Arab states rap 'negative' Qatari reply to demands but no new sanctions

[webfact]

Arab states rap 'negative' Qatari reply to demands but no new sanctions

By Ahmed Aboulenein and Karin Strohecker

 

Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani attends a news conference in Rome, Italy, July 1, 2017. REUTERS/Alessandro Bianchi/Files

 

CAIRO/LONDON (Reuters) - Four Arab states refrained on Wednesday from slapping further sanctions on Qatar but voiced disappointment at its "negative" response to their demands and said their boycott of the tiny Gulf nation would continue.

 

Qatar earlier in the day accused Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt of "clear aggression" and said the accusations cited when they severed ties a month ago "were clearly designed to create anti-Qatar sentiment in the West".

 

The four Arab nations accuse Qatar of supporting terrorism and allying with regional foe Iran, which Doha denies. Their foreign ministers met in Cairo on Wednesday after a deadline they gave Qatar to meet 13 demands expired.

 

They had been expected to consider further sanctions at the gathering, but announced no new measures.

 

"The response the four states got was overall negative and lacked any content. We find it did not provide a basis for Qatar to retreat from its policies," Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry said, reading out a joint statement after the meeting.

 

"The political and economic boycott will continue until Qatar changes its policies for the better," Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir told a news conference.

 

Qatar's response to the demands has not been made public.

 

The United Arab Emirates' minister of state for foreign affairs, Anwar Gargash, said in a tweet that Qatar faced "greater isolation, incremental measures and reputational damage" if it did not heed the demands.

 

"For any real discussion with Doha to gain traction, it has to be responsible for past actions and recognise the necessity of changing course. The message from Cairo is zero tolerance for terrorism, (a) powerful message from Arab world to international community. Qatar can't miss the bus," Gargash said.

 

Shoukry later told an Egyptian privately-owned broadcaster that the demands were non-negotiable.

 

"The matter from the beginning was not up for negotiations ... there is no middle ground," he told the On television channel.

 

The foreign ministers said they would meet again soon in the Bahraini capital, Manama, but gave no date. Intelligence chiefs from the four countries also met in Cairo on Tuesday night, officials said.

 

The worst inter-Arab rift for many years has aroused deep disquiet among Western allies who regard the region's ruling dynasties as essential partners in energy and defence.

 

The Arab countries have demanded Qatar curtail its support for the Muslim Brotherhood, shut down the pan-Arab al Jazeera satellite TV channel, close a Turkish military base and downgrade its relations with rival Iran.

 

Turkey, the biggest regional power to stand by Qatar, has sent to Doha 100 cargo planes with supplies since its neighbours cut air and sea links. It has also rushed through legislation to send more troops to its base in Doha.

 

Two contingents of Turkish troops with columns of armoured vehicles have arrived since the crisis erupted on June 5.

 

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday dismissed calls for closure of the base and said the list of Arab demands amounted to an unlawful intervention against Qatari sovereignty.

 

Saudi Arabia's Jubeir said he hoped Turkey would stay neutral and Egypt's Shoukry rejected any non-Arab interference.

 

Qatar along with Turkey backed a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt before it was overthrown in 2013. The Arab states have demanded Qatar sever any links to the Brotherhood and other groups they deem to be terrorist, ideological or sectarian.

 

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi spoke with U.S. President Donald Trump by telephone about Qatar, Sisi's office said on Wednesday.

 

"The visions of the two presidents on dealing with current regional crises were in line, especially when it comes to reaching political settlements which contribute to regional security and stability," Sisi's office said in a statement.

 

Trump has voiced concern to both sides. Qatar, a small peninsular country protruding into the Gulf, hosts the biggest U.S. military base in the region as a bulwark against Iran.

 

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also spoke by phone with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Wednesday, a State Department official said.

 

Shoukry said Trump's call had not affected the statement coming from the foreign ministers.

 

The Qatari foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, told a session of London's Chatham House think-tank that Doha was continuing to call for dialogue to settle the dispute.

 

He said that this was "despite the separation of 12,000 families, despite the siege that is a clear aggression and an insult to all international treaties, bodies and jurisdictions."

 

Isolating Qatar - http://tmsnrt.rs/2sinDGg

 

QATAR GIRDS FOR LONG STALEMATE

 

He suggested Qatar, the world's biggest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and second largest gas exporter after Russia, was preparing for a more protracted rift.

