The rising tension between Egypt and Algeria was fuelled by the media long before their World Cup qualifying match. It is also a reflection of Arab differences in other fields, especially politics. Mohamed Salah wrote that like the Arab political state, Arab sports events, especially football, are full of problems. The atmosphere that preceded Saturday's match and which would last until the decisive match in Umm Durman on 18 November shows that the people as well as officials in the two states have actually chosen such a confrontation. So the picture appears as if they are engaged in a war rather than a football match. And Sudan became an arena in which that battle will be concluded. Salah blamed the problem on the media in both states whose coverage has given the impression that players and fans in the two countries are blocking the other from reaching the World Cup rather than competing in a sports event. "Inter-Arab fighting is a reflection of their political differences. What is important now is that regardless of who wins, the Arabs are represented in the 2010 World Cup. They will all unite and back their representative in the event, but they will resume fighting in the first confrontation between two Arab teams in another 'mother of all battles'", Salah summed up in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat. The failure to convince Israel to freeze settlement building as a pre-condition to return to the negotiating table made the Palestinians, with Arab support, think of referring their case to the Security Council in order to make it issue a resolution declaring the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The move sparked controversy. Hani El-Masri wrote that the measure caused Israeli anxiety and prompted Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to threaten to take unilateral steps including erecting more barriers, and building more of the annexation wall. However, the writer added that these threats should not stop the Palestinians from taking such a move because they will not lose anything. Israel would be the loser because it would appear before the world as the occupying power illegally occupying Palestinian lands. However, in order for that step of declaring a Palestinian state to be fruitful, and to receive international recognition, it should be part of a more comprehensive strategy that substitutes bilateral negotiations. There requires a strategy that aims to reach a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian issue rather than a tactic to press Israel to completely freeze settlement building and outlines the clear basics for peace negotiations. But if it is a mere reaction rather than a comprehensive strategy, it would end up wasting time if it leads to a compromise that is acceptable to Netanyahu's government but that does not necessarily meet the demands of the Palestinians. "A Palestinian state was declared on 15/11/1988 and was recognised by 104 states. What is required now is to set the stage for the establishment of such a state but this will not be accomplished without first ending the occupation," El-Masri wrote in the Palestinian independent political daily Al-Ayyam. He stated that a number of important steps were needed to end the occupation, including boosting the Palestinian resistance as a basic strategy that should include resisting the apartheid wall and settlement building, revealing Israeli crimes in all international arenas, creating a state of international cooperation to help the Palestinians regain their rights and taking the Palestinian file back to the UN and Security Council as an issue of occupation. What is required at that stage, as El-Masri summed up, is an all-out strategy to achieve the rights of the Palestinians in freedom, independence and the right of return. Jawad Al-Bashiti wrote that the Palestinian negotiator has lost confidence in the possibility that Israel will freeze settlement building. Thus, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas adopted a hardline stand by refusing to return to the negotiating table before the complete halt to settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. In light of the deadlock, and complete Palestinian despair that US President Barack Obama would be a fair mediator, the move to go to the Security Council to declare a Palestinian state came up. The move would not become reality on the ground unless the US agrees to refrain from using the veto or at least abstain from voting. Al-Bashiti added in the Jordanian political daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm that the veto is not the only obstacle. First, if it reaches the Security Council, it would be a draft resolution that could be amended or changed altogether to a vague resolution that does not meet Palestinian demands. Second, how would the Palestinians respond if the US vetoed the resolution? Would they unilaterally declare the establishment of a Palestinian state? If so, would that state receive international recognition? In that case, Netanyahu's government would take unilateral decisions including annulling all agreements signed with the Palestinians, finishing the annexation wall, increasing settlement building in West Jerusalem and maintaining the geographic separation between the West Bank and Gaza. The US could mediate to conclude temporary agreements between Israel and Palestine from which Israel would take all what it wants and leave what it does not for the Palestinians. The editorial of the London-based independent political daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi believed that the issue is closed. It said the US gave the Palestinian Authority another slap in the face when it closed the controversy over declaring an independent Palestinian state. A US spokesman said negotiations are the best way to establish such a state. It is a clear message from the US to the PA that they have to return to the negotiations without conditions. If they try to resort to the Security Council, the editorial added, the US veto will be waiting. It seems that Abbas got the message because an Arab diplomat declared that the declaration of a Palestinian state would come at the suitable time, an indication that the enthusiasm to refer the declaration to the Security Council has waned. US rejection of the Palestinian move means without doubt that the closed-door meeting between Obama and Netanyahu was not tense as the media reported. The first sign of their agreement was thwarting any Arab diplomatic move in the Security Council. However, the question that the edit asked is what Abbas's next step would be if the declaration fails. "Obama's administration would never allow the plan to reach the Security Council. But if it did, it would use the veto to stop it. Thus what are the other options before the Palestinians?" the edit asked in conclusion.
