country:qatar

  • Le Qatar vole au secours d’Erdogan, par Rai Al Youm - Traduction : Actuarabe
    http://actuarabe.com/le-qatar-vole-au-secours-derdogan

    Cette injection de plusieurs milliards de dollars dans l’économie turque va renforcer la popularité du Qatar et de son émir en Turquie et dans de large pans des populations arabes et musulmanes, qui sont solidaires avec la Turquie face à cette attaque américaine contre un Etat musulman. C’est sans doute aussi un acte dangereux car il représente un défi au Président américain Trump en personne et à ses plans visant à détruire l’économie turque pour mettre des bâtons dans les roues au Président Erdogan, à son gouvernement et au Parti de la justice et du développement, et l’obliger à libérer le prêtre américain accusé de terrorisme.

  • السعوديّة “تُعيد” رَحَلاتِها البريّة مع سورية.. “علم المُعارضة” بات جُرماً يُهدِّد صاحبه بالترحيل والمُؤيّدون للأسد “أكثر راحة” لكن دون إيران وحزب الله.. الأُمنيات في الإعلام السُّعوديّ لنَصر الجيش السوري في إدلب على العَدوين اللَّدودين قطر وتركيا | رأي اليوم
    https://www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d8%b9%d9%88%d8%af%d9%8a%d9%91%d8%a9-%d8%aa%d9%8f%d8%b9

    L’Arabie saoudite reprend ses liaisons terrestres avec la Syrie. [En l’occurrence quelques bus de pèlerins passant par la Jordanie.] Le drapeau des rebelles [syriens] est devenu un délit qui vaut le bannissement [du Royaume] tandis que les fidèles à Assad se sentent "plus tranquilles" (sauf les pro-irianiens et Hezbollah). Les médias saoudiens souhaitent la victoire de l’armée syrienne à Idlib contre les meilleurs ennemis [du Royaume], le Qatar et la Turquie.

    #syrie que ça en serait presque bouffon

  • Saudi Arabia Planned to Invade Qatar Last Summer. Rex Tillerson’s Efforts to Stop It May Have Cost Him His Job.
    https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/rex-tillerson-qatar-saudi-uae

    THIRTEEN HOURS BEFORE Secretary of State Rex Tillerson learned from the presidential Twitter feed that he was being fired, he did something that President Donald Trump had been unwilling to do. Following a phone call with his British counterpart, Tillerson condemned a deadly nerve agent attack in the U.K., saying that he had “full confidence in the U.K.’s investigation and its assessment that Russia was likely responsible.

    White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders had called the attack “reckless, indiscriminate, and irresponsible,” but stopped short of blaming Russia, leading numerous media outlets to speculate that Tillerson was fired for criticizing Russia.

    But in the months that followed his departure, press reports strongly suggested that the countries lobbying hardest for Tillerson’s removal were Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both of which were frustrated by Tillerson’s attempts to mediate and end their blockade of Qatar. One report in the New York Times even suggested that the UAE ambassador to Washington knew that Tillerson would be forced out three months before he was fired in March.

    The Intercept has learned of a previously unreported episode that stoked the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s anger at Tillerson and that may have played a key role in his removal. In the summer of 2017, several months before the Gulf allies started pushing for his ouster, Tillerson intervened to stop a secret Saudi-led, UAE-backed plan to invade and essentially conquer Qatar, according to one current member of the U.S. intelligence community and two former State Department officials, all of whom declined to be named, citing the sensitivity of the matter.

    In the days and weeks after Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain cut diplomatic ties with Qatar and closed down their land, sea, and air borders with the country, Tillerson made a series of phone calls urging Saudi officials not to take military action against the country. The flurry of calls in June 2017 has been reported, but State Department and press accounts at the time described them as part of a broad-strokes effort to resolve tensions in the Gulf, not as an attempt by Tillerson to avert a Saudi-led military operation.

    In the calls, Tillerson, who dealt extensively with the Qatari government as the CEO of Exxon Mobil, urged Saudi King Salman, then-Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir not to attack Qatar or otherwise escalate hostilities, the sources told The Intercept. Tillerson also encouraged Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to call his counterparts in Saudi Arabia to explain the dangers of such an invasion. Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar’s capital city, is the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command and home to some 10,000 American troops.

    Pressure from Tillerson caused Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of the country, to back down, concerned that the invasion would damage Saudi Arabia’s long-term relationship with the U.S. But Tillerson’s intervention enraged Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and effective ruler of that country, according to the U.S. intelligence official and a source close to the Emirati royal family, who declined to be identified, citing concerns about his safety.

    Later that June, Mohammed bin Salman would be named crown prince, leapfrogging over his cousin to become next in line for the throne after his elderly father. His ascension signaled his growing influence over the kingdom’s affairs.

    Qatari intelligence agents working inside Saudi Arabia discovered the plan in the early summer of 2017, according to the U.S. intelligence official. Tillerson acted after the Qatari government notified him and the U.S. embassy in Doha. Several months later, intelligence reporting by the U.S. and U.K. confirmed the existence of the plan.

    The plan, which was largely devised by the Saudi and UAE crown princes and was likely some weeks away from being implemented, involved Saudi ground troops crossing the land border into Qatar, and, with military support from the UAE, advancing roughly 70 miles toward Doha. Circumventing the U.S. air base, Saudi forces would then seize the capital.

  • As U.S. pushes for Mideast peace, Saudi king reassures allies |
    Reuters

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-paelestinians-usa-saudi/as-u-s-pushes-for-mideast-peace-saudi-king-reassures-allies-idUSKBN1KJ0F9

    RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia has reassured Arab allies it will not endorse any Middle East peace plan that fails to address Jerusalem’s status or refugees’ right of return, easing their concerns that the kingdom might back a nascent U.S. deal which aligns with Israel on key issues.

    King Salman’s private guarantees to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his public defense of long-standing Arab positions in recent months have helped reverse perceptions that Saudi Arabia’s stance was changing under his powerful young son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, diplomats and analysts said.

    This in turn has called into question whether Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam and site of its holiest shrines, can rally Arab support for a new push to end the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, with an eye to closing ranks against mutual enemy Iran.

    “In Saudi Arabia, the king is the one who decides on this issue now, not the crown prince,” said a senior Arab diplomat in Riyadh. “The U.S. mistake was they thought one country could pressure the rest to give in, but it’s not about pressure. No Arab leader can concede on Jerusalem or Palestine.”

    SPONSORED

    Palestinian officials told Reuters in December that Prince Mohammed, known as MbS, had pressed Abbas to support the U.S. plan despite concerns it offered the Palestinians limited self-government inside disconnected patches of the occupied West Bank, with no right of return for refugees displaced by the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967.

    Such a plan would diverge from the Arab Peace Initiative drawn up by Saudi Arabia in 2002 in which Arab nations offered Israel normal ties in return for a statehood deal with the Palestinians and full Israeli withdrawal from territory captured in 1967.

    Saudi officials have denied any difference between King Salman, who has vocally supported that initiative, and MbS, who has shaken up long-held policies on many issues and told a U.S. magazine in April that Israelis are entitled to live peacefully on their own land - a rare statement for an Arab leader.

    The Palestinian ambassador to Riyadh, Basem Al-Agha, told Reuters that King Salman had expressed support for Palestinians in a recent meeting with Abbas, saying: “We will not abandon you ... We accept what you accept and we reject what you reject.”

    He said that King Salman naming the 2018 Arab League conference “The Jerusalem Summit” and announcing $200 million in aid for Palestinians were messages that Jerusalem and refugees were back on the table.

    FILE PHOTO: Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud attends Riyadh International Humanitarian Forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia February 26, 2018. REUTERS/Faisal Al Nasser
    The Saudi authorities did not respond to a request for comment on the current status of diplomatic efforts.

    RED LINES

    Diplomats in the region say Washington’s current thinking, conveyed during a tour last month by top White House officials, does not include Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, a right of return for refugees or a freeze of Israeli settlements in lands claimed by the Palestinians.

    Senior adviser Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has not provided concrete details of the U.S. strategy more than 18 months after he was tasked with forging peace.

    A diplomat in Riyadh briefed on Kushner’s latest visit to the kingdom said King Salman and MbS had seen him together: “MbS did the talking while the king was in the background.”

    Independent analyst Neil Partrick said King Salman appears to have reined in MbS’ “politically reckless approach” because of Jerusalem’s importance to Muslims.