 

"What we've done in the last few weeks is develop different alternative for ways to ensure the supply chain for the country not to be cut off."

 

Qatar announced on Tuesday that it planned to raise LNG production capacity by 30 percent in the next five years.

 

Company and industry sources told Reuters that the West's three biggest energy firms are lobbying Qatar to take part in a huge expansion of its gas output, handing Doha an unintended but timely boost in the dispute.

 

Qatar has invested heavily in infrastructure projects in Western countries and works closely with the United States and other allies on Syria's civil war.

 

"Reading between the lines, the blockading countries (are) demanding that we have to surrender our sovereignty to end the siege, something which ... Qatar will never do," Sheikh Mohammed said.

 

Responding to the accusation that it has drawn too close to Iran, he said Doha had to live alongside Tehran since the two states shared an offshore gas field.

 

Gulf newspapers close to their governments appeared also to see little prospect of any immediate deal.

 

The editor of the Abu Dhabi government-linked al-Ittihad newspaper wrote that Qatar, with a population of two million compared to Saudi Arabia's 31 million, was "walking alone in its dreams and illusions, far away from its Gulf Arab brothers".

 

Qatari officials say the Gulf states' demands are so stiff they suspect they were never seriously meant for negotiation.

 

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, on a tour of Gulf countries, said he was cautiously optimistic the feuding states would reach a solution once they had talks.

 

"But it is also possible that it will continue to be difficult for some days," he told reporters in Kuwait where he met with the Gulf state's ruler who is mediating in the crisis.

 

Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa said any decision on ending Qatar's membership of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would come from the GCC itself and that such a measure would be considered when it next met.

 

(Reporting by Ahmed Aboulenein in Cairo and Karin Strohecker in London; Additional reporting by Ali Abdelaty in Cairo, Sami Aboudi in Dubai, John Irish in Paris, Doina Chiacu, Yara Bayoumy, and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington; Writing by Noah Browning; Editing by Mark Heinrich and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-06

[boomerangutang]

There's a balanced article on the Qatari issue in today's NPR.org

 

I didn't know much about it prior, but after reading the article, I'm siding with Qatar.   There are a lot of issues involved, but the demand, by the countries bullying Qatar, that it kill Al-Jezeera News is out of line.  

 

                      Al-Jazeera is a respectable News organization.  The reason the Saudis and other Arab countries' leaders don't like it, is because it reports stories on the M.East that Arabs don't want reported.  There are similarities with Trump hoping that major US newspapers shut down - because their reporting is too insightful and true, and it's pissing Trump off.   Maybe there are some things the Qataris could do better (that could be said of pretty much any country), but I think the main reason some Arab countries are ganging up on Qatar is that they're allowing Al-Jazeera News organization to speak truth.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

There's a balanced article on the Qatari issue in today's NPR.org

 

I didn't know much about it prior, but after reading the article, I'm siding with Qatar.   There are a lot of issues involved, but the demand, by the countries bullying Qatar, that it kill Al-Jezeera News is out of line.  

 

                      Al-Jazeera is a respectable News organization.  The reason the Saudis and other Arab countries' leaders don't like it, is because it reports stories on the M.East that Arabs don't want reported.  There are similarities with Trump hoping that major US newspapers shut down - because their reporting is too insightful and true, and it's pissing Trump off.   Maybe there are some things the Qataris could do better (that could be said of pretty much any country), but I think the main reason some Arab countries are ganging up on Qatar is that they're allowing Al-Jazeera News organization to speak truth.

 

Baffled by people feeling the need to take sides with regard to this. No matter how one looks at it, all countries involved aren't paragons of virtue, to put it mildly. All the leaderships involved are dubious by Western standards. Perhaps some of them are more "evil" than others, alright. But still doesn't make the other side good enough to cheer.

 

The Al Jazeera demand (which, by the way, does not occupy a central place in the article linked) is not the core issue, but a symptom. Mainly, this is about Qatar showing too much independence to its neighbors (especially SA) liking. Been going on for quite some time now, and unlikely to fade away if things stay their course.

