Just as the inter-Palestinian dialogue may have come to a standstill, US-Iranian contacts are likely to take off. Doaa El-Bey looks at both, plus the plight of Egyptian women who must work Nesrine Murad wrote that both Israel and the US have tried to break up the Palestinians by making use of the nature of Palestinian society which involves various political and ideological affiliations. However, in an old democratic system like that of the Palestinians, there is nothing to hamper the unity of these parties despite their differences. Such unity can take the form of a coalition government. But the situation in the Palestinian arena has negative as well as positive factors. It has become all too easy to create differences within Palestinian ranks especially after Hamas won the elections in 2006. As a result, the Palestinian body was divided into two. "The two heads of the Palestinian leadership have become like two opposite poles." Murad compared the present Palestinian leadership to "Siamese twins in dire need of an operation to completely separate them. A US-Israeli team supervises the operation and wishes it the worse," she wrote in the United Arab Emirates political daily Al-Bayan. Israel and the West are trying to get rid of one or preferably the two heads by hitting one against the other. However, Murad called on the leaders of both parties to behave in a sensible way and take decisive decisions based on giving up personal, partisan and even ideological differences for the sake of changing the present bitter reality of division. The leaders meeting in Cairo and Damascus are facing not only difficult but fateful decisions. The Palestinian daily Al-Quds saw some positive signs in the inter-Palestinian dialogue thanks to Egyptian efforts to reach reconciliation. Although there are still differences, both Fatah and Hamas seem to realise the importance of responding to Egyptian efforts for reconciliation. Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, the deposed Palestinian government, declared that national reconciliation and putting an end to division is a strategic decision that Hamas took. Meanwhile, Palestinian President Abu Mazen and other officials in Fatah emphasise their determination to end division and achieve Palestinian unity. The editorial regarded these declarations as a sign of Palestinian agreement. Thus, the edit expressed hope that Egyptian contacts with all Palestinian parties would lead to agreement and unity so that they could recruit all their efforts in facing the major challenges posed by Israeli practices that aim to root occupation, settlements and usurp Palestinian rights for freedom and independence. US President Barack Obama's declaration that he wants to open a new page with Iran came as a surprise to many. Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashed commented on Obama's smooth language with Iran as a way of embarrassing Tehran. As opposed to his predecessor George Bush, who constantly used threatening language, Obama opted for a friendly tone in a televised speech translated into Persian. In the address, he congratulated the Iranians on Nairuz, the Persian New Year. However, the only difference between the two presidents is in the language; the end result is the same -- confronting Iran with kisses or rockets. While Bush's language sounded dangerous, as Al-Rashed wrote, Obama's is actually more dangerous because he is building an escalating stand against Iran that would help him get the support he needs in the future should he decide to launch an attack against Tehran. He repeatedly sent Tehran peaceful messages and gave his officials the green light to follow suit. Thus he closed the way before Iran should it reject cooperation with the US and before his opponents to stop him from using power against Tehran. "Obama's smooth talking will allow him to say that he used every way to peacefully persuade Iran to give up its military plans and if Iran does not respond positively, he will be left with no option but to use force," Al-Rashed concluded in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat. Abdullah Iskandar wrote that the US-Iranian dialogue is far from smooth although what each party wants from the other is clear. The US wants Tehran to help it in pressing issues in the region, namely Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to giving up its nuclear programme and stopping any activities that threaten Israel and possibly even recognising it. Iran in turn asks Washington to withdraw politically and militarily from the region. Iskandar pointed to the fact that Iran considers itself the powerful party in the dialogue, because the US is facing several failures in the region in addition to the financial crisis that has limited its ability to spend in the military sector. However, the success of the dialogue is not in the hands of only Tehran and Washington because there are regional powers which are in control. First, Israel objects to a US-Iranian rapprochement unless there is a clear guarantee from Washington that the dialogue with Iran will not affect Israeli interests; that is; its target is to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear programme. Meanwhile, the Arab states, especially in the Gulf, will be concerned that a US withdrawal from the region would create a tilt of power towards Iran which could affect their interests. "The Iranian-US dialogue will not be bilateral. It will be linked to the interests of other regional powers. That is why it is going to be problematic," Iskandar wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat. Ahmed Youssef Ahmed pointed to the noticeable change in US policy towards Iran and Washington's unprecedented willingness to open a new chapter. It is clear that Obama refrained from using expressions like "the axis of evil" or "the war on terror". The Iranian response was reserved, linking any change in Tehran's stand to a genuine stand in the US. Ahmed highlighted three aspects in the change in the US position. The first is that unless Iran is a strong regional power, Obama would not offer to open a new page with Tehran. And that, according to the writer should teach the Arab states a lesson: unless they are strong enough, they will not find for themselves a place among international powers. The second lies in the possible repercussions in the improvement of US-Iranian relations which could be incompatible with the interests of Arab states. In order to face that possibility, the Arabs are in need of a united stand that will not allow Iran to make use of the differences among Arab states to penetrate the Arab region. "Without a united Arab stand and establishing themselves as a regional power, Arab states will not avoid the repercussions of a US-Iranian understanding at the expense of their interests," Ahmed wrote in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Ittihad. The third outcome is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US initiative towards Iran could indicate an indirect change in US policy towards Israel, that is, its vision of protecting its interests in the region differs from that of Israel. The new Israeli right-wing government which makes attacking Iran a priority is not likely to accept any rapprochement between the US and Iran. However, a change by the US could encourage Arab states to work for a similar change in the Arab- Israeli conflict.
