Israel moves against al-Jazeera

The Real News is neither Right nor racist

Israel Lobby Doesn't Want Al Jazeera to Spill its Secrets

The Real News

Qatar is under pressure to bury an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that exposes the Israel Lobby in the US. Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada says the film's key revelations include the close cooperation between the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Israeli government

Vladimir Posener walks out of al-Jazeera interview

‘I’m no Putin fan, but one must accept facts’: Veteran journo walks out of Al-Jazeera panel (VIDEO)

RT,

25 February, 2018

Vladimir Pozner, one of Russia’s most-respected journalists, walked out of an Al Jazeera panel on the upcoming Russian election after it became clear that it would only be “an ideological debate” void of real analysis.

The Friday installment of Mehdi Hasan’s UpFront program on Al Jazeera English was devoted to Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 US election and the upcoming election in Russia, which incumbent President Vladimir Putin is predicted to win, according to polls.

UpFront

✔@AJUpFront

Russians vote for their next president in March. Will Putin win his fourth term? In the Arena to debate: @albats, @vkaramurza and Vladimir Pozner.

Full debate: http://bit.ly/2CfKEmy 

2:19 AM - Feb 25, 2018

The second part featured a 15-minute panel of experts, including Pozner, fellow journalist Evgenia Albats, and political activist Vladimir Kara-Murza. Albats and Kara-Murza, both outspoken opposition figures in Russia, took turns dismissing the upcoming vote as “not a real election,” after which came Pozner’s turn to speak, which he used to graciously bow out.

“When I was asked to participate in this program, I said I was not interested in getting into a debate. I am not a debater, I am a journalist. I am not opposition… I am not a big fan of Putin’s, but I like to try to be objective,” he said.

“People do go to the poll and they do vote. And for whatever reasons, Putin has a very high percentage of support. And it’s not because people are stupid. I say again, I am not a Putin supporter, but either you have to see things the way they are or you describe them the way you want them to be or want people to believe them to be,” Pozner said.

“What I am going to do is to let the two people talk and agree with each other on all the negative things they are going to say and I will do some other stuff that is much more interesting for me,” he added, explaining that he did not care to participate in “an ideological debate.”

As Pozner was leaving, Kara-Murza implied that he was a secret Putin supporter who was running away from honest debate, while Albats remarked that Russia’s Channel One, which she called part of a state propaganda machine, has an interview program hosted by Pozner. The discussion then drifted on to the perils of being an opposition figure in Russia and whether or not Putin will step down after his next term ends.

Explaining the move later on his webpage, Pozner said he was misled into thinking the program would be an honest attempt to show foreign viewers the complex situation with elections in Russia. He said the program was initially supposed to give airtime to other experts in addition to Pozner, and that he expressed concerns about the format after learning about the substitutions.

“I stressed that I would not take part in political debates, first, because I do not seek to argue with either Evgenia Albats or Vladimir Kara-Murza, and second, because the [Al Jazeera] audience knows absolutely nothing about Russia and will not understand anything, ultimately deciding that whoever speaks ‘smoother’ must be right. I was assured there would be no debate,” he said.

The Russian presidential election is scheduled for March 18. The term of office is six years and no president can have more than two terms in a row, which means that if Putin wins, he will not be able to seek re-election in 2024.

From the comments section in Off-Guardian

alaffcreator

• February 26, 2018

I am from Russia. Checked a full video and would like to say a coule words.

Well, well – wow, what people we have on Aljazeera! Vladimir Kara-Murza and Yevgenia Albats. You MUST know who these people are to fully assess/understand WHAT they say and WHY they say it. Both of them are a part of the so-called “liberal opposition” in Russia and, as the saying is, non-handshakable in respectable society.

First note – it was very funny to hear “regrets” and “claims” about “propaganda” in Russia, and to hear it on ALJAZEERA(!). I think there’s no need to tell/explain WHO is Aljazeera & whom they serve. It’s the same if, for example, ISIL will complain about the terrorist attacks committed by other factions. Haha, very funny.