 

Despite the temptation to find similarities to Trump etc., it's worth bearing in mind that Al Jazeera is mouthpiece of Qatar. As such, it does not, for example, cover and investigate stories undesired by the Emir & Co. And not as if Qatar practices the same freedom of press with all regional news outlets. While the demand refers to Al Jazeera and all its variations, I think the main thorn in Qatar's neighbors' side is the Arabic edition. Not quite the same as the English version most posters are familiar with.

[nasanews]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

The Al Jazeera demand (which, by the way, does not occupy a central place in the article linked) is not the core issue

I would definitely say it is the core issue and the rest of of the demands are total B.S.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, nasanews said:

I would definitely say it is the core issue and the rest of of the demands are total B.S.

I don't know if there is one core issue, but since its reporting in various ways undermines the legitimacy of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I'd say it's very important to them. It is the most widely listened to Arabic news service in the mideast.

[nasanews]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I don't know if there is one core issue, but since its reporting in various ways undermines the legitimacy of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I'd say it's very important to them. It is the most widely listened to Arabic news service in the mideast.

This boycott is like a glass that broke, GCC diplomatic relations will not be the same as before.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, nasanews said:

I would definitely say it is the core issue and the rest of of the demands are total B.S.

 

9 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

I don't know if there is one core issue, but since its reporting in various ways undermines the legitimacy of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I'd say it's very important to them. It is the most widely listened to Arabic news service in the mideast.

 

9 hours ago, nasanews said:

This boycott is like a glass that broke, GCC diplomatic relations will not be the same as before.

 

The core issue is SA's (and to a lesser degree, other boycotting countries) wish to bring Qatar back to heel. That's been on for quite some time now. 

 

Each item on the list of demands, by itself, wasn't "key". If sides were interested in negotiation, some sort of compromise could have been worked out. As for demands being "total BS", that would depend on how one interprets them. Take the "supporting Islamic terrorism" thing, for example - from an outsider point of view and as relating to terrorism also directed at the West, obviously both sides dabble in this, so double standards. But taken in regional context, the reference got more to do with support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic elements challenging leadership in Arab countries. The use of "Islamic terrorism", in this case, might be more about branding. But as far as the boycotting countries go, the danger represented in such elements is very real.

 

So yes, shutting down (or curbing) Al Jazeera is certainly something SA & Co. want, but it is not, by itself, the main motivation for this ongoing feud, just an aspect of it.

 

The boycott, if continued and tightened will hurt Qatar badly. Holding on for a month is one thing, adjusting to a permanent reality is another. The GCC might very well see some upheavals, Qatar being booted out a possibility.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

The core issue is SA's (and to a lesser degree, other boycotting countries) wish to bring Qatar back to heel. That's been on for quite some time now. 

 

Each item on the list of demands, by itself, wasn't "key". If sides were interested in negotiation, some sort of compromise could have been worked out. As for demands being "total BS", that would depend on how one interprets them. Take the "supporting Islamic terrorism" thing, for example - from an outsider point of view and as relating to terrorism also directed at the West, obviously both sides dabble in this, so double standards. But taken in regional context, the reference got more to do with support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic elements challenging leadership in Arab countries. The use of "Islamic terrorism", in this case, might be more about branding. But as far as the boycotting countries go, the danger represented in such elements is very real.

 

So yes, shutting down (or curbing) Al Jazeera is certainly something SA & Co. want, but it is not, by itself, the main motivation for this ongoing feud, just an aspect of it.

 

The boycott, if continued and tightened will hurt Qatar badly. Holding on for a month is one thing, adjusting to a permanent reality is another. The GCC might very well see some upheavals, Qatar being booted out a possibility.

But why now?  It could, of course, just be due to the recklessness of Jared of Arabia.

Robert Fisk makes a case for it being nothing to do with Al Jazeera but rather the Syrian situation. http://www.independent.co.uk/Voices/qatar-crisis-saudi-arabia-al-jazeera-syrin-war-real-reason-a7826711.html

Of course, that doesn't preclude the Jared explanation.

As for not being able to resist the boycott, Turkey and Iran, especially Iran, are very eager to help the Qataris. It's a relatively cheap and easy way for the Iranians to keep their avowed enemies off balance.

 

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But why now?  It could, of course, just be due to the recklessness of Jared of Arabia.

