Seems like the concept of the channel is built on negativity and drama, I knew who they banned the moment I read the title. Qatar Airways must have given huge boost and fuel for more videos and they might regret that decision.
Previously Qatar Airways was having a publicity stunts against Airbus and their a350 plane which has some paint issues that look horrible but apparently safe to fly. IIRC they lost in court in London and it seems like the airline was looking for ways to offload the losses during the pandemic by claiming that the planes weren't flying because they were not safe. Airbus fired Qatar Airways as a customer over this, which is quite shocking considering that they were the lunch customer of the said plane(they later settled).
Apparently, Qatar Airways CEO of 27 years abruptly resigned in October and the new one stated that creating “a culture of trust and empowerment will be the building blocks of our shared success.” [1] So things might be changing.
Hmm the paint issues are not really normal IMO. I don't like Qatar in general (nor their airways) but paint that strips that much is definitely substandard and could cause hazards. A rough body surface can increase drag a lot, flecks of paint can be ingested and build up in the engines or other moving parts (e.g. flap/slat actuators). It could clog sensors leading to other failures (most airplane crashes are a combination of many factors). But in general it's just a very bad thing for a part of a plane to be in a state it was not designed nor tested to be in.
I've been a pilot and I would not be happy flying a plane in that state.
Don't forget even NASA has said things were perfectly safe when they were not, leading to two tragic fatal accidents. Boeing insisted MCAS was totally safe until the second mass fatality. I don't buy that stuff. You don't fly a plane in such a state.
He seems to punch down on airline staff. In this video he picks on a deadheading crewmember presumably because she was sitting next to him and didn’t want him to record:
The whole review sounds rather nitpicky and arbitrary to me, but I don't see anything that would warrant a ban by my (Dutch) standards. Perhaps in a country like China this level of directly voiced criticism is probably an issue when directed at The Party, but elsewhere in the world?
While disagreeing with at least half the critique (like pretending it's "never happened across 600 flights" (something to be proud of!) to run out of a certain meal type), the one thing I want to call out is his expectation that any crew is happy to see him personally and act somewhat like how servants are described to act in medieval novels (one of many examples from the video: "back in the day, I loved the eagerness [of Qatar Air's] staff"). I've heard it's a USA thing to require waiters/waitresses to smile literally the whole shift no matter what they're actually feeling as well as to have greeters at supermarket entrances. Checking Wikipedia, he grew up in Germany, so I'm not quite sure where this comes from but this is what stood out to me as the most unreasonable and useless expectation when they're doing their job perfectly well
Edit: as this commenter on the video also said
> Can we also talk about why the toilets are messy when grown adults are the ones flying. It is unfair for passengers to mess up toilets and expect another human being to clean up your filth after you. [...] The crew are not slaves so please treat them with dignity.
Very poor judgement by the airline's marketing leaders. Instead of asking to take the critical video down, they should have leaned into it with a "we screwed up and want to do better. How can we collaborate to help us get better?" The follow up video would have had 10x positive impact of the original negative video. People love accountability and turnaround stories.
On the other hand, I’m somewhat tired of paying for free business class flights, hotel stays, meals etc. of influencers that expect to just get all of these things for free in exchange for a positive shout-out deceptively labeled a “review”, or (as in this case) to avoid drama by a person that appears to be seeking it out, judging by their Youtube page.
There’s a reason traditional restaurant critics usually pay for their own meals.
Classic access journalism dynamics. Versions of this are at play in every industry, as reviewers and journalists have enormous incentives to please the entities they cover and have equal disincentives not to rock the boat.
You might think this is an outlier, but what authority is going to hold the airline to account? How are you going to convince any YouTuber to give an Ho eat review of the airline ever again?
All publicity is good publicity, particularly on YouTube where eyeballs equate directly to cash, so Josh is going to laugh all the way to the bank with this one.
It's next to impossible to make money off travel journalism/blogging anyway, which is why the mid-tier (big enough to get sponsored, small enough that they can't rock the boat) has always been in the industry's pocket.