    “So MbS won’t oppose Kushner’s ‘deal’, but neither will he, any longer, do much to encourage its one-sided political simplicities,” said Partrick, lead contributor and editor of “Saudi Arabian Foreign Policy: Conflict and Cooperation”.

     Kushner and fellow negotiator Jason Greenblatt have not presented a comprehensive proposal but rather disjointed elements, which one diplomat said “crossed too many red lines”.

    Instead, they heavily focused on the idea of setting up an economic zone in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula with the adjacent Gaza Strip possibly coming under the control of Cairo, which Arab diplomats described as unacceptable.

    In Qatar, Kushner asked Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani to pressure the Islamist group Hamas to cede control of Gaza in return for development aid, the diplomats said.

    One diplomat briefed on the meeting said Sheikh Tamim just nodded silently. It was unclear if that signaled an agreement or whether Qatar was offered anything in return.

    “The problem is there is no cohesive plan presented to all countries,” said the senior Arab diplomat in Riyadh. “Nobody sees what everyone else is being offered.”

    Kushner, a 37-year-old real estate developer with little experience of international diplomacy or political negotiation, visited Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt and Israel in June. He did not meet Abbas, who has refused to see Trump’s team after the U.S. embassy was moved to Jerusalem.

    In an interview at the end of his trip, Kushner said Washington would announce its Middle East peace plan soon, and press on with or without Abbas. Yet there has been little to suggest any significant progress towards ending the decades-old conflict, which Trump has said would be “the ultimate deal”.

    “There is no new push. Nothing Kushner presented is acceptable to any of the Arab countries,” the Arab diplomat said. “He thinks he is ‘I Dream of Genie’ with a magic wand to make a new solution to the problem.”

    A White House official told reporters last week that Trump’s envoys were working on the most detailed set of proposals to date for the long-awaited peace proposal, which would include what the administration is calling a robust economic plan, though there is thus far no release date.

    Editing by Giles Elgood
    Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

    • In Saudi Arabia, the king is the one who decides on this issue now, not the crown prince,
      […]
      A diplomat in Riyadh briefed on Kushner’s latest visit [in June] to the kingdom said King Salman and MbS had seen him together: “MbS did the talking while the king was in the background.

      Euh, question bête : c’est dans la même aile de l’hôpital la gériatrie de king S et la rééducation (il est probablement sorti des soins intensifs, depuis le temps) de Kronprinz bS ?

      Ce serait quand même plus commode pour Mr Son in law

  • Emmanuel Macron et le pari russe - Sputnik France
    https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201807251037364418-emmanuel-macron

    La distribution conjointe d’aide humanitaire par la France et la Russie, malgré les couacs qui l’accompagnent, est un signe supplémentaire de l’inflexion diplomatique qu’est en train d’opérer Paris sur le dossier syrien. C’est l’avis du journaliste et spécialiste du Moyen-Orient Christian Chesnot. Il s’est confié à Sputnik.

    Le 20 juillet, un avion-cargo russe Antonov An-124 a décollé de Châteauroux pour la Syrie. A son bord ? Environ 50 tonnes d’aide humanitaire : médicaments, tentes et couvertures fournis par la France pour un montant d’environ 500.000 euros selon les informations de Libération. D’après le quotidien, qui cite une source diplomatique, cette opération conjointe a été décidée après les rencontres des Présidents Vladimir Poutine et Emmanuel Macron le 24 mai à Saint-Pétersbourg et le 15 juillet à Moscou. Certes, au matin du 25 juillet, les fournitures destinées aux habitants de la Ghouta orientale, la banlieue est de Damas reprise par les forces gouvernementales en avril 2018, étaient toujours à la base russe de Hmeimime (nord-ouest de la Syrie). La faute à un enchaînement de couacs, notamment sur la participation ou non de l’Onu à la livraison de cette aide humanitaire aux côtés du Croissant-Rouge syrien, organisation réputée proche de Damas. Après plusieurs jours de flou artistique qui ont même vu des membres des Nations unies se contredire, il semble que la distribution de l’aide soit imminente.

    ​Ces atermoiements sont loin de constituer le cœur de l’affaire pour Christian Chesnot, journaliste spécialiste du Moyen-Orient retenu otage de terroristes en Irak durant 124 jours en 2004. D’après lui et comme le révèle Libération, citant un spécialiste du dossier, « cette opération humanitaire a été décidée à l’Elysée, pas au Quai d’Orsay ». Le palais présidentiel semble vouloir prendre le contrôle du dossier syrien. Mais pourquoi ? 

    « Emmanuel Macron a toujours plus ou moins gardé la main concernant la Syrie. Pourtant, cette décision de mener une opération humanitaire conjointe avec la Russie est un signe supplémentaire de l’inflexion dans la politique diplomatique de la France concernant la Syrie », explique Christian Chesnot à Sputnik.

    D’après lui, la nomination le 27 juin de François Sénémaud, ancien directeur du renseignement à la DGSE, en tant que représentant personnel du Président de la République pour la Syrie constituait déjà un indicateur. L’homme qui prendra ses nouvelles fonctions le 27 août est l’actuel ambassadeur de France… en Iran. Ironie du sort, depuis 2014, le dossier syrien était piloté au Quai d’Orsay par Franck Gellet. Ce dernier a été récemment nommé ambassadeur de France… au Qatar. De plus, Christian Chesnot note qu’Emmanuel Macron a rencontré son homologue russe à deux reprises, le 24 mai et le 15 juillet, en marge de la finale de la Coupe du Monde de football qui a vu la France s’imposer.

    Mais pourquoi ce revirement ? Depuis le début du conflit syrien en 2011, la diplomatie française s’est presque toujours calquée sur celle de Washington et s’est montrée hostile au gouvernement de Damas. En avril dernier, Paris s’est joint aux Etats-Unis et au Royaume-Uni pour bombarder plusieurs sites en Syrie après une prétendue attaque chimique perpétrée par Damas. Pour Christian Chesnot, le rapprochement avec Moscou tenté par Emmanuel Macron s’explique par une analyse pragmatique de la situation sur le terrain :
    « La Russie a gagné en Syrie. C’est un fait. Damas a repris quasiment tout le pays, les rebelles ont pratiquement été effacés du sud. La France s’est retrouvée hors-jeu. Elle veut revenir sur le terrain. Emmanuel Macron a juste analysé la situation de manière pragmatique et s’est dit que l’on entrait dans une nouvelle phase. Une phase où il faut renouer contact avec la Russie. »

    Et pour le journaliste de France Inter, l’humanitaire est le prétexte parfait pour entamer un rapprochement :

    « Depuis le début du conflit, la diplomatie française a eu deux constantes : la ligne rouge concernant l’utilisation d’armes chimiques et l’acheminement d’aide humanitaire. Cette opération conjointe avec la Russie donne l’occasion à Emmanuel Macron de renouer le dialogue tout en ne perdant pas la face. »

    D’après Christian Chesnot, c’est une stratégie gagnant-gagnant. Il assure que les Russes sont « très contents » de ce possible rapprochement. « Moscou aura besoin d’alliés pour reconstruire la Syrie, qu’il y ait une transition au niveau du pouvoir ou pas. La Russie ne pourra pas le faire toute seule », analyse le journaliste.

    Quid du « lobby néo-conservateur » au Quai d’Orsay, composé de « pro-Otan, pro-Etats-Unis, anti-Iran, anti-gouvernement syrien » comme le décrit Christian Chesnot ? Et bien selon le spécialiste du Moyen-Orient, même s’ils voient d’un mauvais œil un rapprochement avec Moscou, ils n’auront pas d’autre choix que de suivre l’Elysée. Avant de conclure : « De toute façon, le pays qui les préoccupe le plus, c’est l’Iran. »

  • Football and fat fees : questions raised over funding of sporting conference | Football | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jul/16/football-and-fat-fees-questions-raised-over-funding-of-sporting-confere

    After Russia’s wildly successful World Cup, the eyes of the sporting world have turned to the next host, Qatar – and a recent event in London gave an indication of the scrutiny that lies ahead for the controversial organisers, and of the Middle Eastern diplomatic battle that will shadow the tournament.