Robert Fisk makes a case for it being nothing to do with Al Jazeera but rather the Syrian situation. http://www.independent.co.uk/Voices/qatar-crisis-saudi-arabia-al-jazeera-syrin-war-real-reason-a7826711.html

Of course, that doesn't preclude the Jared explanation.

As for not being able to resist the boycott, Turkey and Iran, especially Iran, are very eager to help the Qataris. It's a relatively cheap and easy way for the Iranians to keep their avowed enemies off balance.

 

 

Why now? Because circumstances presented themselves. Or at least, it appeared that way to begin with.

 

I care not for the "Jared of Arabia" nonsense. The issues between Qatar and its neighbors go back long before Jared was charged with sorting out the ME. More to the point, SA had a new US president, that's apart from being a bumbling buffoon also needed to appease them post-Obama. Whether or not Kushner was actually involved in anything that led to this crisis is a byproduct of Trump's presidency and Obama's legacy. He's not germane to the issue.

 

Without fully buying into Fisk's convulsed account, there's at least this - Al Jazeera is not the headstone of this conflict, and bottom line it is about Qatar playing an increasingly independent role in ME affairs, to the chagrin of SA.

 

With regard to the boycott, again - big difference between temporary measures and a permanent reality. And that's if sanctions do not get tightened (which they almost certainly will). Turkey already said supplies by air are not sustainable, and unless mistaken Qatar does not have a serious deep water port, which may prove a problem if things drag on. Also, I doubt Qatar is anxious being overly dependent on Iran - both for political reasons, and because changing noose with another doesn't really make things better.

[boomerangutang]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

But why now?  It could, of course, just be due to the recklessness of Jared of Arabia.

Robert Fisk makes a case for it being nothing to do with Al Jazeera but rather the Syrian situation. http://www.independent.co.uk/Voices/qatar-crisis-saudi-arabia-al-jazeera-syrin-war-real-reason-a7826711.html

Of course, that doesn't preclude the Jared explanation.

As for not being able to resist the boycott, Turkey and Iran, especially Iran, are very eager to help the Qataris. It's a relatively cheap and easy way for the Iranians to keep their avowed enemies off balance.

                                 You hit a nail on the head - that I was going to add. Thanks.

Note, all these internecine squabbles have been going on on the Arabian peninsula for decades, but IT WAS A DAY OR TWO AFTER TRUMP'S VISIT, that the shit hit the fan.    Saudi Arabia is the 500 lb gorilla on the peninsula, and it got emboldened by Trump's visit.   It gave Trump a fancy gold necklace for which Trump curtsied.   S.Ar. was Trump's first-ever stop outside of the US for him as prez.    It was like Trump was paying homage to S.Ar because it's a rich country, and Trump's favorite people and favorite countries are ostentatiously rich.    He was dancing with swords, smiling, rubbing glowing orbs with his hosts - while a few days later, in Europe, he frowned like a school boy under detention.  He wouldn't even walk with EU leaders down a cobble-stoned walkway.

 

                          Trump shouts every day for the closure of America's most respected newspapers.  Saudi princes thought, "wow cool.  Trump can do it, why can't we?  We hate Al-Jazeera because it publishes our dirty laundry, so we can force tiny Qatar to close it down."   Saudi Arabia and Egypt and most of the other countries in that region are run like mafia families.   The men can run around, get drunk, date-rape women, whatever, out of the limelight, but everyone knows you don't publish stories which reflect badly on 'the family.'   Qatar's Al-Jezeera was breaking the unwritten rules.  It had to be shut down.   Trump/Kushner/Bannon provided the green light to do so.

 

                             If Obama was still, or HRC was president, neither would abide with Arab countries bullying the free press for one minute.    That's a big reason why HRC, in particular, was unpopular with Russians, Arabs, Chinese and other oppressive regimes:   She was wise and brave enough to speak out for what's right.  Trump and Kushner have zero consciousness in that regard.  If the Saudis beheaded women for menstrating, Trump would just grin and say something like, "well, it's not pretty, but what the heck.  They gotta do what they gotta do."

 

Maybe Trump forgot, but I didn't, that all but one of the 9-11 bombers were Saudis.  

 

 

  

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Why now? Because circumstances presented themselves. Or at least, it appeared that way to begin with.

