While Egypt was criticised for deciding to build an underground wall on its borders with Gaza, sympathy was shown for the Nagaa Hammadi shootings. Mohamed Salah wrote that the first week of 2010 witnessed two problems in Egypt, the Viva Palestina convoy and the repercussions following the deadly shooting of seven people in the town of Nagaa Hammadi that brought to the forefront sectarian strife which could threaten the interests of the nation and the security of its people. If the Egyptian government wants to avoid a repeat of what happened in Viva Palestina, Salah suggested it should adopt different measures to guarantee that humanitarian aid would reach the Palestinian territories safely without encroaching on Egyptian sovereignty. After that controversy, the authorities declared that aid in the future would be given to the Egyptian Red Crescent which would be responsible for transferring it to the Palestinian territories. However, issues like the amount of the aid, how it would enter Egypt and which party in the Palestinian territories would be accorded it were not tackled. Regarding sectarian strife, the writer suggested that the causes of these incidents should be treated and uprooted. When done, no incident against Christians or Muslims would spread more sectarian strife. "The Coptic file in Egypt is in need of immediate defusing before it explodes," Salah wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat, wondering what would happen throughout the rest of 2010. While Egyptian newspapers viewed building an underground wall on its border with Gaza an internal matter, Arab papers seemed united on denouncing the decision. Suleiman Al-Qubelat wrote that it is logical for Israel to build a racist wall of separation and reject any peaceful settlement that could lead to the establishment of a Palestinian entity that might threaten Tel Aviv's existence. But if Egypt builds a wall on its border with Gaza, that means it is helping Israel impose a blockade against the Strip. Al-Qubelat questioned whether the wall, according to international law, would represent further participation in the comprehensive blockade imposed on Gaza. In the Jordanian political daily Al-Ghad, he also asked whether the wall would possibly jeopardise Egyptian security when an Arab citizen would feel that he is being besieged by another Arab just because the former rejects occupation. Mohannad Abdel-Hamid wrote that the issue of the underground wall to be built by Egypt on its borders with Gaza overshadowed all the other more important political and media issues as if it has become the core of the Palestinian issue. Although more people tend to reject the idea of the wall, accepting or rejecting it did not answer why the issue of ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state became a minor issue and why the battle against Israeli settlement building is not being ferociously fought. "Making the peripheral issue of building an Egyptian wall on the borders a basic issue is very dangerous. The Palestinian battle should be against the occupation and colonial Israeli settlements," Abdel-Hamid wrote in the Palestinian independent political daily Al-Ayyam. Given that the destiny of the Palestinians could be outlined in the next two years, the writer warned of opening up side battles with each other or with any Arab state. Palestinians are supposed to be fully engaged in the peaceful struggle to end the occupation and establish their state and benefit from the international support in resolving their cause. However, Abdel-Hamid did not rule out that there are undisclosed motives for the Egyptian underground wall, like impeding the way before Hamas to root its presence in Gaza and establish an Islamic emirate. There are also US-Israeli motives: stopping Hamas from launching attacks against Israel if a war erupted between Israel and Iran. Nevertheless, the writer added, these motives are not enough to launch an attack against Egypt which is still leading the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation and blockade. With the referendum in Sudan approaching, writers were concerned that it might lead to the division of the African state. Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote that if people chose to separate the north and south of Sudan it would be a sad day because it would witness one of the greatest separations in modern history. The writer saw the importance of Sudan, not only because it was not the only state that has multi- cultural people, but the present regime failed to understand its special nature, a fact which led to its political and military failure and then its failure at the popular level. The present regime, which is centralised in the north, used the wars in the south as a tool to tighten its grip on the north and marginalise opposition parties. As a result it wasted a golden opportunity to reconcile and integrate with the south in 2005 because it did not meet its promises in giving southern political figures influential positions. Thus the southern leaders came to the conclusion that there was no use in talking to the northern government. Al-Rashed added that efforts should be exerted in the little time left to persuade the south to preserve a united Sudan especially because separation would not guarantee a better life for the south. And today's government would not rule forever, he wrote in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat. The fact that heightened security measures at US airports targeted Arabs and Muslims was upsetting. The editorial of the London-based independent political daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi said the measures were an internal matter of sovereignty, but if they were aimed at Arab and Muslim citizens, they indicate that terrorism is confined within that group. "The inspection of Arab and Muslim passengers in US airports is not new, but tightening these measures after the failed attempt to down a US airliner means more humiliation for them. It has also made travelling to the US an unbearable experience," the edit read. What the edit found more annoying is that the US listed 14 terrorist states, 13 of which are Arab and Islamic countries. The irony is that European and US citizens from Arab or Islamic origin are subjected to a thorough inspection in a sign of clear discrimination against them. The edit expressed a wish that all the states that are included on the list should unanimously protest the measure or agree to treat the Americans likewise in their airports. Algeria was the only state that officially protested against being included on the list.