    Journalists who attended the launch of the Foundation For Sports Integrity at the Four Seasons hotel were ushered through security to watch a series of panels featuring high-profile guests. The former Manchester United footballer Louis Saha appeared in a discussion alongside the former FA chairman Greg Dyke. Other guests included Damian Collins MP and the former US women’s goalkeeper Hope Solo.

    But as well as the guest list and the glamorous surroundings, there was another striking feature of the event: questions over the funding of the previously unknown organisation, which was unveiling itself at short notice with a lavish conference and a public commitment to stamping out corruption in world sport.

    Un à côté de la #nuit_torride entre les Qataris et leurs aussi riches voisins.

    • . . . . . . .

      Excédé par la ténacité du russe, le plus capé des hiérarques socialistes pensera trouver la parade par une astuce, qui s’est révélée grossière, couvrant de ridicule son auteur, le ministre français des Affaires étrangères : Laurent Fabius a en effet proposé lundi 22 octobre 2012 la réforme du recours au Droit de veto au sein du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, préconisant que son usage soit réduit au seul cas où un état détenteur de ce droit était menacé d’une action hostile des instances internationales.

      Depuis la création de l’ONU, les pays occidentaux ont fait usage du droit de veto 132 fois contre 124 fois à l’Union soviétique puis de la Russie, dont onze veto américains en faveur d’Israël. Les Occidentaux sont donc bénéficiaires de ce passe-droit, qui leur a permis de bloquer l’admission de la Palestine en tant que membre de plein droit de l’organisation internationale. A l’analyse, la proposition de Laurent Fabius s’est révélée être un bobard diplomatique pour enfumage médiatique en ce qu’en voulant priver la Russie de son droit de veto en faveur de la Syrie, il privait, par ricochet, Israël de son bouclier diplomatique américain. Depuis lors, Fabius, petit télégraphiste des Israéliens dans les négociations sur le nucléaire iranien, frustré par ailleurs d’un Prix Nobel pour son bellicisme outrancier, a été placé en état de congélation politique avancée par sa promotion à la Présidence du Conseil Constitutionnel.

      Alain Juppé, un autre hyper capé de la méritocratie française, a eu droit au même traitement énergisant du russe. Se vantant avec son compère du Qatar, Hamad Ben Jassem, de faire de la bataille de Bab Amro (Syrie), « le Stalingrad du Moyen orient », février 2012, -qui s’est révélé un des grands désastres militaires de la diplomatie française-, Lavrov, excédé par la morgue de son homologue français lui a tout bonnement raccroché au nez sans jamais le reprendre au téléphone jusqu’à son départ du Quai d’Orsay.

      Auparavant, l’anglais David Milliband, impertinent et quelque peu présomptueux, a entrepris de dicter au téléphone les termes d’une résolution qu’il entendait soumettre au vote dans le contexte du conflit russo-géorgien en Ossétie du Sud (Août 2008) : la réponse du russe, mémorable, demeurera dans les annales de la diplomatie onusienne : « WHO ARE YOU TO F***ING LECTURE ME » qui peut se traduire selon la version soft : « Qui es-tu ? pour me dire ce que je dois faire !? » et selon la version hard : « Qui es-tu, putain ! pour me faire la leçon ! ». Ah qu’en termes élégants ces mots-là sont dits.

      . . . . . . .
      #hillary_clinton #david_miliband #william_hague #alain_juppé #laurent_fabius #hamad_ben_jassem #saoud_al_faysal

  • A Strip apart? Gaza grapples with politics of expanded Egyptian administration in Trump’s ‘century deal’ | MadaMasr

    https://www.madamasr.com/en/2018/06/29/feature/politics/a-strip-apart-gaza-grapples-with-politics-of-expanded-egyptian-administrat

    An economic delegation from the Gaza Strip arrived in Cairo on Tuesday night to discuss the United States’ proposal concerning the humanitarian and economic state of the besieged Palestinian territory, as Washington continues to push talks concerning the “deal of the century.”

    Deputy Finance Minister Youssef al-Kayali headed up the Gaza delegation, which, according to a Palestinian political source who spoke to Mada Masr on condition of anonymity, was in Cairo “to listen to what the Egyptian side proposes without a preconceived position and without violating known Palestinian principles.”

    To this point, indications of Gaza’s appetite for the deal have been absent from the unfolding diplomatic discussions. The US diplomatic envoy headed by Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senior advisor, and Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, was primarily focused on informing regional leaders of the defining features of Trump’s initiative to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but, notably, did not meet with Palestinian actors during last week’s regional tour, which included stops in Egypt, Qatar, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    The framework of the US’s “century deal” involves the construction of a joint port on the Mediterranean between the Egyptian and Palestinian cities of Rafah, according to US and European diplomatic sources that spoke to Mada Masr ahead of the US delegation’s visit last week. The joint port would act as a prelude to extensive economic activity, for which North Sinai would serve as a hub, and would include five principal projects that would be funded by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with a labor force that would be two-thirds Palestinian from the Gaza Strip and one-third Egyptian.

  • How a victorious Bashar al-Assad is changing Syria

    Sunnis have been pushed out by the war. The new Syria is smaller, in ruins and more sectarian.

    A NEW Syria is emerging from the rubble of war. In Homs, which Syrians once dubbed the “capital of the revolution” against President Bashar al-Assad, the Muslim quarter and commercial district still lie in ruins, but the Christian quarter is reviving. Churches have been lavishly restored; a large crucifix hangs over the main street. “Groom of Heaven”, proclaims a billboard featuring a photo of a Christian soldier killed in the seven-year conflict. In their sermons, Orthodox patriarchs praise Mr Assad for saving one of the world’s oldest Christian communities.

    Homs, like all of the cities recaptured by the government, now belongs mostly to Syria’s victorious minorities: Christians, Shias and Alawites (an esoteric offshoot of Shia Islam from which Mr Assad hails). These groups banded together against the rebels, who are nearly all Sunni, and chased them out of the cities. Sunni civilians, once a large majority, followed. More than half of the country’s population of 22m has been displaced—6.5m inside Syria and over 6m abroad. Most are Sunnis.

    The authorities seem intent on maintaining the new demography. Four years after the government regained Homs, residents still need a security clearance to return and rebuild their homes. Few Sunnis get one. Those that do have little money to restart their lives. Some attend Christian mass, hoping for charity or a visa to the West from bishops with foreign connections. Even these Sunnis fall under suspicion. “We lived so well before,” says a Christian teacher in Homs. “But how can you live with a neighbour who overnight called you a kafir (infidel)?”

    Even in areas less touched by the war, Syria is changing. The old city of Damascus, Syria’s capital, is an architectural testament to Sunni Islam. But the Iranian-backed Shia militias that fight for Mr Assad have expanded the city’s Shia quarter into Sunni and Jewish areas. Portraits of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hizbullah, a Lebanese Shia militia, hang from Sunni mosques. Advertisements for Shia pilgrimages line the walls. In the capital’s new cafés revellers barely notice the jets overhead, bombing rebel-held suburbs. “I love those sounds,” says a Christian woman who works for the UN. Like other regime loyalists, she wants to see the “terrorists” punished.

    Mr Assad’s men captured the last rebel strongholds around Damascus in May. He now controls Syria’s spine, from Aleppo in the north to Damascus in the south—what French colonisers once called la Syrie utile (useful Syria). The rebels are confined to pockets along the southern and northern borders (see map). Lately the government has attacked them in the south-western province of Deraa.

    A prize of ruins

    The regime is in a celebratory mood. Though thinly spread, it has survived the war largely intact. Government departments are functioning. In areas that remained under Mr Assad’s control, electricity and water supplies are more reliable than in much of the Middle East. Officials predict that next year’s natural-gas production will surpass pre-war levels. The National Museum in Damascus, which locked up its prized antiquities for protection, is preparing to reopen to the public. The railway from Damascus to Aleppo might resume operations this summer.

    To mark national day on April 17th, the ancient citadel of Aleppo hosted a festival for the first time since the war began. Martial bands, dancing girls, children’s choirs and a Swiss opera singer (of Syrian origin) crowded onto the stage. “God, Syria and Bashar alone,” roared the flag-waving crowd, as video screens showed the battle to retake the city. Below the citadel, the ruins stretch to the horizon.