 

I care not for the "Jared of Arabia" nonsense. The issues between Qatar and its neighbors go back long before Jared was charged with sorting out the ME. More to the point, SA had a new US president, that's apart from being a bumbling buffoon also needed to appease them post-Obama. Whether or not Kushner was actually involved in anything that led to this crisis is a byproduct of Trump's presidency and Obama's legacy. He's not germane to the issue.

 

Without fully buying into Fisk's convulsed account, there's at least this - Al Jazeera is not the headstone of this conflict, and bottom line it is about Qatar playing an increasingly independent role in ME affairs, to the chagrin of SA.

 

With regard to the boycott, again - big difference between temporary measures and a permanent reality. And that's if sanctions do not get tightened (which they almost certainly will). Turkey already said supplies by air are not sustainable, and unless mistaken Qatar does not have a serious deep water port, which may prove a problem if things drag on. Also, I doubt Qatar is anxious being overly dependent on Iran - both for political reasons, and because changing noose with another doesn't really make things better.

Jared of Arabia is  the crown prince of saudi arabia.

And Qatar must have a deepwater port if it is sending LNG abroad.

Why would Iran be a noose for Qatar? Iran likes things just the way they are.

[coulson]

 
Why now? Because circumstances presented themselves. Or at least, it appeared that way to begin with.
 
I care not for the "Jared of Arabia" nonsense. The issues between Qatar and its neighbors go back long before Jared was charged with sorting out the ME. More to the point, SA had a new US president, that's apart from being a bumbling buffoon also needed to appease them post-Obama. Whether or not Kushner was actually involved in anything that led to this crisis is a byproduct of Trump's presidency and Obama's legacy. He's not germane to the issue.
 
Without fully buying into Fisk's convulsed account, there's at least this - Al Jazeera is not the headstone of this conflict, and bottom line it is about Qatar playing an increasingly independent role in ME affairs, to the chagrin of SA.
 
With regard to the boycott, again - big difference between temporary measures and a permanent reality. And that's if sanctions do not get tightened (which they almost certainly will). Turkey already said supplies by air are not sustainable, and unless mistaken Qatar does not have a serious deep water port, which may prove a problem if things drag on. Also, I doubt Qatar is anxious being overly dependent on Iran - both for political reasons, and because changing noose with another doesn't really make things better.

Hamad port is pretty serious, although now completely backlogged. The old Doha port was supposed to be converted into a ferry terminal, possible that could change now. Massied and Lusail have operations also. Increased support from Oman ports made it look likely Qatar could weather this fiasco but you are right about the long run.

The Saudi border traffic and business from the UAE were critical towards the infrastructure development ahead of 2022. Talk about timing for a ransom.

What's interesting is that Oman neutrality in the GCC crisis may be another timely factor. There is a growing concern that political instability is not too far away with the condition of the Sultan, in the long run Qatar may have one less sympathizer in the region.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/02/10/oman-sultan-qaboos-terrorism-isis-al-qaeda-548682.html

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Jared of Arabia is  the crown prince of saudi arabia.

And Qatar must have a deepwater port if it is sending LNG abroad.

Why would Iran be a noose for Qatar? Iran likes things just the way they are.

 

Ah, you're back beating that horse. Well, no. There's no real similarity. One is a real estate developer, the other grew up immersed in the highest levels of regional politics. If wishing to make this an issue, may want to look into the Qatari Emir's background - not all too different.

 

The "must" have, right. But the fact is that larger vessels cannot dock there, and much of the traffic was conducted through the UAE. The current bypass, using Oman, is possible, but for how long?

 

Because there are no freebies. If Qatar will be solely dependent on Iran, there's be some political (or economic) price to pay down the road. Take it to the bank.

 

 

[Morch]

23 minutes ago, coulson said:

 

Hamad port is pretty serious, although now completely backlogged. The old Doha port was supposed to be converted into a ferry terminal, possible that could change now. Massied and Lusail have operations also. Increased support from Oman ports made it look likely Qatar could weather this fiasco but you are right about the long run.

The Saudi border traffic and business from the UAE were critical towards the infrastructure development ahead of 2022. Talk about timing for a ransom.

