The Qatari media and political discourse have changed in recent days, especially following the decision that was taken by dozen countries so far to sever relations with Qatar as a protest against its links to terrorist organizations and its involvement in plots against the security of some Arab and GCC countries. The Qatari media focused on spreading news of the contact with Western organizations that raise humanitarian slogans and that had suspicious relations with Qatar many years ago.


Some officials of these suspicious organizations accused the countries that boycotted Qatar and stated that this blockade violates international law and the Charter of the United Nations. This is a clear ignorance of the international law, and the Qatari leadership proved its ignorance of the basics of politics. What is imposed on the Qatari regime is not a blockade in any way. Qatar has sea ports and an airspace that enable it to freely keep in contact with the whole world. Saudi Arabia has used the right of self-defense guaranteed by international law and closed its land borders with a harming and abusive neighbour.

 All countries of the boycott exercise their right to defend themselves against danger and threat by closing their airspace and maritime borders.

 The case here is a legitimate economic boycott guaranteed by international law to stop dealing with States, individuals, bodies and institutions with the aim of putting pressure on them, or in response to crimes or attacks against the boycotter. Qatar itself has many times called to boycott the goods of many Western countries in the past, like that time with the case of cartoons offensive to the Prophet (PBUH). Qatar has also defamed countries that resorted to peace and normalization of relations with Tel Aviv during the last quarter of the twentieth century. Qatar has itself promoted the boycott as a legitimate tool that international law provides for States and peoples in their relations with the world.

 Qatar knows this fact, but resorted to deception as it claimed that a blockade was imposed by neighbouring countries. The fact that Qatar's aircraft are still working and that only 10% of air traffic is affected, according to Qatar's own official data, prove no such blockade occurred.

The boycott is a legitimate mechanism to deal with aggression, a source of danger, an external threat, and any other illegal act committed by a State or group of States. A boycott may be a measure of precaution or a means of pressure, but in all cases, it is a peaceful political measure that is recognized by international law to deal with these conditions.

 The 10 countries have severed their relations with Qatar, which means preventing all forms of economic, political and other dealings. According to international law, this differs from a blockade, which requires adopting a series of compulsory measures. The Chapter VII Of the Charter of the United Nations states in article 41 that the Security Council shall decide on measures that do not require the use of armed forces to implement its resolutions and may request the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. The article 42 of the same Charter states that if the Security Council considers that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

 This is a clear evidence of the legality of these measures. There is a series of successive measures set forth in Chapter VII from the Article (43) to Article (51) on the organization of the use of armed force where the Security Council has the right to apply these measures if a threat to or breach of the peace or an act of aggression has occurred, meaning that the boycott and pressure measures are an internationally approved and codified mechanisms. What is happening now is not a blockade as stipulated in articles 43 up to 51 of Chapter VII. The affected countries did not even contact the Security Council about this case. The Security Council had imposed the blockade on several countries such as Libya, Iraq and Sudan. The GCC countries did not resort to internationally escalate the Qatari case in order to preserve remaining ties with the Qatari people, who do not deserve to be punished for their leadership's crime.

 Azmi Bishara, the inspiring mentor of the Qatari Emir and his circle, is fully aware of the difference between the concepts of a boycott as an internationally legitimate means and a blockade as an act requiring submission to the authority of the UN Security Council. Attempts to deceive Qatari people are in vain. The Qatari leadership, by linking Qatar to terrorism, has caused a moral damage to its people and made many countries prevent Qatari people from entering their land.

 Qatari leadership should be aware that enough is enough. Qataris do not deserve such a leadership which should have the courage to confess its accumulated mistakes and beh