A list of demands issued by Saudi Arabia and its allies to end the blockade of Qatar has evoked surprise and dismay among the residents of the country.
After the US chided last week the boycotting nations for the delay in giving  a specific list of demands to Qatar, people have been expecting the release of a set of claims but the circulation of the purported list  on the social media since yesterday morning was received by all with disbelief, for the utter disregard shown to the sovereignty of the country.
While prodding Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries that have imposed a blockade on Qatar to find a quick resolution to the problem, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had said Washington hopes a list of “reasonable and actionable” demands would be presented to Doha.
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt severed diplomatic ties and cut off sea and air links with Qatar on June 5, accusing it of supporting “terrorism” - a charge Doha strongly denies.
But as the “list of demands” was “made available” to the public, all Gulf Times spoke to said it was neither reasonable nor actionable but at the best was an attempt to bludgeon Qatar into submission.
“No country with any self respect can swallow the demands listed by Saudi Arabia and its allies. The demands violate the basic statutes on which nations are built and all international norms,” a British expatriate said.
Reacting to the list, an American engineer said after Tillerson, it was now his turn to be “mystified” over some of the Gulf states’ position towards Qatar. “How can any independent country agree to such terms and conditions,” he wondered. “The tone of the demands and the underlining approach does only show total ignorance of international relations and a lack of understanding about what state sovereignty means.”
“It is for Qatar to decide the level of bilateral relations with Iran or any other country. So is for military alliances. Anyway, the Turkish base in Qatar, a sticking point,  has only a small contingent of troops and negligible equipment, which is no threat to anybody,” the Spanish manager of a company said, referring to the demand to end all military co-operation with Ankara.
The allegation of supporting terrorism is a claim that has not been verified and a calculated move to cut off international aid provided by Qatar to the oppressed and the poor, a group of Indians said, adding that the Muslim Brotherhood is a political movement which is allowed in some of the Arab countries.
A Filipino accountant said the grievances made public by the boycotting nations were more about dictating terms to a sovereign state than an attempt to solve differences of opinion among nations.
He also found it strange for neighbouring countries to ask Qatar to close down the pan-Arabic Al Jazeera channel which had brought a whiff of fresh air to the stifling Arab media scene. “There is no parallel to such blatant attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech anywhere else in the world. “
Commenting on the tone and tenor of the “list”, an Arab executive said the demand for compensation to victims and the four countries because of the losses sustained because of Qatar’s policies, was ridiculous because it amounted to reparation claims after wars, a scenario that cannot be applied to the present stalemate. “Qatar’s strategic stance supports solving the crisis by civilised dialogue.”
The “list” containing 13 points was prepared with a view to scuttling  any effort to find a negotiated settlement to the issue, a Nigerian expatriate said. “It conveyed a threat rather than  reconciliation if one looked at the 10- day ultimatum given to Qatar to comply with all of the demands.” 
An Indonesian working in the oil sector said the list provided no logical ground for the start of negotiations to end the crisis but on the contrary it would only lead to confuse and complicate the matter. “For me most of the demands are unjustifiable and non-negotiable,” he said.
“What has Qatar done that it deserves such rough treatment at the hand of its neighbours,” a Pakistani businessman wondered, adding terms like auditing compliance “once a month for the first year, and then once per quarter in the second year” and so on have not been demanded of even countries that have been defeated in wars.