What's interesting is that Oman neutrality in the GCC crisis may be another timely factor. There is a growing concern that political instability is not too far away with the condition of the Sultan, in the long run Qatar may have one less sympathizer in the region.

http://www.newsweek.com/2017/02/10/oman-sultan-qaboos-terrorism-isis-al-qaeda-548682.html

 

 

Far as I know few of the biggest shipping agencies had to scale back activities, and of course, costs are up.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                                 You hit a nail on the head - that I was going to add. Thanks.

Note, all these internecine squabbles have been going on on the Arabian peninsula for decades, but IT WAS A DAY OR TWO AFTER TRUMP'S VISIT, that the shit hit the fan.    Saudi Arabia is the 500 lb gorilla on the peninsula, and it got emboldened by Trump's visit.   It gave Trump a fancy gold necklace for which Trump curtsied.   S.Ar. was Trump's first-ever stop outside of the US for him as prez.    It was like Trump was paying homage to S.Ar because it's a rich country, and Trump's favorite people and favorite countries are ostentatiously rich.    He was dancing with swords, smiling, rubbing glowing orbs with his hosts - while a few days later, in Europe, he frowned like a school boy under detention.  He wouldn't even walk with EU leaders down a cobble-stoned walkway.

 

                          Trump shouts every day for the closure of America's most respected newspapers.  Saudi princes thought, "wow cool.  Trump can do it, why can't we?  We hate Al-Jazeera because it publishes our dirty laundry, so we can force tiny Qatar to close it down."   Saudi Arabia and Egypt and most of the other countries in that region are run like mafia families.   The men can run around, get drunk, date-rape women, whatever, out of the limelight, but everyone knows you don't publish stories which reflect badly on 'the family.'   Qatar's Al-Jezeera was breaking the unwritten rules.  It had to be shut down.   Trump/Kushner/Bannon provided the green light to do so.

 

                             If Obama was still, or HRC was president, neither would abide with Arab countries bullying the free press for one minute.    That's a big reason why HRC, in particular, was unpopular with Russians, Arabs, Chinese and other oppressive regimes:   She was wise and brave enough to speak out for what's right.  Trump and Kushner have zero consciousness in that regard.  If the Saudis beheaded women for menstrating, Trump would just grin and say something like, "well, it's not pretty, but what the heck.  They gotta do what they gotta do."

 

Maybe Trump forgot, but I didn't, that all but one of the 9-11 bombers were Saudis.  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Are you for real?

 

The post above just linked a column taking the point of view this isn't about Al Jazeera, and certainly not about human rights. Hit the nail on the head how?

 

 

Trump is not a key element in this story. The only ones picking up this line seem to be you and him.

 

The Saudis taking a page from Trump's book? Really? We're talking about a country that's kept a led on unwanted media reports way before Trump built his first failed casino. They do not need lessons from Trump. At most, they can laugh about his inability to actually do anything about it. The chances of the Saudi move not being planned ahead are slim. Not when considering how swiftly it was carried out and how quickly spokespersons were on call.

 

Saudi Arabia is run like a mafia family? Perhaps. Is Qatar any different? Not much. Any none-flattering stories about the Al Thani clan in Al Jazeera? Or are they just all so well behaved?

 

Neither Trump, nor Kushner or Bannon gave any "green light". Doubtful that such was sought. The administration aired its simplistic views, parroting the president's campaign trail nonsense, and the Saudis used it as pretext. Trump taking credit for something he had nothing much to do with is nothing new.

 

Praise Obama and HRC all you like, but it's not like previous instances of this conflict did not occur on their watch, nor did these ME countries change their policies while the two were in office. And no, the US did not do anything real drastic to counter such things. HRC, like other politicians talked the talk. Making her into something she wasn't is a choice.

 

[Rancid]

Seems Qatar and its equally obnoxious opponents have all being sponsoring Sunni terrorists, so we know that definitely has nothing to do with the spat.

 

It's probably what its always about, money or ideology. Money as in Qatari gas, and ideology as they have been getting friendlier with Shiite Iran with who they share the world's largest gas field. Then of course there is always that gas pipeline that was to go thru Syria, and since the Russians showed up that now seems unlikely. Perhaps the Qataris saw which way the wind was blowing...

[ilostmypassword]

58 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, you're back beating that horse. Well, no. There's no real similarity. One is a real estate developer, the other grew up immersed in the highest levels of regional politics. If wishing to make this an issue, may want to look into the Qatari Emir's background - not all too different.

