The Sharm El-Sheikh summit was met with both hope and uncertainty in the Arab press, says Alaa Abdel-Ghani The summit in Sharm El-Sheikh marked a dramatic return to peacemaking since the Intifada erupted more than four years ago. The question, many asked, is how long the window will remain open. In the London-based Saudi-funded Al-Hayat, Maher Othman wrote in "Optimism or Pessimism": "The summit called for by President Hosni Mubarak would not have been held had Egypt not been confident that circumstances are appropriate to lessen, if not resolve, the crisis." Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the pan- Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi : "All previous ME summits in Sharm El-Sheikh focussed on three things: maintaining Israel's security, widening the normalising of relations with Arabs and criminalising the Intifada, as it was considered terrorism. Today's summit will be no exception. "Sharon will come out the winner. All his conditions have been met even before he left Ben Gurion Airport: the announcement of the death of the Intifada, the stripping of arms of resistance fighters and stopping all resistance operations." An editorial in the Palestinian Al-Quds : "The Palestinian people hope the Israeli government will be flexible and positive towards legitimate Palestinian aspirations at the Sharm summit. This seems to be the aim of the Egyptian leadership and President Mubarak in allowing Sharon to make a historic visit to Egypt." In the Palestinian Al-Ayam : "The Sharm El- Sheikh summit will be part of a series of regional and international activities which the Palestinians will seek to mould into the implementation of the roadmap. But short-term optimism could turn into pessimism in the long run." "Peace will become achievable," wrote an Al- Quds commentary by Faisal Abu Khadrah, "if Washington decides to stand in the middle of the circle, making its distance from all sides equal. This is what we wish for these days... The Sharm El-Sheikh summit... heralds new hope for both sides." In the Palestinian Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, written by Ahmed Dahbur: "How does General Sharon and his supporter, US President George Bush, imagine that Mahmoud Abbas can return from Sharm El-Sheikh to his people without an agreement on the release of all Palestinian prisoners? Unless the prisoners are released, nothing will move." And from Al-Ayam, commentary by Jawad Al- Bashiti: "The Palestinians have nothing to lose [at the summit] if they make every effort to bypass the obstacles. An official agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Sharon's government on a comprehensive ceasefire is not important. It would be enough if both sides reiterate their commitment to the roadmap." The summit's curtain-raiser was Condoleezza Rice meeting the two sides in her first overseas trip as US secretary of state. Younis Al-Ammuri in Al-Quds : "The statements by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice come as part of the US diplomatic effort to intensify the White House's foreign activities in the Middle East after the damage the US image has been dealt with as a result of the continued aggression in Iraq." In an Al-Quds editorial: "Once again, Rice refuses to mention the international resolutions on the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. What is strange is that she has said that the US would like the conflicting partners to handle the discussions themselves... ignoring Israel's hardline positions that contradict international legitimacy. The real cause for failure in the past was the lack of pressure on Israel." In Al-Hayat, by Abdel-Wahab Badrakhan: "The new Condi has arrived. Wherever she is, whether in Europe or the Middle East, there will be a basic interest in discovering which mask will the head of American diplomacy wear. Her former position as national security adviser allowed her to hide behind the president. Now she must express her positions more frankly. "Previously, she never disappointed Sharon... It will be beneficial to watch her performance and listen to her to deduce any new directions by the Bush administration." As the landmark polls trickle in, Iraq's elections have not been forgotten. "The Iraqi people want democracy like the rest of the Arab peoples subjugated under dictatorial leaders," wrote the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "The overwhelming turnout is enough evidence in this respect. However, this does not mean that these elections are genuine and that the outcome will save the country from its escalating quagmire." "The Saddamites, Bin Ladinites and their tyranny-promoting host, who were banking on turning Iraq into a nightmarish swamp, have lost their bet to Lebanise, Somalise or Balkanise this country." So wrote Ayman Al-Sumairi in the Iraqi paper Baghdad. "By going to the polls in such great numbers as to emulate those seen only in the most confirmed democracies in the world, the people of Iraq have indeed cast the evil anti- democracy mob into the dumping ground of history, bidding the whole host of them a final goodbye and good riddance." Asharq Al-Awsat 's Adnan Hussein: "If you really want Iraqi Kurds to retain their status as Iraqi citizens living on Iraqi soil, then you should at least accept the idea of having a Kurd for president or prime minister. Only then can you demonstrate your true willingness to let a Turkoman, an Assyrian, a Chaldean, a Jew, a Sabbaean or a Yazidi take the Iraqi presidency in the future, so long as he is fit for the job. President Bush's State of the Union came in for flak. "Changing Syrian, Iranian regimes" was the headline of an editorial in Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "The US cannot occupy Iran as it did in Iraq because it does not have sufficient means to do so... President Bush does not want democracy in Egypt or Saudi Arabia because he wants regimes that accept his diktat and support his occupation of Iraq without reservations... President Bush says US troops will remain in Iraq until they finish the job. This can mean only one thing: the removal of the Iranian and Syrian regimes." Another editorial, "State of the Union address: declaration of new wars" in the Saudi Al-Watan, writes: "President Bush's provocation of both Iran and Syria will have ramifications inside and outside the US. American and European, as well as international political forces which unanimously and rightly rejected the war against Iraq, will not sit back and watch the new challenges which will only lead the American army from one quagmire to another. And this is not for the love of the American army but for love of peace." More criticism came from Mazen Hamad in Qatar's Al-Watan : "President Bush has called on Syria to open its doors for democracy and stop its support for terrorists. However, his language towards Tehran was completely different when he outlined a clear and direct objective of overthrowing the Iranian regime, promising that his country will support the liberals in Iran." In "The policy of the great empire" Abdullah Hamudah wrote in Oman's Al-Watan : "History seems to repeat itself from time to time because the Americans all the time talk about freedom but do the opposite. Therefore, there is nothing new in what Bush was saying: he was only affirming that the whole world is an integral part of US internal affairs and policy." The international anti-terrorism conference received due attention, notably from host Saudi Arabia. The front page lead of the Saudi-financed Asharq Al-Awsat : "Riyadh conference: Calls to establish a fund to help victims of terrorism. The kingdom's foreign minister: 'I don't understand the importance of definitions -- terrorism is terrorism.'" In the same newspaper the Saudi interior minister gave the terrorist breakdown in the kingdom: 22 acts of violence in the past two years. Ninety civilians killed, 39 security forces killed and 92 militants killed. Material damage: one billion Saudi riyals.
