Egypt's press focussed on the forthcoming parliamentary elections and the anniversary of the 1952 Revolution, while the Arab press concentrated on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and the impact of King Abdullah's visit to Lebanon, write Mohamed El-Sayed and Doaa El-Bey Writers in the Arab press this week agreed that starting direct negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis without prior guarantees would not benefit any of the parties involved, especially the Palestinians. The editorial of the Syrian political daily Tishreen stated that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had fixed the middle of this month as the starting date for direct negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (PA). Instead of delivering guarantees reflecting US seriousness to reach peace in the region, US President Barack Obama had issued threats to the Palestinian Authority, trying to force it into entering into the negotiations. Had Obama asked himself what the negotiations would achieve, the editorial demanded. US insistence on the start of direct negotiations, and Netanyahu's alleged acceptance, indicated that Obama and Netanyahu had reached a mutual understanding during their recent meeting in Washington, and that they wanted to achieve a quick deal that would improve Obama's position ahead of the US mid-term elections. Opening direct negotiations now, the editorial said, would give Netanyahu more time to procrastinate, usurp more Arab land and increase the Jewish presence in Jerusalem. "What the US is now offering the Palestinians indicates a new phase in a conspiracy against them. It aims to force them to give up their land, their religious shrines and the blood of their martyrs," the editorial concluded. Columnist Samih Shabib writing in the Palestinian independent daily Al-Ayyam agreed that entering into direct negotiations now would not achieve anything without Arab and American guarantees. The US message had requested, as well as pressured, the Palestinian Authority to begin direct negotiations. However, it was crystal clear that going into negotiations without clear political guarantees would lead to further failure. Thus, Shahib wrote, the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) would be wrong to enter into direct negotiations without such guarantees, along with Arab support to ensure their seriousness and the possibility of their achieving identifiable results. "Everyone knows that the preparatory and other matters relating to the negotiations have been carried out. The Palestinians, Israelis and Americans should now take political decisions on the borders of the planned Palestinian state, the future of Jerusalem, the question of the Palestinian refuges, and any other issues related to a final settlement," he wrote. There was nothing to indicate, Shabib said, that the Palestinians would bow to pressure. Past incidents, like what happened at Camp David in 2000, had shown that the PA was capable of standing up to pressure. The tour of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and especially his visit to Lebanon accompanied by Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, was hailed as a first step towards greater Arab unity. The visit was also seen as emphasising Lebanon's importance as an Arab state. Writing in the London-based daily Al-Hayat, Jamil Al-Zayabi said that King Abdullah, who had visited a range of Arab capitals, had discussed Arab issues in an atmosphere that was free of tension. Perhaps Beirut was the most important stop on Abdullah's tour, Al-Zayabi said, adding that he had called on the Lebanese to abandon disunity and avoid sectarianism. At the end of a meeting with the Lebanese and Syrian presidents, the three leaders had issued a statement presenting a joint vision of Lebanese affairs, as well as of Arab regional issues. The statement underlined the importance of Arab unity in facing various challenges, notably Israeli intransigence and its criminal practices against the Palestinians. There were also other conspiracies that had been hatched against the Arab region, aiming to exacerbate sectarian strife. It was clear, Al-Zayabi wrote, that the Arab region was not only suffering from political, economic, security and social problems, but also from a need to reach a united vision of regional issues. This is what King Abdullah had called for during the Kuwait economic summit earlier this year. There was a need for Palestinians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Yemenis and Somalis to work together towards national reconciliation and to open the way towards internal stability. "During his 72-hour tour, King Abdullah discussed major issues as a result of his insistence on achieving comprehensive Arab reconciliation and resolving differences for the sake of peace and security among peoples and countries," Al-Zayabi concluded. Columnist Maamoun Fendi writing in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat seized on King Abdullah's visit to underline that Lebanon was an Arab state and was not run by Iran, the US or France. "The Lebanese want their state to remain an Arab state, and the Arab states want it to remain an Arab state. Casting any doubt on these facts opens the door to similar doubts regarding other Arab states," Fendi wrote. The fact that both the Saudi king and the Syrian president had paid a visit to Lebanon indicated a strategic agreement between the two states. This was not only in the interest of Lebanon, but it could also lead to wider inter-Arab agreement. The visit of the two leaders had delivered a clear message to the Americans, Iranians and Israelis, which was to back off from Lebanon. Saudi Arabia had a special status in the Arab world, stemming from its hosting the Islamic religious shrines, its economic status, and the wise policies of its rulers. Such factors would contribute to creating stability in Lebanon, the writer said. Also this week, the continuing failure of Iraqi politicians to form a new government exercised many writers in the Arab press. In its editorial, the UAE daily Al-Bayan said that it was unacceptable to deal with the important matter of forming a new government in this manner. Each party was heaping the blame on the other at the expense of Iraqi national interests and internal stability. There was no end in sight as long as things stayed the way they were and the country's politicians, supposed to represent the people, were apparently not capable of reaching a formula to resolve the crisis. Although recent days had witnessed political and diplomatic moves in addition to a meeting between the heads of the country's two biggest political blocs, raising hopes that a resolution was imminent, the different parties had still failed to resolve their differences. The editorial concluded by reminding leaders and decision- makers in Iraq of the plight of the Iraqi people, who were suffering from a lack of security, terrorist attacks and generalised poverty.
