It's no surprise that I've followed the Arab-Qatar diplomatic dispute closely, as it's the first time in decades that two or more royal families have been in conflict, even if it is falling short of war (and we sure hope it doesn't come to that). A dispute that provokes discussion on a wide range of issues, yet is rooted in complex history.
As monarchists, we delight in pointing out that Arab monarchies have worked better than other systems in the region who have invariably been failed states. This is because of the inherent legitimacy of the hereditary system, rooted as it is in the tribe and clan system and history of the region. In general, we can safely say that the most successful states are those where there are the three Cs - continuity, consensus and compromise - among the elites. Whether it is a traditional monarchy or a parliamentary democracy, these are the essential elements of a successful, functioning system.
Beneath the veneer of modernity, many Arab states still have a very traditional way of social and governmental relations rooted in the tribal and clan structure. Liberals and modernists may scoff at this, but this shouldn't be seen as a negative. Meritocracy isn't the be all and end all of everything, and even if democratic norms such as elections are impeccably observed, it is neither reasonable nor realistic to expect a system to conform to Western norms.
Indeed, we have seen what happens when coups and revolutions destroy an existing order. It happened most recently in Iran in 1979, but it had happened in Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958, Syria in 1963 and Libya in 1969. In most or all of these cases, revolutions destroyed the social and political basis of old established elites. In short, an organic social and political order of a monarchy or democracy is replaced by an artificial order imposed from the top down by a dictatorship. These were or are states devoid of compromise, whose rulers suppressed anyone they didn't like or disagree with by various less than civilised means. It is no coincidence that societies like Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya are breeding grounds for Islamist militants, because of the societal vacuum created from a revolutionary process decades ago.
In this background, and the threat from the Iranian Revolution, the belligerence of dictatorships and of terrorist organisations, it is no surprise that Arab royal families formed a much closer bond over recent decades, resulting in the formation of the GCC. They more or less had to stick together as a group, because they shared a common interest in preserving the Old Order threatened by leftist and Islamist enemies. This is why, for instance, previously rival royal families learned to get over historical differences (think Jordan and Saudi Arabia).
And it is also why the sense of betrayal they feel by Qatar begins to become understandable. The belief, increasingly backed by evidence, that Qatar is a haven for subversives who threaten precisely the very same order created, its generous financial support having favoured extremists that undermined legitimate democratic aspirations in Syria and Libya, and more dangerously, hosting the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates that threaten the Gulf states.
The UAE has blacklisted the Muslim Brotherhood and its US affiliate CAIR because of its dangerous, revolutionary nature. Egypt is waging a war on domestic terrorists who threaten all of its people (above all else Coptic Christians, which is why they support Sisi). Bahrain is threatened by Leftist and Islamist agitators supported by the Iranian regime and egged on by moronic Western Leftists. In fact, when Washington heaped praise on Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco or other such states, the Left hates it no matter which party is control of the White House (they didn't like that the Obama Administration praised them, they'll hate it even more that Trump is even more enthusiastically backing them).
In this we see the evil nexus of Leftist and Islamist forces who are on one hand advancing the interests of the Iranian regime and its proxies, and on the other hand helping Sunni Islamists who are allegedly the nemesis of the former. Both of which threaten the traditional social and cultural order of the Middle East. By aiding and abetting the Islamist agenda, Western liberals also do great harm to Muslims, even if they think they aren't.
I have striven for consistency here. My loathing of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran is legion. My loathing of the Assad regime in Syria is equally so. I have denounced Hezbollah, ISIS, Al-Qaeda affiliates like Al-Nusra, and also the PKK/PYD for numerous human rights violations in Rojava. I do so in the interest of truth, reason and evidence, and in the name of fair play. Societies are infinitely better of where traditional norms and the rule of law are observed, and enforced by an effective state.