 

The "must" have, right. But the fact is that larger vessels cannot dock there, and much of the traffic was conducted through the UAE. The current bypass, using Oman, is possible, but for how long?

 

Because there are no freebies. If Qatar will be solely dependent on Iran, there's be some political (or economic) price to pay down the road. Take it to the bank.

 

 

You must be straining very hard not to see the similarities between Kushner and the Crown Prince.

Both got to their present positions through nepotism - unless you are seriously contending that the Crown Prince was the best man for the job out of the entire Royal Family. Most observers believe the previous occupant was better by far.

Both seem to suffer from a certain grandiosity. Kushner in his move to Manhattan and the Crown Prince (also defense minister) in his confidence in waging war on the Houthis in Yemen and his ludicrously grandiose Saudi Vision 2030. And also in the fact the both hold ludicrously overextended portfolios.

Both demonstrated a peculiar insensitivity to optics. The Kushners posing in expensive clothes and luxurious surroundings. Although that was as nothing compared to the Crown Prince buying a 1/2 billion dolllar yacht on an impulse while calling for cutbacks on benefits to Saudi citizens.

I will concede that the comparison is somewhat unfair to Kushner. Kushner at least has the excuse that he didn't have experience in government before he came on board. As you pointed out, the Crown Prince has had extensive experience in governing.  

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Ah, you're back beating that horse. Well, no. There's no real similarity. One is a real estate developer, the other grew up immersed in the highest levels of regional politics. If wishing to make this an issue, may want to look into the Qatari Emir's background - not all too different.

 

The "must" have, right. But the fact is that larger vessels cannot dock there, and much of the traffic was conducted through the UAE. The current bypass, using Oman, is possible, but for how long?

 

Because there are no freebies. If Qatar will be solely dependent on Iran, there's be some political (or economic) price to pay down the road. Take it to the bank.

 

 

As for shipping. Are you quite sure there's no workaround for that. Qataris have massive amounts of cash at their disposal.

 

And I never said that Qatar would be solely dependent on Iran.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As for shipping. Are you quite sure there's no workaround for that. Qataris have massive amounts of cash at their disposal.

 

And I never said that Qatar would be solely dependent on Iran.

 

There are workaround, some are detailed above. As for them being viable long term, permanent propositions - meh. Worth pointing out, again, that this is with current conditions in place. There will probably be further tightening of sanctions, possibly implications for those dealing with Qatar. Money can't solve all these issues.

 

Twist it however you like - the more Qatar depends on Iran for it's survival, the steeper the price it will have to pay. Nothing will be given freely.

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You must be straining very hard not to see the similarities between Kushner and the Crown Prince.

Both got to their present positions through nepotism - unless you are seriously contending that the Crown Prince was the best man for the job out of the entire Royal Family. Most observers believe the previous occupant was better by far.

Both seem to suffer from a certain grandiosity. Kushner in his move to Manhattan and the Crown Prince (also defense minister) in his confidence in waging war on the Houthis in Yemen and his ludicrously grandiose Saudi Vision 2030. And also in the fact the both hold ludicrously overextended portfolios.

Both demonstrated a peculiar insensitivity to optics. The Kushners posing in expensive clothes and luxurious surroundings. Although that was as nothing compared to the Crown Prince buying a 1/2 billion dolllar yacht on an impulse while calling for cutbacks on benefits to Saudi citizens.

I will concede that the comparison is somewhat unfair to Kushner. Kushner at least has the excuse that he didn't have experience in government before he came on board. As you pointed out, the Crown Prince has had extensive experience in governing.  

 

I'm not straining at all, simply not obsessed with the issue as you seem to be.

Kushner is a temporary installment and his role in ME affairs is not the similar to the  Saudi Crown Prince.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There are workaround, some are detailed above. As for them being viable long term, permanent propositions - meh. Worth pointing out, again, that this is with current conditions in place. There will probably be further tightening of sanctions, possibly implications for those dealing with Qatar. Money can't solve all these issues.

 

Twist it however you like - the more Qatar depends on Iran for it's survival, the steeper the price it will have to pay. Nothing will be given freely.

Your assertion about the Iran price is misguided.  Iran is already getting plenty from this rift between Qatar and the rest of the GCC.  It's in their interests to play the unimpeachable benevolent friend and earn Qatari gratitude.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

I'm not straining at all, simply not obsessed with the issue as you seem to be.