The main health conglomerate in my small state won't accept me as a patient anymore, either because I filed a HIPAA complaint against them (not sure if they know about it) or because of the underlying privacy question/complaint that I took to them first. Their customer service didn't respond to my question which upset me, and I didn't fully think through the implications of burning that bridge.
Under HIPAA an entity cannot retaliate against you for filing a complaint. You should notify OCR [Office for Civil Rights] immediately in the event of any retaliatory action.
it's not like they're going to come out and say, "yup, we dissed you because you were a whiny customer and lodged a complaint". you'd have to sue, and then hope to find some email specific to your case in discovery.
why in the world do you feel it would be anything different?
I assume that the Office for Civil Rights would investigate it, not OP personally. I would think this agency has some teeth in general to enforce these rules. But maybe you know something that I don't.
Would the same not equally well apply to the company being sued? That they would have to dig up evidence as to why they have decided to deny service. Not arguing that suing a corporation is a pleasant and easy experience though.
We often talk about how we need an alternative recourse for customers banned by Google. Some kinds of companies should be more closely watched than others with regards to new policy on consumer rights, and the more important the service the more we should apply elevated scrutiny to those companies.
I disagree. I think No Fly Lists absolutely need the highest scrutiny, but I don’t know that there’s a good argument for individual airlines to not be allowed to restrict who flies with them, especially given the last few years of nutcases fighting and opening emergency doors and whatever else.
At least in Western countries, being barred from one carrier is largely irrelevant to one’s ability to travel, that it’s hard to see a good argument for not allowing it.
Google, at least, is vastly more pervasive for most people.
If it happens systematically and in a way that effectively creates one big multilaterally maintained and honored private “no fly” list and a corresponding chilling effect? Absolutely. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’ll quickly have such a list for people exercising their legitimate EU flight compensation rights or anything else inconvenient for airlines.
Airlines should on the other hand be free to set their own restrictions on filming in their planes and publishing that material – clearly communicated at the time of booking. I’ve been on a flight with a Youtube “personality” just looking for drama with the airline, and even as a bystander I found it obnoxious (and I didn’t want to end up in that video myself).
If they did it independently, no. I don’t think it’s a travesty if someone pushes everyone to refuse to do business with him.
If the airlines passed names around, it’s effectively a worse NFL and, I think, should either be prohibited or run by a very transparent agency with clear challenge rules. No comment on how realistic the latter actually is.
If some idiot ends up blacklisted by enough airlines that air travel becomes impractical for them, tough shit. He can still travel by land or sea, and those methods of travel are also considered privileges.
Noone is entitled to means of travel beyond their own two feet, or a practical equivalent for the handicapped, in spaces they have a right to access.
Fighting and attempting to open doors in air is No Fly List material. Give us something that warrants being barred from one airline but not from air travel.
I don’t really want to play rules lawyer. In general, if you refuse to comply with crew member instructions, per the contract of carriage (I’m probably getting that name wrong), the airline should be able to tell you they no longer want your business.
Ah, fair enough - I know it's also in the COC - Rule 21.H for United for instance (no idea on other US carriers or European carriers), though United's COC in general provides some better answers to the question.
Reading further, there are some Part 141 regs that address very narrow crew member instructions (e.g., don’t smoke) and a federal law that prohibited (broadly defined) interference with a flight crew.
In some countries, the law is that if you're working on a "public offer" deal (where you don't sign any contract), you can't restrict. Any restriction (like asking a disabled to get out of expensive cafe to not bother other people) can be punished. If you need to sign a contract with a representative, then yes, they can choose not to do it.
It’s so funny to me that when we are talking about network neutrality or Section 230, everyone comes out of the woodwork chanting “common carrier” but somehow when the term actually has some practical and relevant application, crickets.
Sorry, did you misread my comment? I think they absolutely should be able to put restrictions on their customers, provided they’re not the “only game in town”.