Second note – as i already said, you HAVE/MUST know who Vladimir Kara-Murza and Yevgenia Albats are to paint a right picture of the whole thing in you mind. Both of them are sharply anti-Russian. Or, better say, they are “against Russia in its current form” – i.e. with Vladimir Putin as a president.

And in fact they work to undermine the state (Russia).

Yevgenia Albats pretend she’s a “independent journalist” (or TV presenter called her this way?). I must note that she had a program on infamous russian radio “Echo of Moscow”. This radio station pours tons of mud and slop on the state, on the official Russian authorities and on the Russian nation on the whole. When there’re terrorist attacks in Russia – they are happy(!). When Russian soldiers/generals killed in Syria – they are happy. When every year on 9 may (day of Great Victory over nazism in 1941-1945 war) millions of Russian people march as one in “Immortal Regiment”, this way showing solidarity, the memory of the dead ancestors – a scum from “Echo of Moscow” twitch in convulsions from hatred and rejection because of this manifestation of the unity of the nation. Plus they yell that “Russia has nothing to do in Syria”, that “Russia is aggressor” and “annexed Crimea”, and so on and so on. I.e. a typical & very much pro-Western points of view, very much anti-Russian points of view. That’s why the overwhelming majority of Russian society perceive them as marginals, renegades, and, in fact, “enemies of the nation” (yep, seem to be a long-forgotten definition from Soviet times, but which is becoming relevant in our days again).

I think, for example, in the US the activity of such a radio station would be clearly regarded as anti-state activity (with all the ensuing consequences). But the most funny and ridiculous thing is that “Echo of Moscow” radio station is sponsored by… Gazprom company – a Russian gas giant, a national STATE company, i.e. it is sponsored by state. This fact has long caused many questions from the Russian public – why does the state sponsor this kind of radio station that pours tons of dirt on the country? No answer yet..

Vladimir Kara-Murza is an even more interesting character. Funny, but just today it was pretty interesting TV programm about this person. It would take a large space to write about this scum properly. If briefly, then: very much anti-Russian (or, the same – “against Russia in its current form” – i.e. with Putin as a president); in fact he works for the West; he is sponsored by the West; he is Putin’s hater; he is a vivid representative of what is called the “fifth column” in Russia…

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a citizen of Great Britain, but he lives in the US.

In 2011 it was he who lobbied a famous “Magnitsky Act” (i.e. sanctions against Russia). He is the federal coordinator of “Open Russia” – organisation banned in Russia since 2017. The activity of Kara-Murza was also sponsored by the “Institute of modern Russia” (banned in Russia too since 2017) – this organisation have direct links with American NED (National Endowment for Democracy), which is banned in Russia since 2015.

Kara-Murza is a wellcome guest on such radio stations as “Voice of America” or “Radio Liberty” (from this it is already possible to draw certain conclusions…).

In early February 2018 the City Council of Washington unanimously approved the new name of the square in front of the Russian Embassy in the US – now it’s “Boris Nemtsov” square – in many respects it was promoted by Vladimir Kara-Murza…

It is VERY characteristic that Aljazeera (remember a propaganda-factor) invited THIS KIND of “experts” to talk about upcoming elections in Russia. THIS KIND of people have a clear task – to form a “public opinion” that upcoming president elections in Russia will be “illegal”, “not democratic”, “dirty”, “fake” (allegedly lack of competition) etc.

As i already said, both Yevgenia Albats and Vladimir Kara-Murza are working to undermine Russia.

I will not talk in detail now about Aleksey Navalny, whom Kara-Murza called one of the few who is a “real rival of Putin”. This is nothing more than a farce and a lie, a clear wishful thinking. Navalny is a clown and a criminal. No one in Russia takes him seriously – neither society, nor authorities, nor political scientists / real experts etc. Btw, a fact that Russian authorities are too kind & ultra-liberal with this clown confirmed by the fact that Aleksey Navalny has three(!) conditional discharges, and according to Russian legislation, he should have been imprisoned for a long time already! But he’s still(!) free. And it’s a good long-standing question for the Russian society – WHY he’s still free, WHO save him and for what purpose…

Navalny has NO support from Russian society. For Navalny it’s a problem to gather a few thousand people in Moscow for his rallies/”protests”, considering a fact that there are over 12 million people in Moscow. Anyone who saw (on youtube, for example) Navalny’s rallies/”protests” clearly noted that the overwhelming majority of “protesters” are children and teenagers. The reason is simple – serious, clever and adult people are NOT interested in farce he’s doing.

