UAE says it is headed for 'long estrangement' with Qatar

[webfact]

UAE says it is headed for 'long estrangement' with Qatar

 

FILE PHOTO: A man walks on the corniche in Doha, Qatar, June 15, 2017. REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon/File Photo/

 

DUBAI (Reuters) - There will be no quick end to the row between Qatar and the four states boycotting it including the United Arab Emirates, the UAE minister of state for foreign affairs wrote on his official Twitter account on Friday.

 

"We are headed for a long estrangement ... we are very far from a political solution involving a change in Qatar's course, and in light of that nothing will change and we have to look for a different format of relations," Anwar al-Gargash said.

 

The statement suggested no breakthrough in the situation after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson left the Gulf on Thursday following a three-day tour of Gulf Arab countries aimed at easing the worst dispute among U.S.-allied Arab states in years.

 

Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt cut diplomatic and transport ties with Qatar on June 5, accusing it of supporting terrorism and regional arch-foe Iran, charges Doha denies.

 

During his Doha visit, Tillerson signed a U.S.-Qatari accord on terrorism financing in an effort to help ease the crisis, but Qatar's opponents said it fell short of allaying their concerns.

 

The State Department said on Thursday that Tillerson hoped the parties in the dispute could soon negotiate face-to-face.

 

"Based on his meetings, the secretary believes that getting the parties to talk directly to one another would be an important next step," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters.

 

"We hope the parties will agree to do so."

 

(Reporting by Mohamed el Sherif and Noah Browning; Editing by Sandra Maler and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-14

[boomerangutang]

I still think the primary basis for the bad blood is Al-Jazeera, which is hosted by Qatar.

 

the old adage; 'The pen is mightier than the sword' fits.

 

Other Arab peninsula countries gained confidence by Trump's recent visit.  It's no secret that Trump hates a free press, and is doing all he can to put all not-right-wing US media out of business. Within a day or two after Trump's entourage left S.Arabia, the full court press against Qatar was put in motion.  Note: Egypt is a big player in the coalition bullying little Qatar.  UAE is a little spot on the map, but it's trying to gain credence with its bigger neighbors by appearing bullish against fellow tiny-dot-on-map Qatar.

 

In the M.East, you can harbor and/or send mass murderers overseas, no problem.  You can also praise an Ayatollah who says it's ok for a man to force sex on a little girl as long as he doesn't penetrate beyond the crown of his penis (yes, Iran's revered Ayatollah actually wrote that), .......but if you print something non-laudatory about a Saudi royal - watch out!

[Andaman Al]

What a short memory and loyalty the Emirates have when it was Qatari money that raised the UAE out of the sand dunes and helped turn Dubai from the fishing village it was to its present state of "utopia" 

[VocalNeal]

23 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

What a short memory and loyalty the Emirates have

No one in the "Middle East" has a short memory. Quite the contrary. This latest spat could be about something that happened hundred of years ago but now the time is right.

 

Could be about something as trivial as a Qatari drinking out of an Emirati well, without permission. 

 

I suspect that the price of natural gas which is where Qatar gets its money has not dropped in price as much as oil. The Saudis want to wear the largest trouser in that part of the world but their coffers and dwindling. While the Qatari coffers may not be to the same extent.

 

<<<< Off topic comments removed to prevent further off topic discussion >>>>

Edited July 15, 2017 by metisdead

[ilostmypassword]

46 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

No one in the "Middle East" has a short memory. Quite the contrary. This latest spat could be about something that happened hundred of years ago but now the time is right.

 

Could be about something as trivial as a Qatari drinking out of an Emirati well, without permission. 

 

I suspect that the price of natural gas which is where Qatar gets its money has not dropped in price as much as oil. The Saudis want to wear the largest trouser in that part of the world but their coffers and dwindling. While the Qatari coffers may not be to the same extent.

 

Saudi war with Yemen is the same. Yemen has more oil reserves than most of the Middle East combined but Saudi does not want than to be able to develop them.