Nice, the original video didn't even reach me before Qatar Airlines decided to go on a war with this YouTuber and did crazy things like firing the flight crew and banning the guy. For what it's worth, I won't be flying with them after this. Freedom of speech comes first, maybe they will evolve one day and understand.
This is why free speech is so important. Most platforms now ban speech that doesn't match their politics, but thankfully X / Twitter does allow free speech. Support it and use that tool.
4D chess by Qatar Airways to stay in the game and get relevant publicity. Ignoring it would have gathered no headlines - this way it’s abuzz. With social media there is no bad PR. We should have all learned that some time ago.
I skimmed several videos on the channel in question, and came to the conclusion that if I happened to be an airline PR/marketing executive, I would find any phony reason to ban him from the airline just as a matter of personal taste. What a douchebag.
Yes, but this guy was reporting about economy on an old aircraft plying a non-premium route to Sri Lanka, which like all subcontinental routes on all Gulf carriers tends to get the least love. Most pax are menial workers on the cheapest possible ticket, who fly airplanes approx twice in their life, so why bother?
Easily one of the most disgusting comments I've seen on this site. Having flown into and out of the subcontinent via the Middle East dozens of times, most pax are usually not migrant workers - they're Western-emigrated Indians or their families transiting through a hub in the ME. These are not lesser passengers compared to those who ply between Europe and the Middle East only (in fact, often more well-to-do).
In any case, if you're flying with Qatar, you're flying with Qatar. It's entirely fair to judge an airline based on any route that they operate under their own name.
It's only the Middle Eastern airlines who treat subcontinent flights as "second class" routes btw, with lesser aircraft, new or low-performing crew, substandard food - and this is entirely because the airline employees that plan these routes are racist. I daresay even on ME-Europe routes South Asian passengers are treated differently by these airlines.
I'm not saying I approve of this state of affairs, I'm simply explaining how Gulf airlines view these routes, so reserve your disgust for them. And of course this attitude permeates how Gulf countries view people from the subcontinent in general.
The worst possible response. Now not only do they have a thought leader in the space actively turned against them, but now everyone knows. They just gave this story incredible traction.
Not the definition I'm used to either. "influencer" is even too far for my liking. I feel sorry for people that are actually influenced by any of these people
Do you mean that there are other more notable critics of airlines to consider? Or just that you don't approve of him or youtubers in general? Honest question; I can't say I know much about the airline critic scene. For all I know he could be the top guy in the business or just some random dude on youtube.
"Thought leader", along with the phrase "whitepaper", has been diluted to mean almost nothing these days. Companies publish marketing documents and call them "whitepapers" to acquire undeserved legitimacy; same goes for self-proclaimed thought leaders.
To me, a thought leader is someone at the top of a legitimate field and leading the way. Not some guy who was wronged by an airline and spent an epic amount of time crafting a tirade against them.
> Women on 10 flights, including five Australians who were on a Sydney-bound Qatar Airways flight, were removed from planes at gunpoint and taken into ambulances on the tarmac.
> Some were instructed to remove their underwear and some were forced to submit to invasive gynaecological examinations for evidence they had recently given birth.
///
My original comment is above, as many replies indicate, I did not include the context, which is:
> women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport.
If you're going to quote the juicy bits of the article, it might be helpful to provide the full context as well.
> women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport.
While I personally don't think this justifies their actions, I do think it matters that this was not a completely random "let's inspect some vaginas".
It's invasive and wrong (from western eyes anyway) for sure. But "we're inspecting viable suspects genitals due to a crime" is not worse than "we're inspecting random peoples genitals", which is the point that was being made.
If an assault took place and witnesses saw a short asian woman, you'd expect the lineup to be of short asian women, not tall black men.
> Pretty Orwellian if you feel this is an acceptable approach to apply to innocent people en masse in response to a crime.
I don't, but there's a nuanced area between "this is fine" and "this is rape".
Is inserting a needle to take blood rape? What about people being seen at a nudist beach? Obviously they consent to "inspection", so I guess it's just sex then?