    Mr Assad (pictured) has been winning the war by garrisoning city centres, then shooting outward into rebel-held suburbs. On the highway from Damascus to Aleppo, towns and villages lie desolate. A new stratum of dead cities has joined the ones from Roman times. The regime has neither the money nor the manpower to rebuild. Before the war Syria’s economic growth approached double digits and annual GDP was $60bn. Now the economy is shrinking; GDP was $12bn last year. Estimates of the cost of reconstruction run to $250bn.

    Syrians are experienced construction workers. When Lebanon’s civil war ended in 1990, they helped rebuild Beirut. But no such workforce is available today. In Damascus University’s civil-engineering department, two-thirds of the lecturers have fled. “The best were first to go,” says one who stayed behind. Students followed them. Those that remain have taken to speaking Araglish, a hotch-potch of Arabic and English, as many plan futures abroad.

    Traffic flows lightly along once-jammed roads in Aleppo, despite the checkpoints. Its pre-war population of 3.2m has shrunk to under 2m. Other cities have also emptied out. Men left first, many fleeing the draft and their likely dispatch to the front. As in Europe after the first world war, Syria’s workforce is now dominated by women. They account for over three-quarters of the staff in the religious-affairs ministry, a hitherto male preserve, says the minister. There are female plumbers, taxi-drivers and bartenders.

    Millions of Syrians who stayed behind have been maimed or traumatised. Almost everyone your correspondent spoke to had buried a close relative. Psychologists warn of societal breakdown. As the war separates families, divorce rates soar. More children are begging in the streets. When the jihadists retreat, liquor stores are the first to reopen.

    Mr Assad, though, seems focused less on recovery than rewarding loyalists with property left behind by Sunnis. He has distributed thousands of empty homes to Shia militiamen. “Terrorists should forfeit their assets,” says a Christian businesswoman, who was given a plush café that belonged to the family of a Sunni defector. A new decree, called Law 10, legitimises the government’s seizure of such assets. Title-holders will forfeit their property if they fail to re-register it, a tough task for the millions who have fled the country.

    A Palestinian-like problem

    The measure has yet to be implemented, but refugees compare it to Israel’s absentees’ property laws, which allow the government to take the property of Palestinian refugees. Syrian officials, of course, bridle at such comparisons. The ruling Baath party claims to represent all of Syria’s religions and sects. The country has been led by Alawites since 1966, but Sunnis held senior positions in government, the armed forces and business. Even today many Sunnis prefer Mr Assad’s secular rule to that of Islamist rebels.

    But since pro-democracy protests erupted in March 2011, Syrians detect a more sectarian approach to policymaking. The first demonstrations attracted hundreds of thousands of people of different faiths. So the regime stoked sectarian tensions to divide the opposition. Sunnis, it warned, really wanted winner-take-all majoritarianism. Jihadists were released from prison in order to taint the uprising. As the government turned violent, so did the protesters. Sunni states, such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, provided them with arms, cash and preachers. Hardliners pushed aside moderates. By the end of 2011, the protests had degenerated into a sectarian civil war.

    Early on, minorities lowered their profile to avoid being targeted. Women donned headscarves. Non-Muslim businessmen bowed to demands from Sunni employees for prayer rooms. But as the war swung their way, minorities regained their confidence. Alawite soldiers now flex arms tattooed with Imam Ali, whom they consider the first imam after the Prophet Muhammad (Sunnis see things differently). Christian women in Aleppo show their cleavage. “We would never ask about someone’s religion,” says an official in Damascus. “Sorry to say, we now do.”

    The country’s chief mufti is a Sunni, but there are fewer Sunnis serving in top posts since the revolution. Last summer Mr Assad replaced the Sunni speaker of parliament with a Christian. In January he broke with tradition by appointing an Alawite, instead of a Sunni, as defence minister.

    Officially the government welcomes the return of displaced Syrians, regardless of their religion or sect. “Those whose hands are not stained with blood will be forgiven,” says a Sunni minister. Around 21,000 families have returned to Homs in the last two years, according to its governor, Talal al-Barazi. But across the country, the number of displaced Syrians is rising. Already this year 920,000 people have left their homes, says the UN. Another 45,000 have fled the recent fighting in Deraa. Millions more may follow if the regime tries to retake other rebel enclaves.

    When the regime took Ghouta, in eastern Damascus, earlier this year its 400,000 residents were given a choice between leaving for rebel-held areas in the north or accepting a government offer of shelter. The latter was a euphemism for internment. Tens of thousands remain “captured” in camps, says the UN. “We swapped a large prison for a smaller one,” says Hamdan, who lives with his family in a camp in Adra, on the edge of Ghouta. They sleep under a tarpaulin in a schoolyard with two other families. Armed guards stand at the gates, penning more than 5,000 people inside.

    The head of the camp, a Christian officer, says inmates can leave once their security clearance is processed, but he does not know how long that will take. Returning home requires a second vetting. Trapped and powerless, Hamdan worries that the regime or its supporters will steal his harvest—and then his land. Refugees fear that they will be locked out of their homeland altogether. “We’re the new Palestinians,” says Taher Qabar, one of 350,000 Syrians camped in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

    Some argue that Mr Assad, with fewer Sunnis to fear, may relax his repressive rule. Ministers in Damascus insist that change is inevitable. They point to a change in the constitution made in 2012 that nominally allows for multiparty politics. There are a few hopeful signs. Local associations, once banned, offer vocational training to the displaced. State media remain Orwellian, but the internet is unrestricted and social-media apps allow for unfettered communication. Students in cafés openly criticise the regime. Why doesn’t Mr Assad send his son, Hafez, to the front, sneers a student who has failed his university exams to prolong his studies and avoid conscription.

    A decade ago Mr Assad toyed with infitah (liberalisation), only for Sunni extremists to build huge mosques from which to spout their hate-speech, say his advisers. He is loth to repeat the mistake. Portraits of the president, appearing to listen keenly with a slightly oversized ear, now line Syria’s roads and hang in most offices and shops. Checkpoints, introduced as a counter-insurgency measure, control movement as never before. Men under the age of 42 are told to hand over cash or be sent to the front. So rife are the levies that diplomats speak of a “checkpoint economy”.

    Having resisted pressure to compromise when he was losing, Mr Assad sees no reason to make concessions now. He has torpedoed proposals for a political process, promoted by UN mediators and his Russian allies, that would include the Sunni opposition. At talks in Sochi in January he diluted plans for a constitutional committee, insisting that it be only consultative and based in Damascus. His advisers use the buzzwords of “reconciliation” and “amnesty” as euphemisms for surrender and security checks. He has yet to outline a plan for reconstruction.

    War, who is it good for?

    Mr Assad appears to be growing tired of his allies. Iran has resisted Russia’s call for foreign forces to leave Syria. It refuses to relinquish command of 80,000 foreign Shia militiamen. Skirmishes between the militias and Syrian troops have resulted in scores of deaths, according to researchers at King’s College in London. Having defeated Sunni Islamists, army officers say they have no wish to succumb to Shia ones. Alawites, in particular, flinch at Shia evangelising. “We don’t pray, don’t fast [during Ramadan] and drink alcohol,” says one.

    But Mr Assad still needs his backers. Though he rules most of the population, about 40% of Syria’s territory lies beyond his control. Foreign powers dominate the border areas, blocking trade corridors and the regime’s access to oilfields. In the north-west, Turkish forces provide some protection for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a group linked to al-Qaeda, and other Sunni rebels. American and French officers oversee a Kurdish-led force east of the Euphrates river. Sunni rebels abutting the Golan Heights offer Israel and Jordan a buffer. In theory the territory is classified as a “de-escalation zone”. But violence in the zone is escalating again.

    New offensives by the regime risk pulling foreign powers deeper into the conflict. Turkey, Israel and America have drawn red lines around the rebels under their protection. Continuing Iranian operations in Syria “would be the end of [Mr Assad], his regime”, said Yuval Steinitz, a minister in Israel, which has bombed Iranian bases in the country. Israel may be giving the regime a green light in Deraa, in order to keep the Iranians out of the area.

