Books and Documents

Middle East Press (13 Jun 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

The Qatar-Gulf Rift Stems From Fear By Rami G Khouri: New Age Islam's Selection, 13 June 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

13 June 2017

The Qatar-Gulf Rift Stems From Fear

By Rami G Khouri

Journalism, History and War: Sit, Type And Bleed

By Ramzy Baroud

Qatar and the Axis of Extremism

By Hussein Shobokshi

Who Is Involved In Tehran Bombings?

By Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

The Qatar Crisis: Who Started It?

By Turki Aldakhil

Involving Washington in Qatar’s Investigations

By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed

Turkey’s Position on Gulf Crisis

By Yasar Yakis

Major Difference between Qataris and the ‘Qatarised’

By Mamdouh Almuhaini

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


The Qatar-Gulf Rift Stems From Fear

By Rami G Khouri

12 June 2017

At the core of the week-old decision by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to strangulate their smaller neighbour Qatar with a medieval-style siege is a single critical question: what fears and demons drove the Saudi and Emirati leaders to take these drastic measures to bludgeon Qatar into changing its foreign and media policies and submitting itself totally to their demands?

How can we explain this harsh response that strikes me, and many observers in the world, as exaggerated to the point of being hysterical? It is important to grasp exactly why Saudi-Emirati leaders implemented this strangulation siege of Qatar, so that we can address the issues, including any legitimate complaints, that have been raised in the many accusations against Qatar, while leaving others in the realm of just exaggerated fears.

My own discussions with colleagues across the Gulf and the Arab World suggest that the ferocity of the Saudi-Emirati assault on Qatar stems from both new factors and lingering ones from years ago.

Two seem critical: first, the recent dominant decision-making roles of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the Emirates and of Deputy Crown Prince and Defence Minister Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud in Saudi Arabia, who are moving decisively to safeguard what they see as their national security and well-being; and, second, the accumulated fears that Islamists across the region continue to gain strength among the public since the Arab uprisings of 2010-11, and thus represent a genuine, existential, and immediate threat to these ruling families and their visions of their countries and the wider Gulf order.

Qatar Got Caught In The Middle Of This.

Its misfortune is that its long-standing policies in several domains converged with, and heightened, these new fears among the young leaders in the UAE and Saudi Arabia who were determined to take matters into their own hands and protect their world as they thought appropriate. These Qatari policies include sponsoring open regional media via Al Jazeera and other platforms that found massive audiences across the Arab world; close economic ties with Iran that included exploiting a joint natural gas field (mirroring similarly close trading ties with Iran in Oman, Kuwait and Dubai, among others in the GCC); and, a web of contacts with, and some support for, assorted Islamist movements across the region and the world, including Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others - which the Emirati-Saudi indictment labels, "promoting terrorism".

For the Emiratis and Saudis, virtually every element of Qatar's foreign policy represents frightening visions of what they fear most - a regional order in which media openly discuss political issues that really matter to Arab citizens, working links with Islamists and other political groups that challenge prevailing Arab orders, close ties with Iran, and an independent streak that prompted Qatar to stray from the regional vision of the GCC that Saudi Arabia has tried to enforce for many decades.

Islamists that won democratic elections and assumed or shared power in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Kuwait and Yemen genuinely frightened the Saudi-Emirati combine. These GCC leaders saw Islamism, populist activism, democracy, civil liberties, political accountability and other such phenomena as a real threat to their legitimacy, to their values, and to the national and regional orders that they sought to preserve in their political state of top-heavy, patriarchal, welfare-state governance.

This was bad enough on its own; but it was exacerbated by three other factors: the Arab uprisings that showed the weakness of many Arab regimes, the sight of the United States and European powers dropping their support for former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt (which they did not want to happen to them), and the successful negotiations Western and global powers held with an apparently strong and regionally well-linked Iran.

Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia had reason to fear Islamists. They had intermittent and serious problems with homegrown Islamists and terrorists, but none that threatened the stability of the political governance system or the ruling families. The UAE, in particular, has routinely jailed and convicted dozens of its citizens linked to the Islah and other Islamist movements for plotting to overthrow the government and establish a caliphate. 