I suspect you're using an incorrect but emotive word to get your point across - and I definitely sit in the same camp in terms of it being right/wrong - but inaccurate all the same. If you misuse strongly emotive words, their meaning and impact fade.
> Maybe take a lock of hair for a DNA test against the newborn if you’re really that concerned yah?
I don't disagree, but time is a factor in one of the busiest airports in the world with 10+ planes grounded while they wait. In addition, the line for what's ethical, peoples bodily rights etc are different in Qatar - something anyone entering the country has a responsibility to know. You're projecting western values over them and demanding their culture bends to your view.
> I suspect you’re using an incorrect but emotive word to get your point across.
Very well, I’ll leave it to you to come up with a more semantically accurate way to describe the essence of, “we’re going to poke around in your genitals under threat of violence”.
> I don’t disagree, but time is a factor in one of the busiest airports in the world with 10+ planes grounded while they wait.
And what exactly prevented the planes from leaving? It would’ve been quite straightforward to give these people an option. Something like, “if you’re comfortable with a physical inspection, you may leave immediately afterwards on your regular flight. If not, we need you to miss this flight while we run the DNA tests and will accommodate your replacement flight and interim stay”. And yes, all costs for such a delay should be covered for the innocent people subjected to it. Don’t tell me Qatar can’t afford it. Being short on time is a poor justification for the decision which was made.
> Is inserting a needle to take blood rape? What about people being seen at a nudist beach?
You’ve gone some way to answer your own questions here, with the key point being consent. People at a nude beach have indeed consented to being seen nude, so it’s all good. If you walk up and try to start putting things in their genitals against their will under threat of violence, it’s still rape.
> In addition, the line for what's ethical, peoples bodily rights etc are different in Qatar - something anyone entering the country has a responsibility to know.
Oh yep, every travel ad helps clarify. “Discover the enchanting beauty of Qatar, where tradition meets modernity. From the dazzling skyline of Doha to the serene sand dunes of the desert, Qatar invites you to a world of unparalleled experiences.
You may be subject to genital inspection under gunpoint at the whim of the state at any time regardless of your involvement in any crimes, but don’t let that stop you! Book a lovely trip to Qatar today!”
They’re always so clear about it. I don’t know how anyone could miss it. The commonly understood expectations for stricter modesty in behavior and apparel are very different than what we’re talking about in this thread.
> You're projecting western values over them and demanding their culture bends to your view.
I have demanded nothing. I have criticized what I view as Qatar’s ridiculous solution to the problem with which they were presented, and others are free to criticize the opinions I hold in turn.
I think it's also important to give the context, for those like me who just saw your comment and were wondering why exactly they would even think of doing that:
> On 2 October 2020, women on planes on the ground at Doha, including 13 Australians, were subjected to the examinations as authorities searched for the mother of a newborn baby found abandoned in a plastic bag in the departures lounge at Hamad international airport.
If only there were any less invasive way to determine biological relationship between a mother and a newborn. (It's not even obvious that I do or should support DNA testing for this, but if there were only two options, I'd sure as hell support that over forced gynecological examination of all women of potential child-bearing age.)
> Does the (real or perceived) need for immediacy justify the incredible level of invasiveness of this mass surveillance?
"mass surveillance" this is not; invasive - absolutely.
What you're proposing, if I was a woman (I am not) to be searched is instead i have to give up my DNA to have them store on record in case I was the person who abandoned the newborn.
That's much closer to "mass surveillance" than a body search.
If given the choice, I would give the body search 100%.
How so? I'm imagining they're intending to detain and investigate indiscriminately every woman of child-bearing age in the airport and on flights that recently boarded. That seems to meet the definition to me.
If it turns out one of the women is the mother, it would not be trivial to arrest and bring her to trial across international borders. This is also assuming the mother doesn't further vanish into thin air, so to speak.
So while I find the methods questionable, I also accept there is merit in pursuing methods that can give reasonable evidence towards an arrest now before the mother can high tail it.
