing Syria will cut off Iran from any potential support outside of Russia (The Persian Gulf can be cut off by the US Fleet). In many ways, a loyal, but Neutral Syria will be more useful to Iran in any Iranian-US war then anything else. If the US invades Syria, it shows US aggression, thus the US has good reasons to leave Syria alone, even while it is a supply route for supplies for Iran, supplies to be used against US forces.

Thus in many ways this is a fight for position. It is to weaken Iran and strengthen Saudi Arabia and its ally the US. If Assad loses control of Syria, Iran can NOT count on supplies from that area AND it is one more potential invasion point into Iran. I do NOT want to say this is the first step of a US invasion of Iran, but Syria no longer an ally of Iran would strengthen the US position if such an invasion occurs. Weakening Iran may be the sole US intention (i.e. NO invasion of Iran) as oppose to any other plans (including any invasions anywhere).

While France has had a relationship with people in Syria for 3-400 years, as has Iran, Russia has not till after WWII in regard to Syria and since the 1979 Iranian Revolution in regards to Iran. Egypt has concerns as to Syria, for it is next to Palestine which is the best base in invade Egypt from. Saudi Arabian''s concern is its Shiite minority that live along the Oil Rich Persian Gulf AND potential loss of Egypt if situation in the Middle East is not settled. The house of Saud disliked the expansion of diplomatic relations between Egypt and Iran, and emphasizing the Sunni-Shiite fight in Syria may be part of its plans to keep Egypt out of the hands of the wrong Moslem Radicals (Saudi Arabia supports Al Queda, but opposes Iran, thus the "Wrong Radicals" are Shiite radicals, even when they have majority support, as oppose in Al Queda radicals).

This is more and more looking like an Saudi Arabia vs Iran fight as oppose to "Moderate Arabs" vs Al Queda fight. Only time will tell who will win AND what they are truly fighting for,


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Original post)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 09:01 PM

2. Another important and key indicator that the sectarian civil war lines are hardening.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 09:32 PM

3. You are correct.

 

Hamas is betting the rebels will prevail. They threw away 2 major supporters on a bet.

They now bet everything .

What do they know that we don't ?

What's in it for them by now making enemies of Assad, Iran and Hezbollah ?

Very curious .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 09:38 PM

4. I don't think they "know" anything other than sticking with their historic Sunni brethren trumps all

I think the crisis has become so very black and white now in the region. Its a revival of a hundreds' year old Sunni/Shia split that has no geographical borders.

The region is going to be engulfed by a massive wave of sectarian strife, the same as it has over and over and over again.

The US would be so wise to stay out of this. There's no winner in this - its going to be a bloodbath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 09:51 PM

5. You may be right.

 

I'm not really sure .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 09:54 PM

6. Maybe Hamas got wind of hopeful improvement in their standing ...

... with Western powers if they would join in with the Saudis, Qataris et al. Maybe it's pressure from other backers, but they're not likely to suddenly find favor in Washington out of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 10:23 PM

7. gee who's funneling funds to 'the rebels'

answer that and you've got your answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 10:45 PM

8. I honestly don't know who is funding the rebels.

 

I'm willing to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 10:50 PM

9. well the rebels funding comes from a number of sources including the US

International support

The Libyan National Transitional Council announced in November 2011 that it had been in talks with the Syrian National Council and was considering supplying weapons and volunteer fighters of the National Liberation Army to the Free Syrian Army, and that international intervention may only be weeks away. According to people with links to the National Council, the Libyans were offering money, weapons and training forces loyal to the Syrian National Council. At the end of the month, it was reported that at least 600 fighters of the National Liberation Army from Libya had been dispatched to support the Free Syrian Army and had entered Syria through Turkey.

Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been trying to "cultivate a favorable relationship with whatever government would take the place of Assad."

In February 2012, British foreign secretary William Hague said that Britain was prepared to send advanced communications equipment to the FSA to help them coordinate their forces, but did not mention supplying weapons. A week later the Saudi Gazette reported that the Gulf Cooperation Council was thinking of recognising the Free Syrian Army "as the sole and legitimate representative of the Syrian people", citing an unnamed Bahraini official who requested anonymity.

By the end of February 2012, there was extensive talk by Gulf States of arming the Free Syrian Army. The FSA leadership, however, reported in March that it had not yet received any funds, weapons, or equipment from any government despite recent pledges to help support their armed struggle. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, FSA leader Riad Asaad said that: "There is no practical support from the international community," and that "It's been all talk." The Free Syrian Army for now planned on relying on itself and raids on arms depots, however, it still hoped for outside arms support.

On 1 March, Kuwait's parliament declared support for the FSA. By mid-May, it was reported according to opposition activists and foreign officials that the FSA had started to receive significant financial support from the Persian Gulf nations for the purchase of arms.

In July 2012, a non-governmental organization based in Washington DC, called Syrian Support Group, received clearance from the U.S. Treasury Department to fund the Free Syrian Army.

This page was last modified on 2 June 2013 at 20:46.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Syrian_Army

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 12:09 AM

11. Wikipedia? Seriously?

Citations in that Wiki excerpt include The Wall Street Journal and The Saudi Gazette.

Good stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #11)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 01:06 AM

12. Do you have proof that this is inaccurate or just attempting to cast doubt-again eta link

Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 01:42 AM - Edit history (1)

as usual, when you do not like the truth?

eta link to Syria Support Group's website


http://syriansupportgroup.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #12)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 08:33 AM

15. I think the information is biased based on the sources

I'd say the same of any piece in the Wall Street Journal or that Saudi newspaper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #15)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 12:27 PM

16. so you are completely unaware of the sources of funding for the FSA?

or just do not like realty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #9)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 06:44 AM

14. I think we need a scorecard.

 

Syria
---------
Iran
Hezbollah




Rebels
--------
Hamas
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Quatar
Kuwaiat
Libya


What could possibly go wrong??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 2, 2013, 10:57 PM

10. Sunni countries - Saudi Arabia, Qatar etc fund rebels opposed 2 Shia regimes- Syria, Iran, Hezbollah

With covert operators also factored into the mix - the US is backing SOME rebel groups. The Turks too.

The Russians and Chinese also can't be discounted as playing in the conflict because the covet oil and established military basis in the region.

Where the Sunni/Shia divide isn't stark - the Gulf States play up sectarian civil war with domestic terrorism like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Make no mistake, the age-old Sunni/Shia split is about to blow wide open in the region. Holy terror with a lethal Israel prepared to strike when they fear their interests are threatened.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #10)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 01:25 PM

17. Good to know.

 

good post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jessie04 (Original post)

Mon Jun 3, 2013, 07:48 PM

18. Report: Hezbollah orders Hamas out of Lebanon

 

Lebanese Shi’ite group Hezbollah has ordered Palestinian Sunni group Hamas to have its operatives leave Lebanon effective immediately.

A senior Hezbollah security official informed Ali Baraka, the Hamas representative in Lebanon, of the demand, the Middle East Online news agency reported on Thursday.

The move came because of Hamas support for the Syrian rebels fighting to oust President Bashar Assad, according to the report. Both Hezbollah and Syria are allies of Iran, which provides them with financial and military support.


Meanwhile, Palestinians in the Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp, southeast of Sidon, burned aid that was delivered by Hezbollah, apparently to show their displeasure with the movement’s support for the Assad regime.

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Hezbollah-orders-Hamas-out-of-Lebanon-314850


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread