Talk:Qatar

Relation to Terrorism

Qatar has been criticised for allowing terror financiers to operate within its borders, with accusations originating from intelligence reports, government officials, and journalists. In 2014, U.S. officials, including David S. Cohen, claimed that Qatar had failed to take action against blacklisted individuals living freely in the country. Despite introducing anti-terrorism laws in 2004 and updating them in subsequent years, Qatar faced allegations of supporting groups like Hamas, which it denied, stating its goal was to facilitate constructive engagement with the Palestinian Authority. These concerns contributed to the Qatar diplomatic crisis from 2017 to 2021.^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Fidjeri (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @User:Aoi, @Abo Yemen, @Lukewarmbeer, and @Redrose64 who participated in the previous RfC. Fidjeri (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Polling

Yes. Allegations of terror financing and support for terrorism in Qatar have received sustained coverage in high-quality sources over many years. That's a very notable controversy. The section should remain, with improvements: expand sourcing, attribute claims, include Qatari responses and more high quality analyses. Rafi Chazon (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

No. The section violates quite a lot of policies (see Talk:Qatar#"Relation to terrorism" section). 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

No, the section is WP:Undue, and such accusations are from unsavory regimes that themselves are considered major terrorism sponsors, such as the UAE, KSA and Israel, and stem mainly from political disputes and aren't grounded in reality. Furthermore, their "ties" to terrorist groups are mainly at the request of their accusers: Israel asked Qatar to host Hamas' political bureau and the US asked them to host the Taliban. Their support for militant Islamist groups is based on tenuous sources which attribute state support to individual donors. The country's only substantiated links to what could be considered terrorism lie in their support for Islamist regimes, such as Mohamed Morsi in Egypt or Hamadi Jebali in Tunisia, whom the state funded. Any other allegations are completely unsubstantiated and not supported by non-biased sources. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No. Per User:Abo Yemen and Elspamo4 R3YBOl (🌲) 20:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No - First the 2014 bit is WP:UNDUE. The rest is WP:SYNTH. Qatar's diplomatic spat with its neighbors in 2017 was not due to Qatar's hosting of Hamas. Grimforge (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but with some changes. It seems inescapable that Qatar’s relation to terror financing be addressed in its main article, regardless of determinations on the subject itself, since it has been a meaningful point of contention in its foreign relations with critical countries such as the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, etc.

In terms of its relations with Saudi, UAE, Bahrain and Egypt, allegations of Qatari state-sponsored terrorism were cited as a main reason for the Qatar Diplomatic Crisis, which is a very meaningful episode of the history of the State of Qatar. The section should be re-written to better reflect the consensus on the motives and substance of these allegations.

In terms of its relations with the US, a crucial ally, various US agencies and representatives have pointed at terror-financing originating from Qatar (and allegedly not facing enough resistance from the state) throughout the 2000’s and 2010’s, eventually leading to the signing of a new Memorandum of Understanding between the two to improve Qatar’s Combatting of Terrorism Financing. The US Department of State has since published multiple reports on this matter, indicating that it has historically seen terror financing as a point of contention in its relations with Qatar, even as it reports on Qatari progress in this matter.

Overall, the claims that the section should not exist seem untenable given that this has been such a pertinent issue in the country’s foreign relations with critical partners and rivals such as the US and Saudi, but the section should definitely be re-written to properly reflect the nature of the various allegations, they way in which they have affected Qatar’s foreign relations, and the ways in which said allegations were (or are being) resolved. BlookyNapsta (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC) _{Struck edit made by compromised account used for block-evasion.)}

The current proposed text implies that Qatar for hosting Hamas contributed to a previous political crisis between Qatar, Saudi, UAE, Egypt. That crisis where they unsuccessfully tried to pressure Qatar to stop support - according to them - to the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State, al-Qaida and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.. except for Qatar's support to Muslim brotherhood's Egyptian President Morsi the rest of these claims have no merit. Regardless of these claims, Hamas, as the current proposed text being requested to be added, is not among them. In fact, none of these countries designate Hamas as a terrorist organization themselves. The current proposed text is disingenuous. Grimforge (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but... (summoned by SodiumBot). Since the article Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism exists, it seems like there should be some kind of summary of it in the main Qatar article. I don't know if the paragraph in question is the best summary of that other article, but it would be better to rework it than remove it altogether. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I agree with @Barnards.tar.gz:. This is clearly a notable controversy on the countries, and we do show information about notable controversies in many country articles. The wording could be improved for clarity and more content should be added. HHRIA123 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

No, but... (Summoned by bot) I think as written this section violates a number of policies (synth, MOS:TERRORIST) as well as maybe being some kind of promotional content for this David S. Cohen figure, who seems to be referenced whenever this topic comes up. (This is my weakest complaint, and might be just me finding a pattern where there isn't one.) Linking to the main article on the topic somewhere in the article would make sense, though. Smallangryplanet (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the arguments above against restoration are not convincing, as every sentence in the paragraph appears to represent fact, regardless of the character of the quartet nations, which is not the discussion here. See Lynch who clearly states that the accusation of providing financial support for terrorist organizations was central to the position of the quartet against Qatar at the time.^[6] Qatar offered sanctuary "to members of Saddam Hussein’s family, one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, a Chechen warlord, Egyptian sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi who who advocated for suicide bombings,^[7] and exiles from Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Lebanon"^[8] as well as to the leaders of the Taliban ^[9] Hamas and Hezbollah.^[10], and Qatar has in fact been criticised for it. "Qatar has provided financial support for Hamas for years"^[11] and did in fact refute the allegations with the explanation stated.^[12] It is not undue, simply because it is a substantial part of Qatari history if not part of its present, and it has implications for the future. In all honesty I think the paragraph needs expansion. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

For about a year, the section on Qatar's connection to terror was included in the article for the last year. The section is properly sourced, relying on WP:RS. Recently, certain users have been trying remove it, claiming that it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Other countries have sections on notable controversies on their Wikipedia pages, for example Afghanistan#Human_rights, Saudi_Arabia#Allegations_of_sponsoring_global_terrorism, Myanmar#Genocide_allegations,_Organ_trading_and_human_trafficking, Nigeria#Communal_conflicts, Venezuela#Corruption, Egypt#Freedom_of_the_press. Fidjeri (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for listing examples of similar sections. Out of the examples listed, I'd say that the Myanmar and Saudi sections are most similar. For the Myanmar section, their genocide is currently recognized by the United Nation's highest court. For Saudi Arabia, their "sponsoring global terrorism" is in large part due to the citizenship of 19 of the 25 hijackers of the 9/11 flights, which was the most lethal incident of terrorism in history, and involved allegations of government officials involved in the plot. The article also notes that their citizens are the biggest sponsors of terrorist groups worldwide. I'm personally not convinced that it's on par with Qatar's alleged support of Hamas, or any other of its "terrorist" activities I'm aware of. Elspamo4 (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@Fidjeri, can you close the first RFC you started. Having two RFCs on the same thing at the same time isn't helpful. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Should we not simply reference (and update as required) our article [Qatar and state sponsored terrorism]Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We should summarise that article and link to it with a {{main}} heading. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment - Shouldn't this RfC fall under WP:PIA since it is directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)