If I had to hazard a guess on the time requirements for DNA testing, I'd probably put it somewhere between "instantly" and "before the statute of limitations for 'DIY airport abortion' expires"
And what do you do in the meantime? All those people have a flight to catch. Do you detain them? That seems like it'd spark the same amount of flak. Do you let them go? To people who think that abortions should be legal that's probably acceptable, but what about to people who think abortions are murder? If there was a murderer loose would you let the suspects fly out?
> If there was a murderer loose would you let the suspects fly out?
Absent any probable cause (or even articulable specific suspicion) against a particular individual? Yes!
If someone is murdered by a woman in my city, we don’t detain all women.
I get that Qatar doesn’t have the US Fourth Amendment (and perhaps no enumeration of rights of the people), but this behavior would be considered absurd (ly unconstitutional) here.
Somewhat oddly, since as far as I understand it the searches were conducted by security staff at Qatar's Doha airport, not Qatar Airlines personnel. (Admittedly a fine line, since Doha is 99% Qatar Airlines.)
I was fortunate enough to have some time discussing this incident with one of the Qatar Airways media personnel this year. It was done by local authorities and the airline didn't get a say.
The airline and the cou try have lost my business forever because of the incident. We have had 4 trips of 6 people where this is one of the main stops on a possible route, and I've actively avoided booking that route because I don't believe in su jecting the women of my family to the particular injustices I believe were committed here.
I also believe the local authority figures who completed this search were later fired.
What a spectacular fumble by Qatar, taking a mediocre review and spending no doubt dozens (at least) of corporate hours: alienating a vocal flyer, crew, avid travellers and more.
'A short time later, Josh received an email from one of the flight attendants who was working his flight, acknowledging that “I know I gave you permission to film the interaction, but I must ask you to remove me from the video,” because “I was pressured to write a statement that I didn’t give you permission to be filmed,” and “if I don’t write it, I will most likely be dismissed”'
'Since Josh wasn’t willing to voluntarily take down the video, Qatar Airways took all of these statements from crew and sent them to YouTube, demanding that the video be removed for privacy reasons.'
Not surprising. I took my family on a multi country trip between France, Egypt and Qatar in mid 2022. We splurged for q suites on Qatar airways and also a hotel stay via Discover Qatar.
Fast forward to our aborted attempt at entering the country. We are denied boarding on Qatar airways for our return flight via Doha with our booked stopover. Apparently there is some sort of electronic approval process we did not perform - mind you, we had already filed the forms including our negative Covid tests taken in country- but to no avail. Qatar airways refused to rebook us as they claimed we were a no show. After hours of calls with the airline we finally convinced them to rebook us at no cost, without the stopover. Discover Qatar continues to this day to refuse a refund for a hotel stay we could not use as we were denied entry.
First world problems, yes, but when you’re looking for tourism dollars, don’t piss off your customer base.
Maybe I am misreading, but isn't it kinda your fault for not doing the research and filling in all the correct paperwork?
If I messed up travel forms, I wouldn't expect the airline to cover for me. The fact that you got a new flight for free is pretty amazing to be honest.
I filled out what was documented at the time I left, including preparing for and acquiring a COVID test while in Egypt 24-48 hours before boarding the flight to Doha.
The Qatar websites were not clear and when I called the Qatar health authorities ahead of the trip to clarify, they refused to give any guidance but assured me that my circumstances would allow me to travel and complete my stopover without an issue.
So I did the best I could and had a 1/2” binder with dozens of pages of documentation with me during the whole trip. At some point there is only so much research you can do and at the end of the day you’re just subject to an arbitrary interpretation of a vague and rapidly changing rules written in a language you don’t understand.
> At some point there is only so much research you can do and at the end of the day you’re just subject to an arbitrary interpretation of a vague and rapidly changing rules written in a language you don’t understand.