    There could be worse options than war for Mr Assad. More fighting would create fresh opportunities to reward loyalists and tilt Syria’s demography to his liking. Neighbours, such as Jordan and Lebanon, and European countries might indulge the dictator rather than face a fresh wave of refugees. Above all, war delays the day Mr Assad has to face the question of how he plans to rebuild the country that he has so wantonly destroyed.


    https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2018/06/30/how-a-victorious-bashar-al-assad-is-changing-syria?frsc=dg%7Ce
    #Syrie #démographie #sunnites #sciites #chrétiens #religion #minorités

    • Onze ans plus tard, on continue à tenter de donner un peu de crédibilité à la fable d’une guerre entre « sunnites » et « minoritaires » quand la moindre connaissance directe de ce pays montre qu’une grande partie des « sunnites » continue, pour de bonnes ou de mauvaises raisons, mais ce sont les leurs, à soutenir leur président. Par ailleurs, tout le monde est prié désormais par les syriologues de ne se déterminer que par rapport à son origine sectaire (au contraire de ce qu’on nous affirmait du reste au début de la « révolution »)...

  • Palestine : en manque de fonds, l’UNRWA pourrait devoir fermer 700 écoles
    Par RFI Publié le 26-06-2018 – Avec notre correspondante à New York,Marie Bourreau
    http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20180626-onu-etats-unis-palestine-unwra-baisse-aide-refugies-ecoles

    L’agence d’aide aux réfugiés palestiniens de l’ONU (UNRWA, en anglais) fait toujours face à une situation financière dramatique et menace d’arrêter certains de ses services dès le mois d’août. L’agence onusienne cherche toujours 250 millions de dollars de toute urgence pour combler la réduction drastique de la contribution américaine. Une conférence des donateurs, qui s’est tenue lundi 25 juin au siège de l’organisation à New York, n’a pas permis de combler ce déficit et a exposé un peu plus la fatigue des pays donateurs.

    Pas de bilan chiffré à l’issue de cette troisième conférence pour recueillir des fonds pour l’Office de secours et de travaux des Nations unies pour les réfugiés de Palestine dans le Proche-Orient (UNRWA). Le résultat est médiocre et très loin des 250 millions de dollars (214,49 millions d’euros) que l’agence onusienne estime nécessaires pour poursuivre ses services essentiels.

    Seule la Belgique a promis un nouvel apport de 4 millions d’euros et le Mexique une participation de 500 000 dollars (environ 428 980 euros). À titre de comparaison, 200 millions de dollars (environ 171,59 millions d’euros) avaient été promis en mars et en mai 2018, lors des conférences de Rome et d’Amman, grâce notamment à l’Arabie Saoudite, au Qatar et aux Émirats arabes unis.

  • “National security” cited as reason Al Jazeera nixed Israel lobby film | The Electronic Intifada
    https://electronicintifada.net/content/national-security-cited-reason-al-jazeera-nixed-israel-lobby-film/24566

    Al Jazeera’s investigative documentary into the US Israel lobby was censored by Qatar over “national security” fears, The Electronic Intifada has learned.

    These include that broadcast of the film could add to pressure for the US to pull its massive Al Udeid air base out of the Gulf state, or make a Saudi military invasion more likely.

    A source has confirmed that broadcast of The Lobby – USA was indefinitely delayed as “a matter of national security” for Qatar. The source has been briefed by a high-level individual in Doha.

    One of the Israel lobby groups whose activities are revealed in the film has been mounting a campaign to convince the US to withdraw its military forces from Qatar – which leaders in the emirate would see as a major blow to their security.

    The tiny gas-rich monarchy houses and funds satellite channel Al Jazeera.

    In April, managers at the channel were forced to deny a claim by a right-wing American Zionist group that the program has been canceled altogether.

    In October 2017, the head of Al Jazeera’s investigative unit promised that the film would be aired “very soon.”

    Yet eight months later, it has yet to see the light of day.

    In March, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published the first concrete details of what is in the film.

    The film reportedly identifies a number of lobby groups as working directly with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated data gathering techniques. The documentary is also said to cast light on covert efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.

    Some of the activity revealed in the film could include US organizations acting as front operations for Israel without registering as agents of a foreign state as required by US law.

    The latest revelation over the censored film shows how seriously Qatar’s leadership is taking threats of repercussions should it air.

    Threats
    The Israel lobby groups reported on in the film could be expected to take legal action against Al Jazeera if it is broadcast.

    However, such threats alone would be unlikely to deter Al Jazeera from broadcasting the film.

    The network has a history of vigorously defending its work and it was completely vindicated over complaints about a documentary aired in January 2017 that revealed how Israel lobby groups in Britain collude with the Israeli embassy, and how the embassy interfered in British politics.

    Israel’s supporters are also pushing for the US Congress to force the network, which has a large US operation, to register as a “foreign agent” in a similar fashion to Russian channel RT.

    But the high-level individual in Doha’s claim that the film is being censored as “a matter of national security” ties the affair to even more serious threats to Qatar and bolsters the conclusion that the censorship is being ordered at the highest level of the state.

    A year ago, with the support of US President Donald Trump and his son-in-law Jared Kushner, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates cut off diplomatic relations with Qatar and imposed a transport and economic blockade on the country.

    Saudi rulers and their allies see Qatar as too independent of their influence and too open to relations with their regional rival Iran, and the blockade was an attempt to force it to heel.

    The Saudis and Israel accused Qatar of funding “terrorism,” and have taken measures to restrict Al Jazeera or demanded it be shut down altogether over what they perceive as the channel’s anti-Israel and anti-Saudi-monarchy biases.

    The blockade and the diplomatic assault sparked existential fears in Qatar that Saudi-led forces could go as far as to invade and install a more pliant regime in Doha.

    French newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday that the Saudi king has threatened “military action” against Qatar should it go ahead with a planned purchase of a Russian air defense missile system.

    In 2011, Saudi and Emirati forces intervened in Bahrain, another small Gulf nation, at the request of its ruling Khalifa monarchy in order to quell a popular uprising demanding democratic reforms.

    For three years, US and British-backed Saudi and Emirati forces have been waging a bloody and devastating war on Yemen to reimpose a Saudi-backed leadership on the country, clear evidence of their unprecedented readiness to directly use military force to impose their will.

    And no one in the region will have forgotten how quickly Iraqi forces were able to sweep in and take over Kuwait in August 1990.

    Air base
    The lesson of the Kuwait invasion for other small Gulf countries is that only the protection of the United States could guarantee their security from bigger neighbors.

    Qatar implemented that lesson by hosting the largest US military facility in the region, the massive Al Udeid air base.

    The Saudi-led bloc has pushed for the US to withdraw from the base and the Saudi foreign minister predicted that should the Americans pull out of Al Udeid, the regime in Doha would fall “in less than a week.”

    US warplanes operate from the Al Udeid air base near Doha, Qatar, October 2017. US Air Force Photo
    It would be a disaster from the perspective of Doha if the Israel lobby was to put its full weight behind a campaign to pull US forces out of Qatar.

    Earlier this year, an influential member of Congress and a former US defense secretary publicly discussed moving the US base out of Qatar at a conference hosted by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

    FDD is a neoconservative Israel lobby group that happens to be one of the subjects of the undercover Al Jazeera film.

    As The Electronic Intifada revealed in March, FDD is one of the groups acting as an agent of the Israeli government even though it is not registered to do so.

    In July 2017, FDD’s Jonathan Schanzer testified to Congress that it would be an “insane arrangement” to keep US forces at the Al Udeid air base while Qatar continued to support “terror.”

    It will concentrate minds in Doha that FDD was one of the lobby groups most dedicated to destroying the international deal with Iran over its nuclear energy program, a goal effectively achieved when the Trump administration pulled out of it last month.

    In a sign of how vulnerable Qatar feels over the issue, Doha has announced plans to upgrade the Al Udeid base in the hope, as the US military newspaper Stars and Stripes put it, “that the strategic military hub will be counted as one of the Pentagon’s permanent overseas installations.”

    The final straw?
    The cornerstone of Qatar’s effort to win back favor in Washington has been to aggressively compete with its Gulf rivals for the affections of Israel and its Washington lobby.

    Their belief appears to be that this lobby is so influential that winning its support can result in favorable changes to US policy.

    Qatar’s charm offensive has included junkets to Doha for such high-profile Israel supporters as Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and Morton Klein, the head of the Zionist Organization of America who publicly took credit for convincing Qatar’s ruler Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani to veto broadcast of the documentary.

    While an all-out Saudi invasion of Qatar over a film series may seem far fetched, the thinking in Doha seems to be that broadcast of The Lobby – USA could be the final straw that antagonizes Qatar’s enemies and exposes it to further danger – especially over Al Udeid.