To pretend that Aleksey Navalny is a “real rival of Putin” is the same as to pretend that, for example, there’s “moderate opposition” in Syria (yep, jihadists who kill civilians & whom MSM call “rebels” that must be “saved”). Total farce and deliberate misrepresentation of facts.

So i’m not surprised Kara-Murza pretend that Aleksey Navalny is a “victim” allegedly suffered by the “brutality of the Russian authorities”. This narrative has NOTHING to do with reality, but it’s what Kara-Murza (as well as Yevgenia Albats, and other similar persons) must say, cuz his sponsors expect it to be said.

The battle for fresh water in Canterbury

'The people's ECan': protesters occupy regional council

Stuff,

14 Setember, 2017

Nearly 100 people occupied Environment Canterbury's (ECan) offices demanding changes to a trend of "big irrigation, more cows and more polluted rivers".

The protesters, backed by Greenpeace, set up in the regional council's lobby on Thursday, hanging banners that read "Save Our Rivers – Democracy Now".

It was the third in a series of recent protest actions related to water issues in Canterbury. Last week, several Greenpeace protesters were arrested at a dam building site associated with Central Plains Water.

GEORGE HEARD/STUFF

The protesters demanded changes to irrigation, cow numbers and river water quality.

They had earlier occupied another site associated with the irrigation scheme.

"Right now, the state of our rivers in this region and around the country is in a crisis state," Greenpeace campaigner Gen Toop said.

GEORGE HEARD/STUFF

ECan chief executive Bill Bayfield says the protesters have been welcomed.

"This movement to save our rivers has been happening for a long time, and today we've taken it to the next level."

Fake cows were placed on the reserve in front of the building. Various speakers addressed the group in the lobby.

It was a message aimed towards all political parties vying for a place in the next government, Toop said.

DAVID WALKER/STUFF

Artist Sam Mahon recently placed a large, lifelike sculpture of Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith outside ECan's Christchurch office.

"We want clean rivers in New Zealand and to get there we need fewer cows and democracy restored to Canterbury. 

"We have three huge irrigation schemes, one currently under construction and two in the pipeline, which are being funded by the Government, which are being allowed by ECan, and which will be a disaster for our rivers."

ECan's elected council was sacked by the Government in 2009. Appointed commissioners took their place.

Half the council is elected and the other half appointed. 

The activists set up "The People's ECan" inside the lobby. Many had pledged not to move, even if asked, and would remain for at least the duration of the day.

ECan chief executive Bill Bayfield said the organisation had welcomed the protesters and they would not have to move.

"Environment Canterbury has welcomed Greenpeace into Tuam St today and we are making them comfortable with tea and coffee," he said.

"We've had good interaction with the protesters, we respect their views and they in turn are respectful of the fact this is a busy work environment."

Bayfield said Greenpeace had assured ECan the protest would be peaceful and his staff continued to work around them.

​ECan is no stranger to protest: artist Sam Mahon recently placed a large, lifelike sculpture of Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith defecating into a drinking glass on a footpath outside the building.

There have been periodic protests demanding a return to democracy.

Among the protesters was Bryan Clearwater, a dairy farmer from South Canterbury.

He said the groundwater beneath his farm was polluted with nitrates, and clean water was pumped to his house by Fonterra.

"We're obviously pretty concerned," he said.

"My colleagues in the dairy industry are not just receiving an environmental subsidy, we are receiving a public health subsidy as well."

His farm had a low environmental footprint and did not add nitrogen to the soil. He received a premium for the organic milk his farm produced.