 

"No one in the "Middle East" has a short memory. Quite the contrary. This latest spat could be about something that happened hundred of years ago but now the time is right.

 

Could be about something as trivial as a Qatari drinking out of an Emirati well, without permission."

 

You got any more examples of clichéd thinking? 

[Dave67]

Good , I can continue to eat  cherries from Lebanon and eggs from Iran

 

Think Qatars resolve was underestimated by the other GCC nations

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Dave67 said:

Good , I can continue to eat  cherries from Lebanon and eggs from Iran

 

Think Qatars resolve was underestimated by the other GCC nations

No Turkish cherries? That's where cherries began.

[Dave67]

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

No Turkish cherries? That's where cherries began.

I checked they are from Lebanon , Turkish milk , bread , Yogurts ect. No hardship at all. The government provide cheap arabic bread 10 for about 9bt which is quite tasty when warmed in a pan. That price is all of the time not just now. So they look after their poor as well as spending billions on world cup projects

[Morch]

3 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I still think the primary basis for the bad blood is Al-Jazeera, which is hosted by Qatar.

 

the old adage; 'The pen is mightier than the sword' fits.

 

Other Arab peninsula countries gained confidence by Trump's recent visit.  It's no secret that Trump hates a free press, and is doing all he can to put all not-right-wing US media out of business. Within a day or two after Trump's entourage left S.Arabia, the full court press against Qatar was put in motion.  Note: Egypt is a big player in the coalition bullying little Qatar.  UAE is a little spot on the map, but it's trying to gain credence with its bigger neighbors by appearing bullish against fellow tiny-dot-on-map Qatar.

 

In the M.East, you can harbor and/or send mass murderers overseas, no problem.  You can also praise an Ayatollah who says it's ok for a man to force sex on a little girl as long as he doesn't penetrate beyond the crown of his penis (yes, Iran's revered Ayatollah actually wrote that), .......but if you print something non-laudatory about a Saudi royal - watch out!

 

And I still think your grasp of ME affairs is sketchy. Quoting Old adages notwithstanding.

 

Both sides to this conflict play a PR game using catchy labels. The Saudi camp is pushing the "supporting terrorism" and "ties to Iran" slogans, while Qatar highlights supposed freedom of press etc. Buying into it is a choice, and not surprisingly, one which people tend to make based on uninformed preconceptions or irrelevant political positions.

 

There's not real explanation given to the assertion that Egypt is "a big player in this coalition. There''s not much substance or accuracy when it comes to describing the UAE as just trying gain credence with "bigger neighbors". There's little merit to using images such as "little Qatar". Qatar punches way above it's size when it comes to regional affairs, and it does interfere, one way or another with the domestic affairs of various countries in the region. It was just a question of time as to when it would be slapped. 

 

How the last incoherent paragraph even begins to relate to those above is mystery.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

No Turkish cherries? That's where cherries began.

 

There's a saying in the ME (comes in different versions) that ________ (enter name of fruit) are better following wars. That's mostly aired in connection with pomegranates and olives, I think, but recall it being used by a Lebanese "explaining" why their fruits are "the best". When it came to cherries, I was inclined to agree.  

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And I still think your grasp of ME affairs is sketchy. Quoting Old adages notwithstanding.

 

Both sides to this conflict play a PR game using catchy labels. The Saudi camp is pushing the "supporting terrorism" and "ties to Iran" slogans, while Qatar highlights supposed freedom of press etc. Buying into it is a choice, and not surprisingly, one which people tend to make based on uninformed preconceptions or irrelevant political positions.

 

There's not real explanation given to the assertion that Egypt is "a big player in this coalition. There''s not much substance or accuracy when it comes to describing the UAE as just trying gain credence with "bigger neighbors". There's little merit to using images such as "little Qatar". Qatar punches way above it's size when it comes to regional affairs, and it does interfere, one way or another with the domestic affairs of various countries in the region. It was just a question of time as to when it would be slapped. 