    With an administration in Washington that is seen as impulsive and unpredictable – it has just launched a trade war against its biggest partners Canada and the European Union – leaders in Doha may see it as foolhardy to take any chances.

    If that is the reason Al Jazeera’s film has been suppressed it is not so much a measure of any real and imminent threat Qatar faces, but rather of how successfully the lobby has convinced Arab rulers, including in Doha, that their well-being and longevity rests on cooperating with, or at least not crossing, Israel and its backers.

    Asa Winstanley is associate editor and Ali Abunimah is executive director of The Electronic Intifada.

    Qatar Al Jazeera The Lobby—USA Al Udeid air base Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani Donald Trump Jared Kushner Saudi Arabia United Arab Emirates Bahrain Iran Kuwait Foundation for the Defense of Democracies Jonathan Schanzer Morton Klein Alan Dershowitz Zionist Organization of America

    Gaza medic killed by Israel as she rescued injured
    Ali Abunimah 2 June 2018

    Who is the Labour Party’s “witchfinder general”?
    Asa Winstanley 31 May 2018

    Israeli minister threatens to destroy Gaza “once and for all”
    Ali Abunimah 30 May 2018

    Main menu
    FeaturesOpinion and analysisReviewsBlogs
    Search form Search

  • Israel adopts abandoned Saudi sectarian logic - Modern Diplomacy

    https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/06/16/israel-adopts-abandoned-saudi-sectarian-logic

    Amid ever closer cooperation with Saudi Arabia, Israel’s military appears to be adopting the kind of sectarian anti-Shiite rhetoric that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is abandoning as part of a bid to develop a national rather than a religious ethos and promote his yet to be defined form of moderate Islam.

    The Israeli rhetoric in Arabic-language video clips that target a broad audience across the Middle East and North Africa emerged against the backdrop of a growing influence of conservative religious conscripts and officers in all branches of the Israeli armed forces.

    The clips featuring army spokesman Major Avichay Adraee were also designed to undermine support for Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip and backed recent mass anti-Israeli protests along the border with Israel, in advance of a visit to the Middle East by US peace negotiators Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt.

    The visit could determine when US President Donald J. Trump publishes his long-awaited ‘art of the deal’ proposal for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that despite Israeli and tacit Saudi and United Arab Emirates backing is likely to be rejected by the Palestinians as well as those Arab states that have so far refused to tow the Saudi line.

    Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, in tacit cooperation with the Palestine Authority on the West Bank, have adopted a carrot-and-stick approach in an as yet failed bid to weaken Hamas’ control of Gaza in advance of the announcement of Mr. Trump’s plan.

    Citing a saying of the Prophet Mohammed, Major Adraee, painting Hamas as an Iranian stooge, asserted that “whoever acts like a people is one of them… You (Hamas) have officially become Shiites in line with the Prophet’s saying… Have you not read the works of the classical jurists, scholars…who have clearly warned you about the threat Iranian Shiism poses to you and your peoples?”

    In a twist of irony, Major Adraee quoted the very scholars Prince Mohammed appears to be downplaying. They include 18th century preacher Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, whose ultra-conservative anti-Shiite interpretation of Islam shaped Saudi Arabia for much of its history; Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, a 14th century theologist and jurist, whose worldview, like that of Wahhabism, inspires militant Islam; and Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian-born, Qatar-based scholar, who was designated a terrorist by Saudi Arabia and the UAE because he is believed to be the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood.

  • Le blocus du Qatar est-il un échec ? Par Abdulrahman Al Rashed dans As-Sharq Al-Awsat- Actuarabe
    http://actuarabe.com/le-blocus-du-qatar-est-il-un-echec

    Que dire de la menace qatarie de rapprochement avec l’Iran ? Les liens entre Doha et Téhéran étaient bons avant le boycott et ils ont fait échouer la coordination à l’intérieur du Conseil de coopération du Golfe. Si Doha veut accroître les échanges commerciaux ainsi que la coopération civile et militaire avec le régime de Téhéran, elle se heurtera aux Etats-Unis, qui imposent de lourdes sanctions aux Etats coopérant avec l’Iran, notamment dans des domaines vitaux directement liés aux entreprises et aux intérêts américains.

  • جريدة الأخبار
    https://al-akhbar.com/Arab_Island/251546

    Joli titre : « Crise dans le Golfe : la Coupe du monde contre [droit] au petit pèlerinage » [pour les Qataris].

    Début de manoeuvres de la part des Saoudiens au vu d’échéances qui se rapprochent... Le club MBZMBS (désormais appelés ainsi dans les réseaux sociaux, c’est assez marrant : مبس ومبز) a oublié, dans son immense lucidité, que le Qatar possède une arme de dissuasion, la chaîne BeIN, titulaire des droits exclusifs de retransmission du Mondial dans la région. Les Emiratis semblent avoir cédé (https://twitter.com/Mowahiedd/status/1004159040866390017) et les Saoudiens commencent à paniquer face au dilemme qui les attend : céder aux Qataris ou susciter une grosse colère chez leurs sujets privés de jeux du cirque...

    #nuit_torride

  • The online war between Qatar and Saudi Arabia - BBC News

    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44294826

    A year-long political conflict between the tiny, wealthy state of Qatar and its larger neighbours - including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - has been fought with a new arsenal of weapons: bots, fake news and hacking.
    In the early hours of 24 May 2017, a news story appeared on the website of Qatar’s official news agency, QNA, reporting that the country’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, had made an astonishing speech.
    The quotes then appeared on the QNA’s social media accounts and on the news ticker running along the bottom of the screen on videos uploaded to the agency’s YouTube channel.
    The emir was quoted praising Islamist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. And perhaps most controversially of all, Iran, Saudi Arabia’s arch-rival.
    Image copyrightREUTERS
    Image caption
    Qatari citizens have expressed their support for their emir on a mural in Doha
    But the story soon disappeared from the QNA website, and Qatar’s foreign ministry issued a statement denying the speech had ever taken place. No video footage has ever emerged of the emir actually saying the words supposedly attributed to him.
    Qatar claimed that the QNA had been hacked. And they said the hack was designed to deliberately spread fake news about the country’s leader and its foreign policies. The Qataris specifically blamed UAE, an allegation later repeated by a Washington Post report which cited US intelligence sources. The UAE categorically denied those reports.
    But the story of the emir’s speech unleashed a media free-for-all. Within minutes, Saudi and UAE-owned TV networks - Al Arabiya and Sky News Arabia - picked up on the comments attributed to al-Thani. Both networks accused Qatar of funding extremist groups and of destabilising the region.
    And soon after there was another alleged hacking - this time, targeted at the UAE. Youssef al-Otaiba, the UAE’s ambassador to the US was hacked. His emails were leaked to the press. This led to long, lurid articles about his private life in international media.

  • زيدان ينتقل إلى تدريب منتخب قطر بخمسين مليون في السنة لمدة 4 سنوات | رأي اليوم
    https://www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%d8%b2%d9%8a%d8%af%d8%a7%d9%86-%d9%8a%d9%86%d8%aa%d9%82%d9%84-%d8%a5%d9%8

    Zidane joining qatar to coach national team for World Cup 2022. 50mn à year over 4 years …
    Money talks ?

    — Naguib Sawiris (@NaguibSawiris) May 31, 2018

    Selon Naguib Sawiris, milliardaire égyptien du téléphone, Zidane irait entraîner l’équipe nationale du Qatar. Un contrat de 4 ansà 50 millions de dollars par an.

    #zidane #qatar

  • L’#Arabie_saoudite menace le #Qatar d’une « action militaire » s’il se dote de missiles #S-400
    https://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2018/06/01/l-arabie-saoudite-menace-le-qatar-de-represailles-militaires-s-il-se-dote-de


    Ça fait un joli porte-bougie pour le premier anniversaire de la #nuit_torride

    Un an après son début, la crise interne aux monarchies du Golfe ne donne aucun signe d’apaisement. La tension entre le Qatar, d’un côté, l’Arabie Saoudite, les Emirats arabes unis et Bahreïn, de l’autre, qui ont rompu leurs relations diplomatiques et économiques avec Doha depuis le 5 juin 2017, n’a peut-être même jamais été aussi vive.