The UAE-Saudi leadership seem to have decided to make Qatar a scapegoat for their real fears, despite the paucity of credible evidence linking Qatar to schemes to destabilise its GCC neighbours. They pressured Qatar three years ago on these issues, with only a milder recalling of ambassadors, but the reconciliation agreement did not significantly change Qatar's policies, or their own perceptions of what they saw as troublemaking and threatening leaders in Doha.

In early June this year, with the new American president visiting the region, the Saudis and Emiratis portrayed Qatar as representing all the negative trends of the past decade that threaten the stability and economic role of the GCC states. The apparent support of the American president gave the new, young leaders in Abu Dhabi and Riyadh the confidence to strike hard, in order to preserve their regional order by bringing Qatar to its knees.

These moves were neither unexpected nor unprecedented, for the Saudis and Emiratis had both heightened and hardened their regional policies to counter Iran and beat back Arab Islamists and democratic breakthroughs for the past few years. These included using military force in Libya, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, supporting Field Marshal-turned-President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt and labelling the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and others as terrorist organisations.

How this confrontation ends will become more clear in the weeks ahead. Mediation to find a political solution is moving quickly on several fronts; it could gain momentum as backers of Qatar, including Iran, Oman, and Turkey in the region, blunt the impacts of the siege by providing new supply routes for basic commodities.

The combination of American and Kuwaiti mediation should generate compromises that include new Qatari measures to address some of the reasonable complaints against it (like clamping down harder on donors to militant Islamists and toning down some of the very pro-Islamist media personalities); this should also allow the Saudis and Emiratis to relax and learn that their harsh measures cannot reverse the fact that Qatar's talk-to-everybody policies are appreciated by probably a majority of governments, while the US and Turkey also value their close strategic links with Qatar through their bases there.

A win-win peaceful resolution would allow Qatar to maintain its sovereignty and broad policy orientation with only a few non-critical and reasonable concessions, while allowing the Saudis and Emiratis to feel that their no-nonsense tough-guy policies had an impact and sent a message to the region and the world that they would stand their ground and take action to maintain the political status quo in their neighbourhood, regardless of how the region or the world was changing.

Source: aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/06/qatar-gulf-rift-stems-fear-170612063720874.html


Journalism, History and War: Sit, Type and Bleed

By Ramzy Baroud

12 June 2017

The typical newsroom setup, where journalists chase after headlines dictated by a centralized news-gathering agency — often based in a Western capital — no longer suffices. In the case of the Middle East, the news narrative has been defined by others and dictated to Arab journalists and audiences for far too long. This hardly worked in the past but during the last few years, it has become even more irrelevant and dangerous.

There are millions of victims throughout the region, numerous bereaved families, constant streams of refugees and a human toll that cannot be understood or expressed through typical media narration: A gripping headline, a couple of quotes and a paragraph or two of context.

The price is too high for this kind of lazy journalism. There is too much at stake for the profession not to be fundamentally redefined by those who are experiencing war, understand the region’s pulse, fathom the culture and speak the language. Arabs have indeed spoken, and for years their words were filled with anger and hope. The haunting cries of Syrians and other Arab nations will define the memories of this generation and the next.

How much is journalism today a reflection of this harrowing, blood-soaked reality? American author and journalist Ernest Hemingway once wrote: “There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed.” But modern journalism — at least the way it is communicated in the Middle East currently — hardly bleeds.

Under the guise of false objectivity, it remains detached from its immediate reality and is rarely expressive of the seriousness of this difficult transition in our history. But the truth is, journalism has not failed. We did. We are still unable to appreciate the gravity of what has befallen our region and by extension the world.

As for the people, if we do not neglect them altogether, we turn their misery into fodder in our political feuds. Equally inexcusable, we pay little attention to history, as if the most significant component of our story is the least relevant. Orientalism still defines the way history is written in and about the Middle East. We should reject that, not only as a matter of principle but also because it is impractical and false.

This Orientalist depiction has afflicted journalism. Why do we allow others to define who we are, when we are in the most urgent need to define ourselves? Writing on Palestine for nearly 25 years, I have experienced this strange and persistent dichotomy in both journalism and academia. Palestine is reported as a recurring, seemingly never-ending “conflict,” coverage of which always adheres to the same rules, language and stereotypes.

An urgent issue that requires immediate resolution, not least because of its regional and global impact, is relegated as if a redundant, uninteresting story. Many people tend to have short-term memories when Palestinian rights are in question. This feeds well into the Israeli narrative, which has aimed to displace Palestinian history altogether and replace it with a false one.