 

How the last incoherent paragraph even begins to relate to those above is mystery.

"Qatar punches way above it's size when it comes to regional affairs, and it does interfere, one way or another with the domestic affairs of various countries in the region. It was just a question of time as to when it would be slapped."

 

"interfere"? On the one hand it certainly covers Qatar's support of Al Nusra in Syria. But does it really apply to Al Jazeera's friendly coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood? I'm sure the Egyptians and Saudis feel that way. Not so sure that others believe it should apply to press coverage. 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Dave67 said:

Good , I can continue to eat  cherries from Lebanon and eggs from Iran

 

Think Qatars resolve was underestimated by the other GCC nations

 

1 hour ago, Dave67 said:

I checked they are from Lebanon , Turkish milk , bread , Yogurts ect. No hardship at all. The government provide cheap arabic bread 10 for about 9bt which is quite tasty when warmed in a pan. That price is all of the time not just now. So they look after their poor as well as spending billions on world cup projects

 

It's a question of how long sanctions will be in place and how strict the sanctions regime will be. Doubt that Saudi Arabia and it's gang were not aware of Qatar's options regarding supplies. Not putting more effort into blocking these options from the outset of the conflict can be interpreted as a sign of keeping the push within certain bounds. Lets hope it stays this way.

 

If and when Qatar's opponents attempt to tighten the blockade, apply more pressure on countries aiding Qatar - things may change. The "resolve", on both sides (which I prefer to call "stubbornness") is less of a real sentiment, but more a face and bargaining position thing. Don't see Qatar's "resolve" as being more underestimated than Qatar's underestimation of the Saudi "resolve" in addressing the long standing issues between the countries.

 

Still early days on this.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

"Qatar punches way above it's size when it comes to regional affairs, and it does interfere, one way or another with the domestic affairs of various countries in the region. It was just a question of time as to when it would be slapped."

 

"interfere"? On the one hand it certainly covers Qatar's support of Al Nusra in Syria. But does it really apply to Al Jazeera's friendly coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood? I'm sure the Egyptians and Saudis feel that way. Not so sure that others believe it should apply to press coverage. 

 

 

Painting the issue as "Al Jazeera's friendly coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood" is a pretty shallow take on things. Al Jazeera coverage of regional affairs, especially when it comes to its Arabic edition goes farther than that, And if you imagine that rival media outlets are allowed similar practices within Qatar, think again.

 

That you apply Western concepts relating to press coverage and freedom of press with regard to Al Jazeera's role in the region is great. Now there's just this reality of it being owned and controlled by the Qatari regime. If we could only ignore that and present it as an agent of Western ideals, that'd be awesome.

 

The ME is not the West. The same rules do not apply.

[mesquite]

4 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

I still think the primary basis for the bad blood is Al-Jazeera, which is hosted by Qatar.

 

the old adage; 'The pen is mightier than the sword' fits.

 

Other Arab peninsula countries gained confidence by Trump's recent visit.  It's no secret that Trump hates a free press, and is doing all he can to put all not-right-wing US media out of business. Within a day or two after Trump's entourage left S.Arabia, the full court press against Qatar was put in motion.  Note: Egypt is a big player in the coalition bullying little Qatar.  UAE is a little spot on the map, but it's trying to gain credence with its bigger neighbors by appearing bullish against fellow tiny-dot-on-map Qatar.

 

In the M.East, you can harbor and/or send mass murderers overseas, no problem.  You can also praise an Ayatollah who says it's ok for a man to force sex on a little girl as long as he doesn't penetrate beyond the crown of his penis (yes, Iran's revered Ayatollah actually wrote that), .......but if you print something non-laudatory about a Saudi royal - watch out!

The topic has nothing to do with Trump, does not mention his name at all in the OP.

 

Time to get over it.

[nausea]

4 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Could be about something as trivial as a Qatari drinking out of an Emirati well, without permission. 

