Military

February 15, 2005

SHARM EL-SHEIKH SUMMIT: OPPORTUNITY FOR PEACE

 

KEY FINDINGS

 

**  Abbas must take "sufficient measures to reduce the level of violence."

**  Israel must make "hard decisions" regarding concessions to Palestinians.

**  Reaction mixed to Sharm el-Sheikh Summit--a "positive start" or "just another summit."

**  The U.S. "renewed commitment" towards the Middle East is key to a "prolonged peace."

 

MAJOR THEMES

 

Abbas must turn Hamas 'against the use of terror'--  Most editorials agreed that Palestinian President Abbas must "sideline" or "dissolve" Hamas.  Canada's conservative National Post suggested that "Abbas's reaction to their defiance will be the first real test of his resolve for peace," while a German paper questioned whether Abbas would "take sufficient measures to reduce the level of violence."  Moderate outlets hoped Abbas could entice Hamas into the "political process"; an Indian paper urged the parties to show "patience and courage" even if Hamas tries to "derail the peace initiative."

 

Sharon must address 'Palestinian concerns'--  Observers called on Sharon to speed up "withdrawal from the Palestinian lands in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank."  A majority of dailies agreed that Sharon must combat internal opposition to withdrawal from "radical settlers" and "his own ruling Likud party," while even the conservative Jerusalem Post argued that a Palestinian state is a "historic necessity."  India's independent Inquilab declared "there is no reason to expect Sharon to be honest and sincere," while the Chennai-based centrist Hindu concluded that "the Palestinians are not likely to be satisfied" by the Israeli prisoner release and Gaza withdrawal. 

 

'A summit that offers cause for cautious optimism'--  The Sharm el-Sheikh Summit was viewed as a "positive step" towards "a new era" of peace for the Israeli and Palenstian people.  This "psychological barrier breaking" summit has demonstrated the "willingness" of Abbas and Sharon to begin a "fresh start" for a "distant future."  Conversely, Israel's nationalist Hatzofe opined that because of "unkept promises" in the past the "2005 summit could join the list of bygone summits."  Pessimists viewed the summit as a temporary "break for exhausted Israeli and Palestinian fighters" as the two parties remain "equally far apart now as before."

 

U.S. acting as 'honest broker'--  Numerous dailies cited "indispensable U.S. leadership" as proof of its "renewed commitment" to a "future Palestinian State."  A "positive commitment" from the U.S. as an "even-handed gesture" of peace is "essential" to success in the Middle East.  Other papers warned that as long as the U.S. "overtly or covertly, played the side of Israel"  there would be "no cause for optimism."  A Tanzanian paper editorialized that the "international community" must be involved so the U.S. does not "manipulate the situation to its own global interests."   Euro writers expressed concern over the "lack of weight of European diplomacy" in the process, which demonstrated the continent's "grave weakness."

 

Prepared by Media Reaction Branch (202) 203-7888, rmrmail@state.gov

 

EDITORS:  David Meyers, Steven Radwanski

 

EDITOR'S NOTE:  Media Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment.  Posts select commentary to provide a representative picture of local editorial opinion.  Some commentary is taken directly from the Internet.  This report summarizes and interprites foreign editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Government.  This analysis was based on 99 reports from 40 countries over 5 - 14 February 2005.  Editorial excerpts are listed from the most recent date.

 

EUROPE

 

BRITAIN:  "Opening For Peace.  A Summit That Offers Cause For Cautious Optimism"

 

The conservative Times maintained (2/9):  "Although Condoleezza Rice decided not to share the stage at Sharm el-Sheik, the influence of the Bush Administration on events of late has been considerable.  George W. Bush was at pains to applaud Mr. Abbas during his State of the Union address last week and his Budget released on Monday included an increase in aid for the Palestinians.  He has made it plain that Dr. Rice will be his emissary in the Middle East during the coming four years and has invited each party to the White House."

 

FRANCE:  "A Matter Of Trust"

 

Bruno Frappat held in Catholic La Croix (2/9):  "For a time now Israel has shown signs of goodwill....  Palestine has also engaged in a revision of its position....  We have probably entered that intermediary phase in which mistrust is on the wane and trust is not yet very strong. In military language this translates in a 'cease-fire;' in political language it means going back to dialogue; domestically, for each people, it means remaining watchful with regard to extremists and their ambition to sabotage peace....  No one other than fanatics wants to see blood being shed in the Middle East. The sponsors of the former Oslo process and of the 'Roadmap,' regional and international powers, everyone has a role to play."