Although files on the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians are still hidden in Israeli archives, one document, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, has escaped the censor’s keen eye: File GL-18/17028, which shows how the country’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion resorted to Zionist historians in the early 1950s to forge an alternate story of how Palestinian refugees were expelled. He chose the most convincing one, and that became “history.”

This rewriting of history is ongoing and has tainted the present. How can journalists, then, unearth the seemingly complex truth without understanding history — not the version conveniently fashioned by Israel, but the history of the pain, suffering and ongoing struggle of the Palestinians?

To report on Palestine and Israel without fully fathoming the historical roots of this tragic story is to merely be content with providing a superficial account of what “both sides” are saying, which often favors Israel and demonizes the Palestinians. The Palestine scenario is now repeated everywhere. The narratives on Syria and other conflicts are guided by preconceived wisdom.

Journalism is still failing to break the stronghold of the old paradigm that relegates the people and focuses instead on rulers, politicians, governments and business elites. This is the media version of what is known in academia as the “Great Man Theory,” a defunct discipline that is sadly used abundantly in the Arab press. But without the people there is no history, no story to be written and no change to be expected.

Arundhati Roy is quoted as saying: “There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless.’ There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” Palestinians and Arabs already have a voice, an articulate one but it has been deliberately muted by a massive campaign of misinformation, distortion and misrepresentation.

When Israel and its allies say “Palestinians are not a people,” they essentially claim Palestinians have no identity or legitimate demands, and so deserve no voice. When the media silences the voice of the people, it relegates their rights, demands for freedom, change and democracy.

Our answer should not be speaking on behalf of the people but to actually listen to them and empower their voices so they articulate their own aspirations and rightful demands, and express their own identity. Journalism is not a technical profession, or a skill to be honed without compassion and a deep understanding of the past and present.

True intellectuals cannot operate outside the realm of history, and the Arab world is undergoing its greatest historical flux in a century. For journalists to be relevant, they must stop dictating the news in the same predictable pattern, and delve deeper into the story.

They need to understand that a narrative is lacking, if not irrelevant, if it does not begin and end with the people, whose story is not a sound bite but rooted in a complex reality in which history should take centre stage.

To be a journalist reporting on the Arab upheavals and to not fully fathom the region’s history and its peoples’ hopes and aspirations is no longer excusable. When entire nations are bleeding, journalists need to heed Hemingway’s advice: “Sit down at a typewriter and bleed.”

Source; arabnews.com/node/1114106


Qatar and the Axis Of Extremism

By Hussein Shobokshi

12 June 2017

The Arab world is being “reconfigured” and today it is destined to be located between two main axes: the axis of stability and the desired centrality and the axis of extremism and sedition, which supports fundamentalist groups at the expense of state entities.

This is perhaps the simplest explanation and the interpretation of what is happening between Qatar on one hand and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on the other. The division between the two groups is a reflection of the policies of the two axes.

Qatar has chosen to support extremist groups, moving away from the track. Qatar also chose the same “Iranian route” to support the extremist groups and did not choose the “national” option that unites and does not differentiate.

Qatar has the will to govern by proxy and wants to be the maker of kings and presidents, a state that believes that its soft power, as well as money and information broadcasting can “change” the reality on the ground under the slogans of “revolution” and “religion.”

It focused its attention on revolution, the Arab Spring and the religion of “revolutionary.” It even augmented the issue of the mosque renovation project of Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahab and named the largest mosque after his name. Qatar desired to claim one of the most important tribes of the Arabian Peninsula in order to disturb Saudi Arabia (an old complexity) and produced documentaries, making a big drama out of it to strengthen its claim.

A few years ago, when I attended a conference in Doha, a Qatari researcher was explaining to me the methods of Qatar’s use of soft power and its expected impact in the Arab world. The man said that Qatar has its vision since the day of the coup from the son against his father which affected not only Qatar but also the Gulf region as well.

Qatar wants to influence “every house” and has therefore expanded its largest television station Al Jazeera into a network with several outlets, including BeIn that is involved in broadcasting all types of sports. Soon it plans to enter into the movies and drama segment. It believes in the ability of the media to influence and thus change the formation of collective opinion, thus able to influence them easily.

Great Ambitions

Qatar’s another great ambition is to have one of the largest and most influential banks in the Arab world. Their National Bank of Qatar is in expansion mode with capital infusion and acquisitions.