Kushner is a temporary installment and his role in ME affairs is not the similar to the  Saudi Crown Prince.

Let me make it real simple. Both are bad at their jobs and both got their jobs because of nepotism.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Let me make it real simple. Both are bad at their jobs and both got their jobs because of nepotism.

 

That's cool. Now how's that different from many others in such positions? For example, the Emir of Qatar?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Your assertion about the Iran price is misguided.  Iran is already getting plenty from this rift between Qatar and the rest of the GCC.  It's in their interests to play the unimpeachable benevolent friend and earn Qatari gratitude.

 

My assertion is anything but. If you think that growing dependency does not ultimately result in higher price exerted, that's your choice. It just doesn't have a whole lot going for it. What you talk about is, perhaps, relevant to the short term. The point made was with regard to long term considerations.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

That's cool. Now how's that different from many others in such positions? For example, the Emir of Qatar?

As I said I was trying to make it simple for you. 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As I said I was trying to make it simple for you. 

[boomerangutang]

I don't doubt that Saudis had plans to shut down Al-Jazeera for many moons prior.  I just think that it's more than coincidence that dynamic action (toward that goal) was launched a day or two after Trump/Kushner visited (and were feted by) Saudi royalty.  

Trump hates mainstream and liberal media - because they expose him as the dangerous dufus he is.  The Saudi royal family hate Al Jazeera for similar reasons.  

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I don't doubt that Saudis had plans to shut down Al-Jazeera for many moons prior.  I just think that it's more than coincidence that dynamic action (toward that goal) was launched a day or two after Trump/Kushner visited (and were feted by) Saudi royalty.  

Trump hates mainstream and liberal media - because they expose him as the dangerous dufus he is.  The Saudi royal family hate Al Jazeera for similar reasons.  

 

The Saudis used Trump visit, and speech as a feeble pretext for their move. That's about it. Trump did not give them any "green light", and very doubtful that he was informed beforehand. Kushner is in no position to teach the Saudis anything. Al Jazeera is not and was not the focal point of this conflagration, even if it is a thorn in the Saudis' side. As far as there is/was a Saudi sales pitch for Trump, then Al Jazeera as "bad media", fills a similar role to "funding terrorism". Catchphrases.

 

[boomerangutang]

Morch, we don't have to agree whether Al Jazeera (Saudis and other Arabs wanting to shut it down) was the primary focal point of Arab countries bullying Qatar.  I think it was, you don't think so. 

 

On World Press Freedom Index, of all countries and principalities ww, Saudi Arabia scores 168 out of 180. Among those that score lower in the basement are Vietnam, China, Laos, and bottom (no surprise) North Korea.   Thailand is 142.   The top four are all Scandinavian.

 

A peripheral q for that part of the world:   If Syria and Iran are friends, why don't Syrian refugees seek safe haven in Iran?  

[ilostmypassword]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The Saudis used Trump visit, and speech as a feeble pretext for their move. That's about it. Trump did not give them any "green light", and very doubtful that he was informed beforehand. Kushner is in no position to teach the Saudis anything. Al Jazeera is not and was not the focal point of this conflagration, even if it is a thorn in the Saudis' side. As far as there is/was a Saudi sales pitch for Trump, then Al Jazeera as "bad media", fills a similar role to "funding terrorism". Catchphrases.

 

"The Saudis used Trump visit, and speech as a feeble pretext for their move That's about it."

5 Arab Nations Move to Isolate Qatar, Putting the U.S. in a Bind

"Some analysts saw the sudden escalation as a sign that Saudi Arabia and its allies had been emboldened by the recent visit from President Trump, in which he publicly embraced the Saudis as a leading partner in fighting terrorism and countering Iran’s influence."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/world/middleeast/qatar-saudi-arabia-egypt-bahrain-united-arab-emirates.html?_r=0

 

Saudi Arabia’s diplomatic war with Qatar, explained 

But another part of it can in fact be traced to Trump. His recent warmth toward the country, and his aggressive vilification of Iran, helped empower Saudi Arabia to finally act on its longstanding distrust of Qatar. So there is a kind of truth to Trump’s attempt to take credit for this event.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/6/15739606/saudi-arabia-ties-qatar-trump