    Selon des informations obtenues par Le Monde, la couronne saoudienne a récemment envoyé un courrier à la présidence française, dans lequel Riyad se dit prêt à mener une « action militaire » contre le Qatar si ce dernier acquiert, comme il en a exprimé l’intention, le système de défense antiaérien russe S-400.

    L’ambassadeur du Qatar à Moscou, Fahad Bin Mohamed Al-Attiyah, avait affirmé en janvier que son pays entendait se doter de ce modèle de missiles antimissiles, considéré comme l’un des plus performants au monde, précisant que les tractations avec le Kremlin étaient à un « stade avancé ». Un mois plus tard, Riyad avait reconnu à son tour être en lice pour obtenir ces batteries sol-air.

    Dans la lettre envoyée à l’Elysée, dont le contenu a été dévoilé au Monde par une source française proche du dossier, le roi Salman exprime sa « profonde préoccupation » vis-à-vis des négociations en cours entre Doha et Moscou. Le souverain saoudien s’inquiète des conséquences qu’une installation des S-400 sur le territoire qatari aurait sur la sécurité de l’espace aérien saoudien et met en garde contre un risque d’« escalade ».

  • The Gulf Impasse’s One Year Anniversary & the Changing Regional Dynamics – Gulf International Forum

    Kristian Coates Ulrichsen, Ph.D., Fellow for the Middle East, Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

    http://gulfif.com/the-gulf-impasse

    A year has passed since the Qatar News Agency was hacked and implanted with ‘fake news’. Ten days later this hacking was followed by the diplomatic and economic embargo of Qatar by four regional states – Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt. The element of surprise strategy applied by the Quartet was intended to shock the Qatari government into acceding to their demands. Now, one year later this approach is misplaced as Qatar proved more resilient than anticipated. Rather than isolating Qatar regionally and internationally, the crisis has widened the cracks in the Gulf into a chasm and has generated unintended consequences that risk inflicting generational damage on its political and social fabric. As with the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990, the blockade of Qatar is an era-rupturing event that will reverberate through the regional politics and international relations of the Gulf for years to come.

    Evolving Threat Perceptions
    The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was formed in 1981 largely in response to regional security threats triggered by the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War in 1980. The six states that came together in Abu Dhabi to form the GCC often differed in their foreign policy outlook. The five smallest Gulf States shared varying degrees of wariness toward Saudi Arabia, reflecting in part a history of border disputes. For example, Kuwait was put under Saudi blockade in the 1920s and 1930s, Oman and Abu Dhabi had territorial disputes with Saudi Arabia from the 1950s to the 1970s, and as recently as 1992 and 1993 skirmishes occurred on the Saudi-Qatari border. Simmering unease in smaller Gulf capitals at the prospect of Saudi domination of GCC structures hampered attempts to construct collective military and security policies such as the Peninsula Shield Force or a common internal security agreement.

    And yet, throughout the three major wars in the Gulf – the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), the Gulf War (1991), and the war and subsequent US-led occupation of Iraq (2003-11), the GCC remained a bastion of relative stability in a region gripped by conflict and insecurity. During this tumultuous period, all six GCC states retained a common threat perception enabling them to overcome instances of intra-GCC friction, such as Saudi and Emirati attempts to reverse the 1995 succession of Qatar’s Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani or the Emirati walkout from the planned GCC monetary union in 2010 after Riyadh was chosen over Abu Dhabi as the site of the prospective GCC central bank. Indeed, GCC states have always worked best together in the face of external threats that draw together the six ruling families’ common interest in political survival – evidenced by the decision in 2011 to revive and dispatch the Peninsula Shield Force to Bahrain to assist in the restoration of order and the creation of a $10 billion GCC fund to assist Bahrain and Oman in the wake of Arab Spring unrest.

  • How WikiLeaks cables paint UAE motive for Qatar blockade

    Cables show UAE ’warned’ US about Qatar long before crisis began, motives weren’t only driven by security concerns.
    Andrew Chappelle by Andrew Chappelle

    Al Jazeera
    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/wikileaks-cables-paint-uae-motive-qatar-blockade-180524174346824.html

    As Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Egypt started their campaign to isolate Qatar on June 5, 2017, accusing it of aiding “terrorism” and being too close to Iran, the messaging used by the Arab quartet struck a familiar tone.

    The blockade against Qatar, now nearing the one-year mark, is often referred to as Saudi-led, but the language used by the “Arab quartet” has been consistent with private statements attributed to Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (also known as MBZ), as revealed in diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks in 2010 and 2011.

    A review of this trove - which included secret communications from the US embassy in Abu Dhabi between 2004 and 2010, recapping dozens of meetings with top UAE officials - suggests that the UAE has been a driving force behind the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood (the Brotherhood), and shows the UAE issued a series of stark warnings to US officials about Qatar and Al Jazeera well before the blockade began.

    The cables include direct quotes from MBZ on topics he has not discussed in public, providing additional context to the changing political dynamics in the Gulf. The language attributed to him in the cables suggests the UAE’s motives for the blockade are not exclusively driven by security concerns involving Qatar, but also a desire to quash dissent at home.

    To date, MBZ has not delivered a single public statement about the current Gulf crisis, leaving his brother, Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed (or ABZ) and other surrogates, to speak for the government.

  • Violences à Gaza : Israël convoque l’ambassadeur de Belgique après le vote de l’ONU
    La DH - belga Publié le lundi 21 mai 2018 à 18h07
    http://www.dhnet.be/actu/monde/violences-a-gaza-israel-convoque-l-ambassadeur-de-belgique-apres-le-vote-de-l-

    Israël a convoqué lundi les ambassadeurs d’Espagne, de Slovénie et de Belgique en réaction au vote de ces pays au Conseil des droits de l’Homme de l’ONU pour l’envoi d’une mission d’enquête internationale sur les événements sanglants à Gaza.

    Selon un communiqué du ministère des Affaires étrangères israélien, la directrice adjointe chargée de l’Europe occidentale a rencontré lundi les ambassadeurs d’Espagne et de Slovénie tandis que l’ambassadeur de Belgique sera reçu mardi.

    • Le Conseil des droits de l’homme décide la création d’une commission d’enquête sur les attaques militaires israéliennes contre les manifestations civiles palestiniennes
      GENEVA (18 mai 2018)
      http://www.ohchr.org/FR/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=23107&LangID=F

      (...) Les États suivants ont voté en faveur de la résolution (29) : Afghanistan, Afrique du Sud, Angola, Arabie Saoudite, Belgique, Brésil, Burundi, Chili, Chine, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Égypte, Émirats Arabes Unis, Équateur, Espagne, Irak, Kirghizistan, Mexique, Népal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Pérou, Philippines, Qatar, République Démocratique du Congo, Sénégal, Slovénie, Tunisie et Venezuela.

      Les États suivants ont voté contre (2) : Australie et États-Unis.

      Les États suivants se sont abstenus (14) : Allemagne, Croatie, Éthiopie, Géorgie, Hongrie, Japon, Kenya, Panama, République de Corée, Royaume-Uni, Rwanda, Slovaquie, Suisse et Togo.

      Déclarations concernant le projet de résolution
      (...)
      La Belgique, s’exprimant également au nom de l’Espagne et de la Slovénie, a dit soutenir le projet de résolution et la création d’une commission d’enquête, car à leurs yeux, l’usage de la force contre ces manifestants n’était pas justifié. Les trois délégations saluent la coopération de l’État de Palestine pour parvenir à un texte équilibré, même s’ils regrettent que le texte ne fasse pas mention du droit légitime d’Israël à protéger ses frontières. Les délégations, tout en appuyant le texte, appellent le Hamas et les organisateurs de ces manifestations à faire preuve de plus responsabilité.(...)

  • Le lexique des tricheurs : le langage du « Nouveau Monde » et des « Néoconservateurs » Robert Charvin - 19 Mai 2018

    Le Chef de l’État français a fait un choix malheureux en se présentant comme le « Jupiter » du « Nouveau Monde », formule du « Nouveau Monde » qui a été appliquée à l’Amérique que Ch. Colomb aurait mieux fait de ne pas découvrir pour le bonheur des Amérindiens !
     
    En dépit de son auto-célébration théâtrale permanente et de la courtisanerie massive (notamment médiatique (1) ) qui l’accompagne, il n’est que l’un de ces leaders occidentaux (Blair, Enzi, Trudeau, etc.) qui sous les apparences de la « #modernité » est l’incarnation du plus vieux pouvoir de l’Histoire, celui de l’#Argent, avec son inévitable cortège d’arrogance et de mépris plus ou moins subtil, pour ceux qui n’ont pas les moyens de croire que tout leur est permis.
     
