Writers concerned themselves with the lack of results at the Annapolis and GCC summits, reads Doaa El-Bey Newspapers were trying to find any positive side to the Annapolis meeting, specifically after seeing no significant change in Israeli practices in the occupied lands. Meanwhile, others looked at the possible outcome of the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) 27th summit in Qatar this week. Hazem Mebayadein regarded Annapolis successful because it officially relaunched the Palestinian- Israeli peace talks in the presence of US President George Bush. "Annapolis opened a new phase in which Israel will not be the only player in the White House because Bush decided to listen to the voice of moderate Arabs and international public opinion which seek Palestinian rights," Mebayadein wrote in the independent Jordanian political daily Al-Rai. He called on Arab parties like Hamas and Hizbullah to support the Arab move to restore at least part of Palestinian rights since no one was capable of recapturing all the full rights at present. In the Lebanese political daily An-Nahar, Rosanna Boumounsef looked at the positive side of Annapolis by focussing on the very important and significant developments at the meeting, namely Syrian participation. She regarded Syrian participation as a first and important step towards distancing itself from the Iranian regime. In addition, Syria received two guarantees in Annapolis -- a Russian promise that any Syrian-Israeli talks would parallel Palestinian-Israeli negotiations and would not be left to a later stage. Russia would also try to regenerate the Syrian-Israeli talks in an international conference due early next year. The second guarantee was primarily from Saudi Arabia which confirmed that there would be no normalisation with Israel until a just and comprehensive peace was achieved. In addition, Annapolis contributed to launching a certain dynamic in Lebanon that would help in the coming weeks in the election of the new president and the resolution of the crisis. Unlike Mebayadein and Boumounsef, Amr Gifteli failed to see any positive side to Annapolis because he said Israel was still practising all shapes and forms of terrorism, killings and seizing of Palestinian land. Nothing changed after Annapolis; on the contrary, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert ruled out that an agreement could be reached with the Palestinians before the end of 2008, and the US withdrew a draft resolution to energise the peace process which it had submitted to the Security Council only because Israel did not want the international community to interfere in any future negotiations. "Thus, nothing is going to change on the ground after Annapolis. All the signs indicate that the worst is coming after the US collusion with Israel and the reluctance of the world to play a genuine role in restoring the legal rights of the Palestinians," Gifteli wrote in the Syrian political daily Tishreen. Ali Al-Khushayban regarded Annapolis as another chance for a mere handshake and a US attempt to resolve the Palestinian issue in its own way. But the issue is still very far from being resolved. In the United Arab Emirates independent daily Al-Bayan, Al-Khushayban pointed with admiration to the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's declaration that at Annapolis "we put the peace train back on track." He shared Abbas's hope that the peace train would be unlike Madrid, Oslo or the roadmap which were quickly derailed. The difficult Palestinian situation, together with the war in Iraq, the presidential vacuum in Lebanon, and the Iranian nuclear programme, had many writers calling on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) summit to take steps towards achieving the long awaited goal for unity among its member states in order to confront the crises. Ahmed Abdul-Malek called on the GCC to distance itself from the clichés of the past like "we share one route and one destiny" or "we all belong to the same region" and instead listen to the needs of their peoples. Unlike the European states that united in spite of their differences, GCC member states have failed to unite although they share the same language, religion, culture and traditions. In the Kuwaiti independent daily Al-Qabas Abdul- Malek welcomed the Gulf document that a group of citizens presented to the meeting in order to focus on issues like human rights, women's rights, education, culture, media and the environment. "Given that all measures are being taken to settle the military and security issues in the region, it is time for the GCC to focus on societal issues because the people are the buttress of development and the protective shield for their countries in times of crises." The Saudi political daily Al-Madina wrote in its editorial that whenever a new GCC meeting is held, question marks are raised about the obstacles impeding long awaited Gulf unity. "When will the Gulf states unite? That is the question Gulf citizens asked their leaders in this summit and in every summit," the editorial read. It is such unity that will help the region progress not only in the economic but scientific, industrial and technical fields as well. However, the editorial concluded that as long as there are people who are working for and protecting the dream of unity, it is definitely coming though it did not say when or how. In its editorial, Al-Bayan considered the present GCC meeting unique since there was a huge number of pressing, extensive and hot issues on its agenda. The newspaper expressed its wish that the meeting would be one of action and that resolutions would equal the size of the challenges the region was facing at present. The editorial underlined that if internal Gulf problems are pressing, Arab and regional issues are even more pressing. It pointed to the dangerous situation in Iraq, the volatile situation in Palestine after Hamas's takeover of Gaza, Annapolis, and the expected repercussions from Lebanon's presidential vacuum. Also of significance was the failure of Iranian-European talks regarding Iran's nuclear programme. "The invitation to Iran to attend the summit meeting could be an indication of the Gulf states' wish to play the restraining role in case the crisis escalates," the editorial summed up. Mohamed Kharroub focussed on the Iranian participation at the summit. He regarded Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's personal attendance as delivering a significant message after the situation reached almost the point of no return following the failure of Iran's talks with EU commissioner Javier Solana. As a result, there are clear signs that the five permanent members of the Security Council will issue another resolution (the third) that will impose stricter economic and financial sanctions on Iran. Kharroub assumed the GCC states were not wrong in inviting Iran to their summit in spite of their differences with Tehran. "The GCC invitation and Ahmadinejad's acceptance confirms that the Gulf states realise the depth of the current crisis and that it is in everybody's interest to resolve it via dialogue and not war," Kharroub wrote in Al-Rai.