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Painting the issue as "Al Jazeera's friendly coverage of the Muslim Brotherhood" is a pretty shallow take on things. Al Jazeera coverage of regional affairs, especially when it comes to its Arabic edition goes farther than that, And if you imagine that rival media outlets are allowed similar practices within Qatar, think again.

 

That you apply Western concepts relating to press coverage and freedom of press with regard to Al Jazeera's role in the region is great. Now there's just this reality of it being owned and controlled by the Qatari regime. If we could only ignore that and present it as an agent of Western ideals, that'd be awesome.

 

The ME is not the West. The same rules do not apply.

The point isn't whether Al Jazeera is unbiased or not. The issue isn't even about a free press. RT is hardly unbiased or independent yet no one complains that its often calumnious reporting about the USA is interfering in the USA's affairs. Only authoritarians, autocrats, or dictators call any kind of open press coverage interference in their affairs. Now, please show me where I wrote or even implied that Al-Jazeera is an "agent of Western ideals." or that I was applying "Western concepts relating to press coverage and freedom of the press."

[Morch]

5 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

The point isn't whether Al Jazeera is unbiased or not. The issue isn't even about a free press. RT is hardly unbiased or independent yet no one complains that its often calumnious reporting about the USA is interfering in the USA's affairs. Only authoritarians, autocrats, or dictators call any kind of open press coverage interference in their affairs. Now, please show me where I wrote or even implied that Al-Jazeera is an "agent of Western ideals." or that I was applying "Western concepts relating to press coverage and freedom of the press."

 

Russia was actually said to have attempted to intervene in US internal affairs, and some of this related to use of state owned media outlets in order to push certain narratives, propagate rumors, publish biased stories and engage in agenda driven coverage.

 

There is a line between reporting the news and affecting the news. The argument is that when it comes to Al Jazeera's coverage of regional issues, and with regard to its Arabic edition, the line was crossed. There were previous agreements and understandings between involved countries to refrain from such practices. Al Jazeera (and hence, Qatar) failed to comply with these. The same goes for non-media related issues which are considered internal threats - harboring dissidents, supporting anti-regime groups, pushing certain political and social agendas. 

 

Worth bearing in mind that these are not democratic, open societies. Not even Qatar. Criticism of the regime is not readily acceptable and is considered a threat. By all involved, including Qatar. Treating them as anything other than what they are is off-mark. Treating one of them as significantly different on this score, is off-mark.

 

Your post above is exhibits a Western oriented concepts regarding the media's role and the way it ought to be considered and responded to.  As said earlier, the same rules do not apply. 

[boomerangutang]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

And I still think your grasp of ME affairs is sketchy. Quoting Old adages notwithstanding.

Both sides to this conflict play a PR game using catchy labels. The Saudi camp is pushing the "supporting terrorism" and "ties to Iran" slogans, while Qatar highlights supposed freedom of press etc. Buying into it is a choice, and not surprisingly, one which people tend to make based on uninformed preconceptions or irrelevant political positions.

There's not real explanation given to the assertion that Egypt is "a big player in this coalition. There''s not much substance or accuracy when it comes to describing the UAE as just trying gain credence with "bigger neighbors". There's little merit to using images such as "little Qatar". Qatar punches way above it's size when it comes to regional affairs, and it does interfere, one way or another with the domestic affairs of various countries in the region. It was just a question of time as to when it would be slapped. 

How the last incoherent paragraph even begins to relate to those above is mystery.

We probably agree on most things.  And you appear to have a more close-up view of M.East issues than I.

 

Yet, all the other issues (other than Al-Jazeera) are money- or being-nice-to-terrorist based.  Those sorts of issues have been swirling around the M.East since before Caesar got lascivious with Cleopatra.  The difference is, now fellow-Arab countries are ganging up on little Qatar and insisting on changes.  Arab countries aren't known for doing that.   They tolerate what their neighbors do, and sometimes they go to war, but this scenario is different.  I attribute it to the Al-Jazeera issue.  Here are two hypotheticals which would  prove my point:  

 

A.  Qatar abides by all the bullies' demands, except insists on keeping Al-Jazeera active, 

(The bullies would still be unsatisfied, and continue their bullying)

 

B.   Qatar nixes Al-Jezeera, but hangs tough with all the other demands.

(The bully coalition would back down)

[Andaman Al]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

We probably agree on most things.  And you appear to have a more close-up view of M.East issues than I.