He said dairy farming in Canterbury needed to de-intensify, with a focus on soil management and lower stocking rates.

"I think farmers are a pretty diverse bunch. When the regulations are put in place as they need to be put in place, they will come up with different solutions."

Polluted Paradise - People and Power

al-Jazeera

Boycott of Qatar will continue indefinitely

CONFIRMED: Saudi Arabia will continue to lead boycott of Qatar indefinitely

Adam Garrie

the Duran,

5 June, 2017

As predicted by The Duran, this is the New Cold War In The Desert.

After Qatar predictably rejected an ultimatum of ridiculous demands from Saudi Arabia which amounted to the surrendering of Qatar’s political and economic sovereignty, the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has announced that as a result the boycott of Qatar will continue.

READ MORE: 13 RIDICULOUS demands Saudi gives to Qatar in aggressive ultimatum

Al-Jubeir stated that he still expects Qatar to comply with the ultimatum in spite of the ten day deadline for compliance having passed. As expected, Saudi Arabia which along with Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain are part of the boycott have not promised any further retribution against Qatar apart from the prolonged economic, political and transport boycott.

This new reality confirms what The Duran published on 24 June. The following piece predicting that events would turn out as they have is reproduced in its entirety:

“The cold war in the desert may become a new medium term reality for the Gulf and wider Middle East as both sides become more entrenched in their positions.

Qatar has refused a Saudi authored ultimatum whose contents were leaked to the press. A Qatari official has called the ultimatum “unrealistic” and “unreasonable” and it is not difficult to see why as capitulation to Saudi Arabia’s demands would essentially reduce Qatar to the status of a Saudi client state.

READ MORE: QATAR CRISIS: Doha refuses Saudi ultimatum

Now the UAE which has strongly backed the Saudi position, has implied that the countries currently boycotting Qatar do not intend to engage Qatar militarily nor do they seek regime change in Doha. According to the UAE’s Foreign Minister, the anti-Qatar parties instead seek to change the “behaviour” of the government in Doha.

Enter a classic cold war scenario where economic disputes and a competition for geo-political authority and prestige are cloaked in an ideological struggle that ultimately no one is willing to die for.

Anwar Gargash the UAE’s Foreign Minister has described the situation from the pro-Saudi viewpoint, saying,

“The alternative is not escalation, the alternative is parting of ways, because it is very difficult for us to maintain a collective grouping”.

With both sides seemingly unwilling to compromise and with Qatar given a list of ultimatums that no state could reasonably expect to voluntarily abide by, one could witness this cold war in the desert having wider implications in a broader regional shift in the Middle East. The first victim of this shift will be the functionality of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

With Iran growing sympathetic to the plight of Qatar and Turkey openly advocating for a pro-Qatari settlement, the two most important non-Arab powers in the region are now in alignment on a key issue after years being on opposite sides of the war in Syria for years.

With the war in Syria winding down and Turkey increasingly infuriated at America’s alignment with Kurdish fighters, there is a very real possibility that Turkey, Iran and more broadly Russia could find themselves as allies in the Middle East. Such a triumvirate already forms the basis of the Astana Group, the only realistic collective working for peace in Syria. The western backed Geneva process is by contrast, largely a talking shop that cannot really accomplish anything.

Furthermore, with the main Sunni powers of the Gulf plus the Arab world’s largest predominately Sunni state, Egypt all stacked against Qatar, one is now witnessing the odd reality that a Salafist Sunni kleptocracy, Qatar may be tempted into making connections with the Shi’a powers in the region. Indeed, statements from the Emir of Qatar praising the Shi’a Lebanese party Hezbollah were widely interpreted as geo-political sacrilege by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

What this shows is that while Saudi propagandists have been promoting the idea that a Shi’a crescent is being formed between Iran, Iraq, Syria and southern Lebanon, the truth is that the political realities in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are vastly more manifold than the simplistic Sunni versus Shi’a narrative that Saudi has been propagandising.