In addition, it is also determined in the growth of its national airline Qatar Airways aiming to be the top airline in the region. Saudi Arabia gave it the license to operate in the Saudi domestic market but it soon realized the risk and did not encourage Qatar Airways to operate in the domestic market.

It has tried to be the region’s most accessible education hub in the region, opening to a group of international universities and thus serving as an influential platform for young people and nurturing ideas for controversial decision-making centers in Doha such as Rand, Brookings, Saban Center for Middle East Policy and other institutions.

Let us understand that Qatar is a suspicious state. It mixes politics with religion and the economy and all its actions are politicized to serve its agenda, which came into existence after the coup.

In the past there was warning to Qatar from the former UAE ruler, Sheikh Zayed, for its actions and it also invited the wrath from former King Abdullah. The same anger is expressed by King Salman at Qatar today and the same message is conveyed by Jordan, Bahrain, Morocco and Libya for various reasons.

Qatar has always been an offender, let us not forget it!

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/06/12/Qatar-and-the-axis-of-extremism.html


Who Is Involved In Tehran Bombings?

By Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi

June 13, 2017

“FIRST of all, I offer my deepest condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims. We, in Saudi Arabia, are acutely aware of the pain and suffering caused by terrorism which has targeted us so many times in the past three decades,” I told the Hurra host, Hussein Jaradi.

I went on to explain my suspicions: “At the same time, I was amazed at the speed with which TV cameras arrived at the scenes. It was like they were there already! And the speed by which “Daesh” (the so-called IS) issued a statement claiming responsibility. As well as the lightning speed with which the Revolutionary Guard found Saudi Arabia and the United States guilty before any investigation had even begun, and before different government departments agreeing on one story.

“What is remarkable here is that the attacks took place in two locations under tight security by all standards. The parliament is surrounded by high-profile military, security and political headquarters, including the Revolutionary Guards, the Ground Forces Command, the Army Command, Tehran Military Air Base and the Office of Imam Khamenei. All the above required heavy presence of intelligence, military and police forces — unlike the easy civilians targets Daesh usually picks.

“Entry into the district as a whole is subject to strict security measures. The parliament itself is accessed only by those who work there, or visitors with security cards, and through gates and offices that check identities and personalities. There are security cameras, as well as, uniformed and undercover elements in every corridor and corner.

“However, armed suicidal groups were able to enter these areas in broad daylight and clash with the security forces and shoot innocent visitors (not the officials or parliamentarians who are supposed to be targeted), and some members blew themselves up in the corridors of parliament (not inside) and near a bank next to the Khomeini shrine (not the shrine itself).

“Iranian political activists and dissidents questioned the events and timing. I totally agree. The majority of the Iranian people have recently voted for those who promised to reconcile with the world and focus on local issues. The voters have declared their desire to withdraw from the marshes of wars and conflicts in the region, and not to waste national resources and fortunes on military adventures and to bring home their beloved children from distant killing zones. The people have rejected the justifications of foreign interventionists that the goal was to transfer the war to the territory of the adversary and to protect internal security by defeating terrorism on its ground.

“At the same time, there have been persistent questions about why terrorist organizations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not targeting nearby Iran for decades, while reaching out as far as America and the Philippines.

“The timing also raises many questions. These bombings came as the world has united against terrorism (with the exclusion of Iran for sponsoring terrorist organizations), and considering that Daesh and Al-Qaeda grew and expanded in countries under Iranian influence—Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Afghanistan.

“The attacks seem to be a timely response to international criticism for Tehran hosting of Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders and their families and providing them with logistics to facilitate the movement and the access to areas of conflict. This includes bigger operations such as the bombings of US embassies in Africa and 9/11 attacks — as US intelligence and court findings proved. Tehran events were also timed after Riyadh Summits that focused on combating terrorism.

“The objective of the “fake” bombings, Iranian observers explain, is to confront terror sponsorship charges, and to convince the Iranian street that the best way to defend the homeland is to attack the enemies first.

They also aim to justify the decades-old belt tightening, that put half the population under poverty line, crippled the economy, caused neighbors’ enmity and international boycott. There was no more appropriate time than when the new government was formed and its domestic and foreign policies were being shaped.” I concluded my remarks.

