The solution to the Middle East crisis, writes Jailan Halawi, is not to disarm Hizbullah but to follow in its footsteps Despite the ceasefire in Lebanon, it seems the experience will open a Pandora's box of challenges to Arab leaders and their peoples. While there is a sigh of relief that the bloodshed stopped, an air of apprehension prevails as to what awaits Lebanon in the coming days. There are loads of topics on the Egyptian press plate. The Arab-Israeli conflict, the repercussions of the Israeli aggression on Lebanon and Hizbullah's victory still make headlines, but they seemed to have given way to domestic ordeals. While the Egyptian press expressed its frustration over the Arab leaders in general concerning regional issues, it remained highly critical of its own leadership, denouncing its performance both at home and abroad. Criticism reached its peak when two trains collided on Monday morning, killing 58 and injuring 151 others in Qalyoub. Officials rushed to their classic defensive mode, putting the blame on "individual error" rather than their own negligence and laxity in repairing a deteriorating railway system. Horrific pictures of the site of the accident and stories in the Tuesday editions of all newspapers -- pro- government, opposition and independent -- agreed in defining what happened as "catastrophic" reflecting an undeniable crisis of negligence. Dedicating half its front page to pictures of the trains, the banner of the independent Al-Masri Al-Yom read: "Blood was shed on the rail tracks while Egypt was sleeping". In its editorial, the daily Al-Ahram said: "the tragic accident of the train forces the necessity of opening the railway file because the accident is not the first and surely won't be the last so long as we use the same tactics in dealing with such crisis", or as other analysts said, "for as long as the government remains in power", there will be no answer to the incessant question as to who is responsible for such accidents and why hasn't there been any measures to stop them from recurring? It was not only the train accident that sparked the anger of the press. The Friday edition of Al-Masri Al-Youm was dedicated to re-opening many stories of corruption that had been temporarily overshadowed by the Lebanon war. "The missiles postponed the people's protest against the hostile rise of prices," read one article. The rise of prices and decline of income was not the only worry. Once again the press blamed the government for "wasting public money" and criticising the state for unnecessary expenses under the pretext of development. As an example, they cited Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif's decision to bring down the Ramses Garage that was built for LE52 million and whose cost to dismantle is LE6 million, taken from the railway department's budget which is in dire need of using all its resources for upgrading. In its Sunday edition, the opposition daily Al-Wafd also criticised the government for wasting public money by refusing a sewage project that would save LE20 billion a year and provide 20,000 job opportunities. The article blamed the obstruction on who it described as "enemies of the nation" and urged whom it may concern to look into the matter in a bid to prevent the majority of Egyptians from drinking water mixed with sewage waste. The weekly edition of the independent Nahdet Masr criticised the performance of the government's ministries wondering whether decisions are taken according to the "whims" and "moods" of officials in charge rather than a well-researched and balanced scheme. Equally hit was the government for its foreign and regional policies. In Nahdet Masr, Yousri El-Sayed called on the Arab nation to embrace what he described the Hassan Nasrallah experience, urging Arab leaders to re- evaluate their tactics in dealing with the enemy, recognise their powers and use their resources as a deterrent. El-Sayed criticised the voices criticising Nasrallah and those urging that Hizbullah disarm. "I fail to understand the logic of those who call for Hizbullah to disarm. Why would we advocate that a victorious army [Hizbullah] disarm, when Lebanon's official army -- whose only job is to protect and safeguard the nation -- failed to achieve any success and instead dedicated the task [of resisting the aggressor] to Hizbullah with its limited resources but strong will? Why would we call for the powerful [army] to disarm and lobby for the weak [army] to take over? Who will most benefit from such an act, I wonder?" Such calls, said El-Sayed, are made on behalf of what the US and Israel failed to achieve. "To whose favour do we disarm Hizbullah? Stripping Lebanon of its weapons is making it an easy target for an enemy who comprehends only the language of power." If anything, El-Sayed advised that following such a victory, Hizbullah should merge with the Lebanese army, with Nasrallah in command of the troops, being the hero "who wiped out the myth of the unbeatable Israeli military that for long had terrorised many of the weak [regimes]..." El-Sayed urged the nation to realise that it has the power of self-determination and should act accordingly until victory is achieved. To this effect many political analysts urged Arab leaders to unite in the face of the common enemy, listen to the voice of the people and exert efforts to narrow the gap between the official stance and that of the public. "We call upon our leaders to consult with us for we know how to differ without a civil war and you have to know that too. You also need to know that without us [the people], you are worth nothing," said Mahmoud Abaza, leader of the Wafd Party in the party's Al-Wafd mouthpiece.