 

Yet, all the other issues (other than Al-Jazeera) are money- or being-nice-to-terrorist based.  Those sorts of issues have been swirling around the M.East since before Caesar got lascivious with Cleopatra.  The difference is, now fellow-Arab countries are ganging up on little Qatar and insisting on changes.  Arab countries aren't known for doing that.   They tolerate what their neighbors do, and sometimes they go to war, but this scenario is different.  I attribute it to the Al-Jazeera issue.  Here are two hypotheticals which would  prove my point:  

 

A.  Qatar abides by all the bullies' demands, except insists on keeping Al-Jazeera active, 

(The bullies would still be unsatisfied, and continue their bullying)

 

B.   Qatar nixes Al-Jezeera, but hangs tough with all the other demands.

(The bully coalition would back down)

The problem is that negotiations are not as simple as else where. Just as in Asia, this part of the Middle East are obsessed with 'face'. I am unsure at this moment who will actually back down if indeed anybody will.

[Morch]

11 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

We probably agree on most things.  And you appear to have a more close-up view of M.East issues than I.

 

Yet, all the other issues (other than Al-Jazeera) are money- or being-nice-to-terrorist based.  Those sorts of issues have been swirling around the M.East since before Caesar got lascivious with Cleopatra.  The difference is, now fellow-Arab countries are ganging up on little Qatar and insisting on changes.  Arab countries aren't known for doing that.   They tolerate what their neighbors do, and sometimes they go to war, but this scenario is different.  I attribute it to the Al-Jazeera issue.  Here are two hypotheticals which would  prove my point:  

 

A.  Qatar abides by all the bullies' demands, except insists on keeping Al-Jazeera active, 

(The bullies would still be unsatisfied, and continue their bullying)

 

B.   Qatar nixes Al-Jezeera, but hangs tough with all the other demands.

(The bully coalition would back down)

 

That's just another post peppered with unfounded assertions.

 

For starters, there is no "bring nice to terrorists" issue. Or at least, not in the sense many posters seem to take it. The "terrorism" moniker is used because it plays well in the West - where it is often taken to represent ISIS, AQ and such. But for the countries involved, terrorism may stand for opposition organizations, dissenters, NGO or those of different religious schools. Whether or not one accepts this position as legitimate is irrelevant (and to be clear, Qatar is no different when it comes to its own internal affairs).

 

ME regimes are focused on their survival. Many of the official and unofficial understandings between them relate to avoiding such actions that may be considered a threat to neighbor regimes' survival. If and when a country is seen as violating such conventions, there are consequences. Doesn't always come to blows, but diplomatic "ganging up" is not uncommon. Actions of neighbors are tolerated as long as everyone avoids meddling in affairs next door.

 

What the Saudi's and the rest are on about is Qatar seen as repeatedly breaching the accepted etiquette. Citing Al Jazeera's activity is an instance of the above, but so is harboring dissidents or supporting groups seen as anti-regime in neighboring countries. And to be clear, these are not new issues, and Qatar did previously agree cease and desist (sort of, obviously) with regard to such issues. So what the Saudis & Co. demand are not exactly changes pertaining to Qatar itself, but to its conduct within the accepted ME norms.

 

Painting things as "little Qatar" vs. "bullies" is a loaded presentation, not an even an argument. Your two "hypothetical" scenarios prove nothing. They are simply exhibit a shallow grasp of the issued contended and of Al Jazeera's place relative to them.

 

That negotiations and agreement, if and when conducted and reached, would see both sides not fully getting their way is a safe bet. That this doesn't imply what you assume, is another.

