What the Washington Post Left Out From Its Story on Ismail Haniyeh

Another “in-depth” report from the flailing Washington Post, on how Gazans reacted to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, is more evidence of the Post’s whitewashing of Hamas, and of its animus toward Israel. For the most important thing — the thing which must always be mentioned in connection with Ismail Haniyeh — was left out. That is the Grand Theft of $4 billion by Haniyeh, money stolen from the aid given by foreign donors for the benefit of the people of Gaza. The Post‘s report does mention that Haniyeh lived a comfortable existence in Doha, but a “comfortable existence” does not do justice to a four-billion-dollar theft. And while they are at it, any self-respecting reporters reporting on the theft of aid money by Haniyeh ought to mention the four billion dollars stolen by a second Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, and the three billion dollars accumulated by yet a third leader, Mousa Abu Marzouk.

The full Post report can be found here: “Death of Hamas chief draws mixed reactions in war-battered Gaza,” by Miriam Berger and Hajar Harb, Washington Post, August 3, 2024:

For many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh was one of them.

Haniyeh was “one of them”? That farcical description of a thieving billionaire is a tribute to Hamas’ ability to control information reaching people in Gaza, keeping from them the terrible truth about Ismail Haniyeh, Khaled Meshaal, and Mousa Abu Marzouk.

As soon as he rose sufficiently high through the ranks of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh ceased to be “one of them”— that is, one of the ordinary people of Gaza he pretended to care about — and became their grasping oppressor, who over nearly two decades proceeded, like two of his fellow Hamas leaders, to rob them blind.

He grew up in a refugee camp and attended schools run by the United Nations. Even as he climbed the ranks of Hamas, briefly serving as Palestinian prime minister, Haniyeh continued to live in the camp, playing soccer in the streets and nurturing his image as a modest leader.

He was “nurturing his image,” all right. He presented himself as just a guy, this down-to-earth Ismail Haniyeh, never putting on airs, just as genuine and unassuming as they come, kicking a ball around with the shebab, showing that despite his ever-ascending rank in Hamas he remained one of the boys, never letting power go to his head. Of course, he knew this act was the best way to keep Gazans convinced he was “one of them” and would keep them from discovering his colossal wealth, with real estate holdings in Europe and Qatar, and those secret Swiss bank accounts. A Palestinian male version of Jenny from the block.

But by the time he was killed early Wednesday in Tehran — in an operation Hamas blamed on Israel — Haniyeh had been living far from Gaza for eight years, preferring in 2016 to move his office to Doha than to endure life in the Strip. As the Hamas political chief, he split most of his time between Qatar and Turkey, courting diplomats and dignitaries. More than 1,100 miles away in Gaza, however, the movement he led had staged a brutal attack in Israel on October 7. Haniyeh, of course, was in on the attack; he helped to plan it. The IDF at once responded to the Hamas atrocities on that day with a ferocious counterattack, beginning a campaign that has now lasted ten months, the longest war in Israel’s history. The IDF was, and remains, determined to destroy Hamas as a functioning military force. And since October 7, Ismail Haniyeh did not know it, but he was a dead man walking.

Residents there said many people, whether they supported Hamas or not, mourned Haniyeh’s death as the loss of a Palestinian leader, one of many who have been killed over the years. Others said they were torn, angry that Haniyeh was killed by what they suspect were Israeli operatives, but with little sympathy for a man who dined in Istanbul and Doha while they lived in fear of constant Israeli fire….

How understated of the Washington Post to describe Haniyeh’s excesses as only being a manner of fancy meals in Istanbul and Doha, while avoiding any mention of the four billion dollars he stole from the donors’ aid meant to ameliorate the living conditions of the plain people of Gaza. How remarkably reluctant the Washington Post reporters were to mention this essential fact about Haniyeh, and how telling, too, that their editors back in Washington never suggested that that fact of his colossal wealth, and it source, ought to have been included in their report as a central part of the story of Ismail Haniyeh.