Ironically though, in isolating Qatar in the name of being a ‘lapsed Sunni power’, Saudi has created a Shi’a crescent running from the Gulf across the Red Sea into Egypt with Qatar being isolated in the centre of this crescent and Shi’a Houthis in Yemen being the biggest victims ‘in the way’ of completing this crescent.

Although secular Egypt is not about to turn into a Gulf style state, Egypt’s hatred of both Qatar and Turkey’s support for its ousted Muslim Brotherhood government mean that Riyadh and Cairo now have a common enemy, albeit for different reasons.

Egypt’s anger at Qatar is actually based on something more meaningful than pride and greed. It is based on Egypt’s survival which as any Nasserist can explain, is put in peril by the Brotherhood whenever it comes close to power. Secular Syrians feel the same hatred for the Brotherhood under their secular Shi’a leadership as Egypt does under its secular Sunni leadership.

Israel in spite of being a Zionist state and not a Wahhabi Kingdom is firmly on the side of Saudi in this new cold war. Cold wars after all make for strange bedfellows and the emerging new relationship between Saudi and Israel is less strange than many. Just consider Hindu India’s close relationship with the communist/atheist USSR.

Like in any Cold War, countries that do not conform into one sphere of influence or another are in the unique position of being non-aligned. As such both major powers will try to court the non-aligned states.

If Iran represents the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia represents the USA in the cold war in the desert, each side will seek to attract those who do not fit into the mould of a staunch Iranian or Saudi ally.

When the Romanian Communist leader Nicolae Ceaușescu started exercising a unilateral foreign policy in spite of being part of the Warsaw Pact, he was courted by the United States.

Likewise, Egypt’s Nasser was masterful at courting both Moscow and Washington, certainly for a time.

It seems that Saudi and the UAE will now vacillate between increased threats towards Qatar and an increased private acceptance that Qatar has been ‘lost’, just as Moscow ‘lost’ Yugoslavia in the 1940s.

The Cold War between communist and capitalist states in the second half of the 20th century led to many proxy wars. In the case of the Middle East, the proxy wars came first, many which were outgrowths of the original Cold War.

In this new cold war in the desert, perhaps suspicion and propaganda will replace terrorism and war. In this sense, the developments in the Gulf might be positive. After all, a cold war gets its name because it is a conflict in which no shots are formally fired. If the Middle East cannot attain peace, at least it can perhaps function under a perpetual stalemate which might create a less-violent balance of power”.

This is now the reality for the Gulf, indefinite stalemate without war.

From al-Jazeera

The NY Times

Arab states give Qatar an ultimatum

Al Jazeera: Call for closure siege against journalism

A demand by Saudi Arabia and its allies to shut down the Al Jazeera Media Network has been rejected by the broadcaster and condemned by international media groups.

Al Jazeera’s Jonah Hull reports.

Arab states issue list of demands to end Qatar crisis

Al-Jazeera

‘Attack on sovereignty & independent foreign policy’: Qatar slams Gulf ultimatum as ‘unrealistic’

RT,

23 June, 2017

Qatar says the list of 13 demands put forward by the Gulf nations and Egypt as a precondition for the resumption of diplomatic ties and much needed economic relief is neither “reasonable” nor “realistic”, and infringes on the country’s sovereignty and foreign policy.

“This list of demands confirms what Qatar has said from the beginning – the illegal blockade has nothing to do with combating terrorism, it is about limiting Qatar’s sovereignty, and outsourcing our foreign policy,” Sheikh Saif Al Thani, director of Qatar’s government communications office, said in an email statement to Bloomberg.

The Sheikh stressed that the list is currently under review, but only“out of respect for our brothers in Kuwait,” whose emissary delivered the Saudi-led demands Friday. Al Thani noted that the demands do not meet the US and UK criteria for “reasonable and realistic measures.”

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry says it will soon issue an official response.

“The State of Qatar is currently studying this paper, the demands contained therein and the foundations on which they were based, in order to prepare an appropriate response,” the ministry said, according to Channel News Asia. 