May Allah has mercy on the victims of the terrorist operations in Tehran, Amsterdam and everywhere else, help their families and loved ones, and punish every person, militia, organization and country involved. The world would be a safer place without them! Free Iran!

Source: saudigazette.com.sa/opinion/involved-tehran-bombings/


The Qatar Crisis: Who Started It?

By Turki Aldakhil

12 June 2017

When it comes to the ongoing Qatar crisis, some would say: We agree on the negative roles Qatar has played since Hamad bin Khalifa’s coup in 1995 but since you have been patient for 22 years, what made you wake up angry today on this particular day?

First of all, patience for mistakes does not mean one must remain patient forever. Second of all, what some people have forgotten is that Saudi Arabia’s three kings in recent years have all voiced anger over several Qatari policies.

In 1990 during the Gulf summit held in Doha to discuss Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, King Fahd protested then-Qatari heir apparent Hamad bin Khalifa’s insistence to discuss the Qatari-Bahraini border dispute before addressing the Kuwaiti crisis. King Fahd left the meeting hall and tensions dominated the summit.

He later told those around him that Hamad bin Khalifa will play a decisive role in the future and this is what happened, beginning with the coup he staged against his father and until today.

Qatar adopted al-Qaeda’s rhetoric and used Al-Jazeera as its platform to attack Saudi Arabia. It adopted a media rhetoric that attacked Saudi Arabia because it had an American base but this ended when the American base relocated to Qatar.

Revolution Supporters

Qatar then supported the Brotherhood and revolution supporters – unlike support of the Syrian opposition – bought them houses and funded them and hosted anyone who spoke out against Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries.

Even Kuwait was not spared as Doha supported the opposition, pushed people to protest and hosted anyone who confronted governance in Kuwait. This is unlike what happened with Bahrain, the UAE, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, and the list goes on.

King Abdullah was thus angered by this behavior and withdrew envoys. Later on, there was the 2014 agreement but Qatar did not implement anything from it. As usual, it tried to use Saudi affairs to serve its own interests and decided that King Abdullah’s death repeals the 2014 agreement. As if Saudi kings walk the path of Qatari coups!

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/06/12/The-Qatar-crisis-Who-started-it-.html


Involving Washington in Qatar’s Investigations

By Abdulrahman al-Rashed

12 June 2017

A major part of the dispute between the four countries – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar – is based on accusations that the latter supports hostile organizations and individuals, including terrorist ones. The four countries issued a list of names of those accused and they include Qatari institutions and associations involved in terrorist operations. Qatari officials responded by denying these accusations.

They said: “Do not believe them because the list is politicized and reflects disagreements among us as countries.” However, Qatar’s problem is that most of those on the list are also on terror lists issued by official American institutions, including the Treasury. Therefore, declaring the lists is a dangerous development as Doha’s disagreements are not limited to disputes with its Arab rivals, whom it has gotten used to defy, but have now internationally expanded.

All those on the list are somehow linked to Qatar. What it should do is hand over the accused ones in Qatar to the four countries. Since there is a political dispute between it and the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Bahrain and says it does not trust them, then it should consider another which is the US, and it must involve it in the investigations. I think America’s participation is a solution that can ease the current conflict.

However, instead of discussing the names and details, Qatar harshly responded via an official source at the ministry of foreign affairs and said the list was defamation and an attempt to distort the country’s image. The source said: “The four countries have assigned themselves as an alternative to international legitimacy and set a field court to try Qatar.”

In order for the truth not to be lost amid the four countries’ claims and Qatar’s denial, the Qataris can just end the problem by involving the Americans considering they are Doha’s friends and have information about the lists.

The affair concerns the entire international community and it does not only concern the Saudis, Egyptians, Emiratis and Bahrainis. Therefore, it is an opportunity to cooperate and be transparent. All countries must lay out their cards on the table and accept cooperation instead of exchanging accusations.

And just like we’re asking Qatar to cooperate, we call on Saudi Arabia to accept this. All the countries involved in the dispute must accept this and accept an investigation and try those who are listed. The problem of Doha’s authorities is that those who are listed, including Saudi, Kuwaiti and other accused figures, are linked to it.

Strengthening Suspicion

There are Qataris listed on international and American lists and Qatar refuses to try them. This strengthens suspicions. What’s worse is that most of them are still active in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq and other conflict zones where terrorist groups operate.