 

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

The problem is that negotiations are not as simple as else where. Just as in Asia, this part of the Middle East are obsessed with 'face'. I am unsure at this moment who will actually back down if indeed anybody will.

 

Negotiations would have had a better chance of going somewhere if the list of demands wasn't made public. The minute it was out there, neither side had much space to maneuver. As there are multiple parties (both in and out of directly involved countries) who may gain from the conflict remaining unresolved, it is hard to point fingers with much confidence.

 

Most ME negotiations take place on parallel channels. The official one is often where big statements are aired and tough positions presented. At the same time, there's usually at least another effort going on, with less vehemence and more concrete dealings. The messages on the former change as things develop or stall in the latter. There's usually also quite a bit of domestic rivalries at hand which effect the chances and outcome of such negotiations.

 

More often than not, information regarding backdoor channels, parallel negotiations and domestic considerations are less accessible to the public. That leaves discussion with commentary relating to the "main show", while the action is probably backstage.

 

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed. 

[simple1]

UAE hacked Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials; refer Washington Post website

Edited July 16, 2017 by simple1

[ilostmypassword]

25 minutes ago, simple1 said:

UAE hacked Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials; refer Washington Post website

UAE orchestrated hacking of Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials

The United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Officials became aware last week that newly analyzed information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed that on May 23, senior members of the UAE government discussed the plan and its implementation. The officials said it remains unclear whether the UAE carried out the hacks itself or contracted to have them done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/uae-hacked-qatari-government-sites-sparking-regional-upheaval-according-to-us-intelligence-officials/2017/07/16/00c46e54-698f-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html

[NanLaew]

28 minutes ago, simple1 said:

UAE hacked Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials; refer Washington Post website

Let's see what Tillerson makes of that.

 

Based on the source, Trump will be along shortly to Tweet about fake news.

[Dave67]

Read an article yesterday in a local paper that 6 Arab nations are asking FIFA to strip Qatar of the world cup as it's not safe for tourist football fans in Qatar. Really looks like they are desperate to win this thing and don't understand that the bungs that were made by Qatar to get the world cup are not returnable. They also have some front labeling Qatar as a dangerous.country. 

[coulson]

Read an article yesterday in a local paper that 6 Arab nations are asking FIFA to strip Qatar of the world cup as it's not safe for tourist football fans in Qatar. Really looks like they are desperate to win this thing and don't understand that the bungs that were made by Qatar to get the world cup are not returnable. They also have some front labeling Qatar as a dangerous.country. 

 

While this isn't entirely unfathomable, FIFA and the Swiss news agency who supposedly reported this story are claiming it was fake news on a fake website resembling it's news page.

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/3601764/saudi-arabia-qatar-world-cup/

 

 

 

[Dave67]

3 hours ago, coulson said:

 

While this isn't entirely unfathomable, FIFA and the Swiss news agency who supposedly reported this story are claiming it was fake news on a fake website resembling it's news page.

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/3601764/saudi-arabia-qatar-world-cup/

 

 

 

That's the second one the last one was about Qatari citizens and residents not being allowed to leave the country

[boomerangutang]

new word:  self-estrangement.

 

In the US, they have self-storage.  I always picture folks storing themselves - in a closet or wherever.  

[boomerangutang]

              It's being reported by mainstream media, that Kushner asked for a loan of $500 million from a Quatari heavy, and was turned down.  That was just before the Trump/Kushner visit to S.Arabia.  Perhaps Kushner took his anger - and used it as leverage to force Arab countries to bully Qatar.   Note:  Arab countries are always having problems with each other, but it's very rare for several countries to gang up on one.  I can't think of another instance, can you?   Even when there are wars, like the Iraq/Iran war, or a concerted attack on Afghanistan by the US in 2002, other Arab countries just sat back and watched from the sidelines.   As far as I can see, this sustained ganging up on / bullying Qatar is unprecedented.