Isn't your gripe with the Qatari government then rather than the airline? They set the rules and guidelines. You called their health authorities rather than the airline. They told you it'd be fine.
I know travel was totally fucked back then, I remember spending many hours trying to figure out what I'd need to enter/leave a country and it always being nerve racking if they'd let me in or not. But at the end of the day, I knew if some place didn't let me in, it'd be ultimately my fault.
I still think the airline did you a massive favor by giving you a new flight for free. That was them trying to not piss off tourists.
Don't get me wrong, fuck Qatar and Qatar airways. I hate everything they stand for. But reading your story makes me think they have really good customer service. I wouldn't expect any airline to do that for me.
I left out that the airline tried to blame us by placing “pax no show” in our ticket record on the global reservation system. I had to call my travel agent to set the record straight in the system, after which I was able to get the airline to capitulate.
Placing “no show” in the record to try and blame us was definitely not good customer service.
Sure my gripe may be with the government, but what difference does it make? They are one and the same given that both entities will point fingers at each other. I tried calling Qatar airways first - they were the ones who suggested calling the health authorities.
As I’ve posted on this site in the past, I am very meticulous when preparing documentation for foreign trips. So I spent hours researching the policies and procedures and had dozens of pages of documentation on me as a contingency plan. I would expect that an airline would do the same if you were in a similar situation after the significant research you’ve done! I would not just give up and say it’s your fault. That’s not an acceptable outcome in my opinion, especially after you’ve taken pains to do the right thing.
I didn’t expect any compensation but I did expect them to make good on the contract of carriage to get us home by rebooking us on the same itinerary just without the day long stopover.
I've had a weird experience with Qatar customer service as well. Basically during covid you could get a full refund if you cancelled or rescheduled your flight. I wanted to reschedule my flight to another final destination, the support agent said they couldn't do that, but could issue me a voucher, and hold a reservation for my next flight. All I had to do was pay that flight with the issued voucher.
However they failed to even send me the voucher within 24 hours, so when I called back, I was told the flight would be an extra US$3,000.
I tried to explain the issue, that they never send me the voucher, and due to that I would be on the hook for extra costs? The support agent was totally uncooperative, and just kept asking "what would you like to do". Turned into a bit of a shouting match.
In the end I had my flight cancelled, and a voucher was issued straight away.
I still don't understand why they couldn't just look at their own logs, realize they actually didn't send the voucher, and just book me on the original flight. Or why the first support agent couldn't just use my voucher to pay for the flight.
This was also a business class flight, so I can't imagine how economy passengers are treated.
First of all they don’t give them to you immediately, so if you just want to cancel a flight and book another, tough luck. Wait or lose it.
Second they promise an additional percentage if you get the voucher instead of the refund (this was started in Covid so people would not request a monetary refund). Then you go use the voucher and lo and behold: the voucher was not for 100% of the fare, “some fees are unrefundable”, and that extra percentage just about restores the fare to the original price you spent.
So it’s nice that they offer the voucher, but why lie about any extras? This bit me in the ass when instead of requesting a “full refund within 24 hours” I just requested the voucher instead, locking me into Qatar unnecessarily.
Ah see that’s the problem. Discover Qatar and Qatar airways are the same company. I run the risk of never being able to book on Qatar airways if I chargeback my discover Qatar booking.
You must mean central Asia, not east Asia. To east Asia, flights always go across the Pacific, even from the east coast, so Asian carriers are typical.
Nope. I literally flew from ASEAN to the East Coast a week ago. The only options below $1400 round trip for economy were Doha (Qatar), Istanbul (Turkish Airlines), and Dubai (Emirates)
Korean Air and JAL have handful of direct options from NYC, BOS, and DC, but they are very marginal and appear to be prestige routes.
In most cases you have to either fly to the West Coast, or fly to the Middle East if you want to go someone that isn't Incheon, as the Incheon to X hop becomes much more expensive than the Middle East to X hop.