The same applies to institutions and associations which pretend to be charity organizations. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE have made these institutions’ names public. The Qatari source at the ministry of foreign affairs responded to these accusations by saying: “The list included the names of charity organizations that have a long history in humanitarian work. Some of them have a consultative status at the UN.”

So why doesn’t Qatar silence its rivals and allow the international investigation into these institutions or shut them down especially that some of them are listed by the US and accused of sponsoring terrorism? Our brothers in Qatar, it’s for your own sake and interest that we are advising you: End this as the game is over.

Qatar has been friendly to terrorist groups since the mid 1990s. At the beginning there were videos and propaganda of al-Qaeda organization in Afghanistan. Then Qatar’s activity expanded to areas where there are revolutions and it funded armed groups like al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham.

This is the end of the road. The war on terrorism is the world’s first cause today. The international community will pursue any country that provides any support to these groups. It will not be long before Doha finds itself between the claws of countries that are bigger than Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/06/12/Involving-Washington-in-Qatar-s-investigations.html


Turkey’s Position on Gulf Crisis

By Yasar Yakis

12 June 2017

Arab Gulf states accused Qatar of supporting armed groups and their regional rivals, and on June 4 imposed heavy sanctions, including closing land and sea borders, canceling flights to and from Qatar, and withdrawing their ambassadors from Doha.

The US, which is a security provider and main actor in Qatar, gave mixed signals. President Donald Trump posted a tweet that may be considered the trigger of the crisis, writing: “During my recent trip to the Middle East (on May 21) I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar.”

But Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis on June 6 praised Qatar for its “enduring commitment to regional security” and for hosting US forces. The largest US air base in the Middle East is in Qatar, and 10,000 military personnel are stationed there.

While the Pentagon insists that the blockade has no effect on the US fight against Daesh, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said it is hindering US military action in the region and the campaign against Daesh. He urged Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to ease the blockade, saying it has caused unintended consequences.

“Qatar has a history of supporting groups across a wide political spectrum, including those that engage in violence,” he added. “The emir of Qatar had made progress in halting financial support for terrorism but he must do more and he must do it more quickly.”

About an hour after Tillerson’s press conference, Trump clarified the US approach by saying: “The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism and at a very high level.” Now that the president has reconfirmed his position, neither the State Department nor the Pentagon are expected to deviate from it.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain point out that this is not the first time their policies diverge from that of Qatar. In March 2014, when Qatar supported then-Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi and his Muslim Brotherhood movement, these three countries withdrew their ambassadors from Doha.

They resumed their posts eight months later when some Brotherhood members were forced by Qatar to leave the country and some others were quieted. It remains to be seen how long it will take this time, since Qatar is blockaded by sea and land and is being asked to fulfil more conditions.

Ankara cooperated with Doha in Syria by supporting similar opposition factions, though not always the same ones. In addition, unlike Qatar, Turkey does not support Hezbollah, and when a Hamas office operating in Istanbul had to quit Turkey as part of the latter’s reconciliation with Israel, the Turkish press reported that the office moved to Qatar.

Turkey has close economic ties with Qatar, and the latter’s investments in the former amount to about $18 billion. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan took the initiative to defuse inter-Gulf tensions. He had telephone conversations with many leaders, including those of Qatar, Russia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and France.

On June 7, Turkey’s Parliament fast-tracked a bill to deploy 500 troops to Qatar, in addition to 150 who have been there since 2015. Turkey is constructing a base in Qatar that will accommodate 10,000 troops when completed.

A second fast-tracked bill provides for Turkish training of the Qatari gendarmerie. Turkish opposition parties criticized these moves, saying they send a wrong message to the international community and should be postponed until the situation stabilizes.

Turkey maintains good relations with most Gulf countries, but this crisis has to be regarded as an intra-Arab affair. Non-Gulf countries, more specifically non-Arab countries, should not interfere in it.

Though Erdogan takes many of his initiatives in his capacity as the sessional chairman of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), his interlocutors will be listening to him as Turkey’s president. So Ankara should take the utmost care not to take sides in this sensitive controversy.

Arab countries, with their customary prudence and wisdom, will find ways to sort out the problem sooner or later. When they do they will be reconciled, but the bias of non-Arab countries will not be forgotten.