On Friday Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates – which accuse Qatar of sponsoring terrorism – issued a list of 13 stringent demands, which among other things, require Doha to cut ties with Iran, shut down its Al Jazeera news outlet and close the military base which houses Turkish troops in the country.

“We in the network believe that any call for closing down Al Jazeera is nothing but an attempt to silence the freedom of expression in the region and to suppress people's right to information,” Al Jazeera said in a statement.

“By accepting those demands and conditions Qatar will be subject to international accountability and violating its commitments regarding human rights conventions,” Qatar's National Human Rights Committee said in a statement cited by Reuters.

READ MORE: Turkey has no intention of closing Qatar base despite Saudi ultimatum

Doha has been given ten days to comply with the ultimatum, otherwise, the Saudi-led nations will continue their diplomatic isolation and economic blockade of the country which began on June 5.

UAE’s State Minister for Foreign Affairs urged Qatar to meet the demands. “It would be wiser that [Qatar] deal seriously with the demands and concerns of the neighbors or a divorce will take place,” Anwar Gargash said on Twitter in Arabic, adding, that “the crisis is profound.”

Meanwhile, Washington which previously questioned the motives of the diplomatic fall out said it is up to the parties involved to solve the stalemate.

“We believe it is a family issue” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Friday. “This is something they want to, and should, work out for themselves.”

Amid the flurry of diplomatic activity, the United Nations has offered its assistance in mediating the conflict.

“We hope that the countries involved resolve the situation through dialogue,”said UN spokeswoman Eri Kaneko, as quoted by the Inquirer. “We are ready to assist if requested by the parties.”

As the crisis continues to unfold, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called Qatar's Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani to discuss the matter. 

The crisis was triggered in early June following a report on the state run Qatar News Agency (QNA) website and social media accounts, in which the country’s Emir, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, criticizes Saudi Arabia’s anti-Iranian rhetoric among other controversial statements. QNA immediately retracted what it termed “fake news,” and following an investigation, said the channel had been hacked by “neighboring” states which then used the QNA report as a pretext to impose the economic blockade.

The Saudi-Qatar Spat - An Offer To Be Refused

Moon of Alabama,

23 June, 2017

Today the Saudi ruler issued an ultimatum to Qatar that was written to be rejected. Such has happened before and one should not forget the lessons to be learned from it.

After the crown prince of the Austia-Hungary monarchy Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was shot and killed in Sarajevo the government of Austria waited three weeks to issue a 10 point ultimatum to Serbia which it held responsible for the incident. At least three of those points concerned the suppression of "propaganda against Austria-Hungary" and the Austrian Monarchy by private and state entities. It demanded a response within two days:

Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, commented that he had "never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character."

The Austrian ultimatum was an offer to be refused. But Serbia did not fall into that trap. It conceded on everything but two minor points. This was to no avail. The issues and plans Austria had were not about the assassination of [the disliked] Franz Ferdinand or the demands issued in the ultimatum. Two days later Austria-Hungary declared war against Serbia. Allies jumped to either side. World War I had started.

bigger

The now official demands by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and some minor Gulf sheikdoms against Qatar have a similar smell to them. They are also "an offer to be refused."

The demands come late, three weeks after Saudi Arabia first accused Qatar of "supporting terrorism", three weeks after it closed the border and laid siege on the country.

(Qatar is surly "supporting terrorism". So is the U.S. - the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just rejected an asylum request because the person in question has relations with the Free Syrian Army which the C&I-Service considers to be an "undesignated terrorist organization". The CIA built and supports the FSA. According to the U.S. government the U.S. government is a state sponsor of terrorism. But the biggest terrorist sponsor of all are and have been the Saudis.)

Spats between member of the Gulf Cooperation Council are usually mediated by the U.S. government. But without any official demands issued against Qatar there was nothing to mediate about. Three day ago U.S. Department of State finally issued a rather angry statementtowards Saudi Arabia:

"We are mystified that the Gulf states have not released to the public, nor to the Qataris, the details about the claims that they are making toward Qatar," explained State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert on Tuesday.
...
"At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns about Qatar's alleged support for terrorism, or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC countries?" Nauert asked.