    Bien entendu, le #Président – nouvelle mouture – de la V° République (archaïque Constitution présidentialiste) se présente comme un éminent défenseur (autoproclamé) d’une « #démocratie » pluraliste certes, mais « juste ce qu’il faut » pour laisser une petite place à certains syndicats prêts à toutes les compromissions et à une social-démocratie, modeste opposition de Sa #Majesté !
     
    Dans son activisme « ni de gauche, ni de gauche », il parcourt le monde ne voyant des pays visités que les dorures des palais nationaux et des gardes locaux lui rendant les honneurs sans se préoccuper particulièrement des résultats très limités qu’il obtient pour les peuples concernés.
     


    En premier lieu, il applaudit à l’#Europe (tout comme B-H. Lévy dans son dernier livre) c’est-à-dire à l’hégémonie étasunienne, juge de tous les péchés du monde, clouant au banc des accusés tous les hérétiques : hors du « modèle » occidental et du marché, point de salut !
     
    Quant à son appel à « la souveraineté européenne » encore indéfinissable, elle est un produit de substitution à ce qui n’est que l’Europe des affaires, inapte à toute harmonisation sociale et fiscale et à toute forme de solidarité vis-à-vis des migrants !
     
    La #souveraineté_nationale et l’indépendance, il ne les connaît pas davantage que les firmes transnationales qui spéculent à l’échelle mondiale et ne dressent des murs que vis-à-vis des hommes (2) !
     
    Le Président français, dans le sillage étasunien et trumpiste (ce qui est une référence !), ainsi que derrière lui la cohorte de politiciens (plus ou moins opportunistes), de #médias (sous contrôle des grands groupes financiers) et de « services » en tout genre, ont adopté un #langage manipulateur chargé d’intoxiquer l’opinion, les formules et les mots inlassablement répétés, fabriquant sinon des convictions du moins une extrême confusion !
     
    Dans l’ordre interne, et par sa voix, les contre-réformes les plus régressives deviennent des « #réformes » modernisatrices, la négociation a cédé la place à un « dialogue » qui n’est qu’un bavardage, l’ « État de droit » n’est que maintien d’une légalité discriminatoire, la répression se fait « mesures sécuritaires », l’insécurité sociale et l’austérité pour la majorité défavorisée se muent en « équilibres » budgétaires et recherche de la « compétitivité », les « droits de l’homme » (de moins en moins invoqués) se restreignent aux droits civils et politiques, jamais économiques et sociaux.
     
    Mais c’est dans les relations internationales que la « #novlangue » à la Orwell, pratiquée par la France et les autres États occidentaux, européens et américains, est la plus significative (3).
     
     
    –Il n’y a plus jamais de guerre : seulement des « opérations de police » à finalité #humanitaire, afin de protéger les « civils » ou « les non-combattants » dans des conflits internationaux, y compris à des milliers de kilomètres de chez soi ! L’Empire et ses alliés exercent une sorte de mission divine de protection de l’Humanité contre les Barbares d’une couleur ou d’une autre ! Rien de neuf : les expéditions coloniales déjà n’étaient pas la guerre. Bombarder l’Irak, la Libye, ou la Syrie n’est que l’expression d’un haut degré de civilisation humaniste et d’une philanthropie universaliste sans limite !
     
    Qui oserait ne pas dire plus de sept ans après la destruction de la Libye qu’il ne s’agissait que d’éliminer Kadhafi, malgré de nombreuses tentatives antérieures d’assassinat et le financement d’Al Qaïda contre le régime ? Sarkozy n’a fait que reproduire, quelques années après l’expédition anti-Bagdad, une opération fondée sur le mensonge !
     
    –La politique des « deux poids, deux mesures » est aussi une vieillerie historique décrétant quel pays est une « #dictature », lequel ne l’est pas !
     
    L’Égypte du Maréchal Sissi, comme l’Arabie Saoudite ou le Qatar sont des alliés en « voie de démocratisation », tout comme Bahreïn (qui a écrasé sa « révolution du printemps 2011 », mais qui abrite une base de la V° Flotte américaine). Au contraire, les « dictateurs » vénézuélien ou bolivarien, tout comme l’ex-président du Brésil, Lula, sont infréquentables. De même, la Coalition occidentale ne fait que combattre les « terroristes de #Daech », tandis que la Russie et l’Iran en Syrie affrontent des « #rebelles », simples « opposants » à Damas !
     
    – Vis-à-vis du conflit israélo-palestinien se poursuit un « processus de paix », depuis plus d’un demi-siècle sous l’égide des États-Unis, juges et parties. L’occupation israélienne ne cesse de s’étendre et les Palestiniens tués se multiplient sans « ingérence humanitaire ». Combien de #Palestiniens valent un Juif ? L’exercice du droit de veto étasunien au Conseil de Sécurité a-t-il pour objectif la paix dès lors qu’#Israël est mise en cause ?
     
    – Peu importe, les États-Unis, la France, la Grande Bretagne à eux seuls, constituent « la communauté internationale » ! Le reste du monde doit être tenu à distance. Lorsque le Conseil de Sécurité refuse un projet de résolution occidentale, c’est à cause du « #veto » russe, comme au temps de la guerre froide ! Lorsque c’est l’inverse qui se produit à l’encontre d’une proposition russe, c’est la communauté internationale qui s’y oppose ! Tout est dans la nuance, pour les professionnels du lexique des tricheurs !
     
    –L’usage unilatéral de la force contre un État est la violation la plus flagrante de la Charte des Nations Unies. Lorsqu’une puissance occidentale s’octroie ce que le droit international lui refuse, c’est parce qu’elle a une haute conscience de ses responsabilités, qu’elle incarne le Bien en toute « légitimité ». Le « primat de la morale » l’emporte sur un juridisme suranné ! L’Occident est toujours du « bon côté de l’Histoire » contre le Mal incarné par les … Autres !
     
    Le lexique des #tricheurs se renouvelle sans cesse pour rafraîchir la réputation des Occidentaux qui se croient encore tout permis et qui veulent partout être présents dans le monde pour en tirer profit, comme par exemple, être à la table des négociations pour la #Syrie (riche en ressources énergétiques) (ce qui explique les tirs de missiles d’avril) et ne pas laisser seule la Russie, ou continuer à exploiter le pétrole libyen malgré le chaos qui règne dans le pays, évidemment avec mise à l’écart des Russes ou des Chinois !
     
    Si l’on ajoute à ces truquages sémantiques un spectacle politico-folklorique permanent où se conjuguent fausses compassions (avec images adéquates de femmes et enfants martyrs), braquage sélectif des caméras sur les sites « rentables » pour l’Occident (par exemple, la Syrie, mais ni la Libye ni le Yémen, ni la liquidation des Kurdes par la Turquie), et mise en scène de rodomontades guerrières à prétention humanitaire, on peut conclure que toute complaisance vis-à-vis de ce type de pratique politique relève soit du cynisme soit de l’aveuglement.
     
    Certes, toutes les Puissances s’efforcent de satisfaire en priorité leurs intérêts propres, mais l’Occident a une particularité : il falsifie, par tous les moyens, avec la plus parfaite mauvaise foi, sa pratique en la présentant comme une œuvre universaliste irremplaçable.
     
    Décidément, comme disait Marx, la préhistoire n’est pas encore achevée.

     Robert Charvin

    Notes :
    1Voir le film complaisant sur Macron « La fin de l’innocence ».

    2L’intervention en Nouvelle Calédonie, en mai 2018, ouvrant en fait la campagne référendaire qui doit y avoir lieu pour ou contre l’indépendance et qui, évidemment, encourage au « Non » (nickel et « terres rares » obligent) est d’une hypocrisie remarquable.

    3Cf. D. Losurdo. Le langage de l’Empire. Lexique de l’idéologie étasunienne. Delga. 2014.

    Voir aussi, Alain Bihr. La Novlangue néolibérale. La rhétorique fétichiste du capitalisme. Syllepse.

    Source : https://www.investigaction.net/fr/le-lexique-des-tricheurs-le-langage-du-nouveau-monde-et-des-neoconse