Most airlines codeshare and piggyback off Turkish and Qatar anyhow because both are heavily state subsidized
Tokyo and Incheon has direct, but there is more to Asia than those 2. Every other airport requires a transfer, and even those are $1400-1600 round trip unless from NYC
Modern people, especially upper and upper middle class people, have a distinct tendancy to think of nations as just glorified place labels because of their position of privilege. They think they're entitled to go places with entirely different histories and cultures without adapting their behavior at all. I may not agree with the laws in question but there's a certain degree of poetic satisfaction when someone whose sum total of international travel research was an Instagram post gets a rude awakening.
It's them that are making it about religion, as they use it as a foundation for the more unsavoury policies like oppression of women, LGBT etc. Don't forget that these countries explicitly have very little separation between religion and state.
If you let religion dictate laws, then criticism of your laws will reflect on your religion as well.
Not sure I’m able to do that, but I can tell you about non-Muslim countries that are just as bad, and plenty of practicing Muslims that are progressive and totally cool with lgbt people.
That suggests to me the issue is more about authoritarian governments than it is the particular religion the authorization govt is tied to.
As far as middle-eastern countries go, Qatar seems to be a particularly bad apple.
I never understood the "let's suck up to them, because maybe they will improve then" mindset that led to the world cup beind held there. If it was up to me we would have boycot the whole thing.
By low Middle Eastern standards, not really. For example, Qatar hasn't been caught dismembering journalists with a bone saw (Saudi) or abducting wayward princesses from international waters (UAE).
One plus in Qatar's column: they fund Al Jazeera, which has cast a lot of light on a lot of underreported issues in the region and around the world, although Qatar itself gets a free pass.
Qatar tries to play the role of a Middle Eastern Switzerland, it was an early friend of Israel back when that was politically unacceptable in the Guld and it has been instrumental in the recent hostage release agreements between Hamas and Israel. Of course, it's quite hard to stay neutral and for many years it was under a total trade embargo by all its fellow GCC members because it was too supportive of Hamas/Hezbollah/Muslim Brotherhood/Iran/pick your bogeyman. And for what it's worth, the Saudis have also hosted various less than savoury individuals, like Idi Amin.
Again, not trying to claim the Qataris are angels here, but singling them out as somehow worse than the rest also doesn't really ring true.
Their foreign policy changed after the current Emir took control 10 years ago. He always leaned pro-Muslim Brotherhood, while the other Gulf States were opposed to them.
It's basically Qatar/Turkiye/Iran versus UAE/Saudi/Egypt.
A similar foreign policy change would be Thailand's flip from Pro-American to Pro-China in the 2010s due to CP's lobbying and Bhumihol's passing.
Given how much money flow from Quatar to ISIS, Syrian rebels (basically versions of AQ) and other insane head-jopping radicals Islamist radicals in Libya. They cooperated with Turkey on taking over parts of Syria.
They are much to involved in playing the game compared to Switzerland.
Quatar has strong relationships with everybody from the Muslim Brother(hood) to ISIS and people. Lots of money went threw Quatar to ISIS, even once the others managed to limit the flow. The also heavily involved in Syria and Libya.
Qatar is in a strategic location close to Iran. As long as we maintain a policy of containing Iran and preventing them from building nuclear weapons we pretty much need Qatar even if they are kind of a bad apple. There are no really good apples in the region, so pick your poison. No one in power seriously believes that Qatar will improve, and that isn't the point.
Seems like the concept of the channel is built on negativity and drama, I knew who they banned the moment I read the title. Qatar Airways must have given huge boost and fuel for more videos and they might regret that decision.
Previously Qatar Airways was having a publicity stunts against Airbus and their a350 plane which has some paint issues that look horrible but apparently safe to fly. IIRC they lost in court in London and it seems like the airline was looking for ways to offload the losses during the pandemic by claiming that the planes weren't flying because they were not safe. Airbus fired Qatar Airways as a customer over this, which is quite shocking considering that they were the lunch customer of the said plane(they later settled).
Maybe Qatar Airways should re-think their PR.