The real issue for Saudi Arabia is the support for the Muslim Brotherhood by Qatar. The MB provides an alternative model of Islamic government to the hereditary kingdoms of the Gulf sheiks. They are a danger to the Saudi ruling family. A second point are Qatar's relative good relations with Iran, the external enemy the Saudis (and Israeli) rulers need to keep their people in line.

The "terrorism" accusation was never the real issue. What the Saudis demand is subjugation. A summary of the thirteen points:

In effect, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain are asking Qatar to hand over control of its foreign policy to them. It will not be allowed to have diplomatic relations with Iran and its contact with Iran will be limited to trade and commerce that “complies with US and international sanctions”. Qatar will not be allowed contact with political opposition figures in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain — even though other countries (including western countries) do so routinely. In addition, Qatar is being asked to hand over all its files on those opposition groups.
...

Qatar is also being asked to “end interference in sovereign countries’ internal affairs” while allowing Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc, apparently unlimited interference in Qatar’s own affairs. Qatar, according to the list of demands, must “align itself with the other Gulf and Arab countries militarily, politically, socially and economically”.

Then there’s the closure of Qatar’s TV station, al-Jazeera. Obviously, the Saudis, Emiratis, etc, don’t like it. ... Qatar is also told to stop funding several other news organisations, including Middle East Eye and al-Arabi al-Jadeed (also available in English as The New Arab).
...

Finally, Qatar is being asked to sign blank cheque covering “reparations and compensation for loss of life and other, financial losses caused by Qatar’s policies in recent years”.

The Saudi ultimatum ends on July 3, the anniversary of the Saudi sponsored military coup against the Qatar backed Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. 

One demand in the ultimatum is for Qatar to end all support for the Brotherhood. The ultimatum will likely be rejected. Qatar will simply not respond until the Saudis and others lift their blockade of the country.

If the Saudis want war they should launch it right away, the Qatari ruler thinks. Doha is sure that the U.S. will not allow that. Ten-thousand U.S. troops are stationed in Qatar. It hosts a major air base and the important Central Command, which leads the war against ISIS and Syria. Qatar just bought U.S. fighter jets for $12 billion and is offering to take a 10% share of American Airlines.

Turkish troops have arrived to protect the sheikdom. One unexpected Saudi demand is that all Turkish troops leave Qatar. The Erdogan government, a Muslim Brotherhood branch, responded with a snippy "Make me do so."

Turkey’s Defense Minister Fikri Işık rejected the demand, saying any call for the base to be shut would represent interference in Ankara’s relations with Doha. He suggested instead that Turkey might bolster its presence.

There is no "or else" in the Saudi ultimatum. The Saudi ruler, the clown prince Mohammad bin Salman, is not a strategist. He likely has not thought through what he could do should Qatar says "no" to him.

The Trump administration is considering a Camp David-style summit to solve the conflict:

“The president now wants to bring all the key players to Washington,” he said. “They need to disavow groups like the [Muslim] Brotherhood for the stability of the Middle East at large. It’s not just about Qatari elements funding the Brotherhood but disavowing support for extremism in general,” [a senior White House official] said.

The real issue for the Trump administration is to unite the GCC behind its plans against Iran. There is only a small chance that such can be achieved. Iran is an important commercial partner for Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Oman. Those countries have nothing to win from any war with it.

So far Iran is the sole winner of the GCC spat. Should the Saudi blockade of Qatar continue Iran's farmers will sell over 400,000 tons of food per year to Qatar. Steel and concrete are other potential exports products for Iran. Lucrative air traffic in Iranian air space has increased by 17% since the Saudis blocked Qatar Airlines flights through their airspace. Iran will sell more natural gas should Qatar's gas exports be damaged.

As longer this goes on as better for Iran and its allies. The Saudis and Emiratis surely did not think of this when they launched their belligerent plans. The had hoped that Qatar would fold within a day or two. One or two years is now the more likely time frame.