Source; arabnews.com/node/1114136#


Major Difference between Qataris and the ‘Qatarised’

By Mamdouh AlMuhaini

12 June 2017

The message behind boycotting Qatar was clear. Qatari people are brothers to us and represent an authentic extension to the Gulf region. The main problem is with the hostile practices and the support of terrorist organizations that threaten not only the Gulf but also large regions extending from the Gulf to Egypt, Libya and others.

However, there are those who seek to distort the truth and indulge in misleading interpretations. They turn the boycott into a siege that seeks starvation of Qataris; some have even said that Qatar will be swamped first and other countries will follow.

The misleading attempts and lies of these persons and platforms, seeking to create a gap between the Gulf and Arab people, are expected. To set things straight, there is a big difference between the Qatari neighbour, brother and relative, and the “Qatarised” people trying to act or speak like Qataris but have nothing to do with the Qatari people. Such people are the cause of all these crises.

But What Do We Mean By Qatarised Persons?

Readers might think that we mean someone who recently got Qatari nationality. This is not true at all. Moving from one place to another and acquiring citizenship enriches, diversifies and adds to cultures. The obvious condition for this is that these persons would constitute an addition and affluence to their new country. This is what Gulf and Arab countries have done, as we have seen thinkers, politicians, clerics, players and artists moving and acquiring new nationalities, revitalizing and injecting new spirit into these new countries.

Qatar is no exception. Among the important figures is the former Mufti of Qatar, Abdullah bin Zaid Al Mahmoud, who came from the desert of Najd, where he was known for his wide knowledge and enlightened views, such as his rejection of the idea of the Mahdi and his expected return and considered it as a mere illusion and deceit.

Subversive Characters

However, due to the Qatari policies in the last 2 decades, this positive phenomenon has disappeared and we are witnessing what is known as the “Qatarised” persons. Subversive characters that not only harm their new country but the neighbouring countries as well.

The most prominent example of the Qatarizing phenomenon is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who was inciting sedition, allowed politicized speeches that aim to ignite chaos in Arab countries, most notably in Egypt that suffered from his hostile activities and toxic ideas.

Can a Qatari person who wants to live in peace and brotherhood within his country do such practices that target the security of his brothers’ countries in the Gulf? Of course not. Can it be done by Qatarised persons? Of course, and we have witnessed several such examples.

We have for example a “revolutionized” Saudi academic who renounced his nationality and got Qatarised. He did not stop attacking and provoking against Saudi Arabia. The same thing happened with lot of Egyptians. They live extravagantly in hotels in Doha and at the same time, they launch violent media campaigns to overthrow the Egyptian government and disperse Egyptian people.

If we want to understand the “Qatarised” persons more clearly, we only have to know the names of the 59 terrorists who figure in the statement issued by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Egypt.

They are persons who have nothing to do with Qatari people (even if some of them are originally Qataris); they are not patriots but rather mere names that master the art of propagating violence, terrorism and beheading culture. They have one sole goal: to destroy countries and pave the way for extremist organizations to spread, control and expand their political influence in Doha.

Institutions and Media Platforms

Such people are not only limited to persons as they include intellectual institutions and media platforms, which constitute a matching discourse with the same hostile aims. Some of them want to mislead us, referring to the modern form of universities in Doha and the bright academic names and think tanks, but all of them are serving the same project that was set by the political leadership and expressed through secret deals and leaked recordings.

The “Qatarizing” phenomenon attracts all individuals, groups and ideas that target many countries but exclude Qatar, the “oasis of democracy”, from their extremist ideology adopted by terrorists or revolutionaries.

A general subversive mood combines a terrorist from Kuwait and an intellectual from Palestine. Even if some of them were not quite sure about this, there won’t be any problem because they have one goal, even if the means are different.

This phenomenon did not emerge by chance: the Qatari political leadership created and promoted it with money and media campaigns in many languages, through many sites and platforms hidden under various slogans that promote terrorism, chaos and bloodshed.

This is why the four countries, which have long been patient, have finally taken the necessary steps to exterminate this phenomenon once and for all. By doing so, they make a great favor to Qatari citizens first, even if “Qatarized” cheaters tried to offer cheap propaganda.

Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/06/12/Major-difference-between-Qataris-and-Qatarized-.html


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/the-qatar-gulf-rift-stems-from-fear-by-rami-g-khouri--new-age-islam-s-selection,-13-june-2017/d/111515


Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.