 

GERMANY:  "Opportunity For Patient People"

 

Joerg Bremer commented in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/10):  "The elections in Iraq, the normalization process in Afghanistan, and the pressure many countries exert on Iran weaken terror groups.  Islamist groups like the Tehran-backed Shiite Hezbollah will certainly try to break the truce in the Middle East.  Money will probably buy them suicide bombers willing to go to Israel.  More people will die, but Palestinian President Abbas can be sure that his people are sick of terror and terrorists.  If he pursues the people's interests and takes vigorous actions against terrorists, Abbas does not need to fear Israeli retaliation attacks.  But Abbas requires the help of the Israeli leader to effectively rebuild the Palestinian community and pacify his nation.. Any gesture in favor of the Palestinian Authority is costly for Sharon at home.  If he were to release today Palestinian prisoners who have Israeli blood on their hands, he would have to do this against the will of mourning relatives.  But Abbas needs more than the release of one thousand prisoners.  Among them must be Islamists, so Abbas can show to the whole nation that he can deliver.  The world can only partially resolve Sharon's problems.  U.S. Secretary of State Rice has apparently realized this during her visit.  She also prepares in case the process fails by appointing a coordinator.  Gen. Ward is not a man whose failure would lead to a loss of prestige for the Bush administration."

 

"Test"

 

Wolfgang Guenter Lerch commented in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/12):   "The optimism, which was expressed after the meeting between Israeli PM Sharon and Palestinian President Abbas in Sharm el-Sheikh, is put to the first test.  This test does not come unexpected.  Israel said before the meeting that it would give Abbas credit as long as he tries to fight violence.  He has done that.   However, the recent mortar attacks by Palestinian radicals on settlements in the Gaza Strip clearly reflect the desire of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah:  They do not agree with the current policy.   The coming days will show whether Abbas is able to take sufficient measures to reduce the level of violence.  That is risky for Abbas' life.   The current peace efforts suffer from the serious threats to Sharon and Abu Mazen."

 

"Change Of System"

 

Dietrich Alexander noted in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (2/12):   "Officers of Abbas' security troops were not able to prevent mortar and missile attacks on Jewish settlements--a very clear provocation against the truce agreed in Sharm el-Sheikh.  With such people Abbas can neither internationally survive nor convince his people at home that it is worthwhile to engage in the peace efforts.  He had to fire nine unable and unwilling officers and replace them with young and loyal people.  This is a clever but also risky move....  Above all, he shows to the U.S. and Israel that he is willing to implement changes in favor of a peaceful vision for the Holy Land....  Abbas is making progress in his effort to change Arafat's system.  He speaks of a national project and does not accept disruptions.  He needs international backing by Sharon and the U.S. President in particular.  Both are ready for it, but their patience is limited and will be seriously tested when Palestinian extremists attack Israel again."

 

"Change For Peace"

 

Tomas Avenarius opined in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (2/10):  "Because of Hamas' Janus-face there can only one strategy for Abbas to prevent bomb attacks.  He must integrate the group.  Every electoral success of the Islamists is a move away from terrorism.  Knowing that Hamas will get votes from his Fatah movement, Abbas is promoting a competitor.  And the Islamists' parliamentary power will not make it easier for him to strike political deals.  On the other side, the Islamists must change the core of their ideology.  Hamas must become a real power in parliament and simultaneously renounce parts of its program.  It therefore has to distance itself from its sponsors in Tehran, because the Mullah regime uses Hamas as a club against Israel."

 

"Fresh Start"

 

Gisela Dachs noted in center-left Die Zeit (2/10):  "The Palestinian majority has voted in the January elections for a change of policy and the Israeli PM believes the withdrawal from Gaza is in his interest and does no longer want to pursue it unilaterally.  Is there any hope in the Middle East?  History tells us that we should not be overly enthusiastic.   If the truce were to depend on Hamas' will it would be worthless.  On the contrary, their men could use the time to regain their strength in order to attack with full force later.  It is not yet clear how Abbas wants to counter terror, apart from talking to Islamists..  However, Sharm el-Sheikh was a fresh start that must be supported from the outside."    

 

"How Much Can It Take?"

 

Erik-Michael Bader commented in center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/9):  "Given the history of this conflict, which started three-quarters of a century ago, it is unlikely that the violence will suddenly stop.  The political benefit of the truce will be decided by the resilience of the truce.  What is the level of disturbance the truce can take?  If a violation on one side were to cause the other side to annul its obligations, the ceasefire would be of little political weight, but a hostage of a small group of peace saboteurs.  Only with a certain degree of insensitivity towards disturbances the truce has a chance to survive.  But it might be counterproductive to declare this stamina, because saboteurs might try to test its limits."

 

"Rosy Pictures, Sinister Facts"

 

Thorsten Schmitz wrote in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (2/9):  "The intentions of the summit at Sharm el-Sheik are honorable, but there have been many top meetings in the region in the past and a handshake between Sharon and Abbas has not yet put a stop to the senseless violence.  Facts count--and courageous leaders. Abbas must dissolve terror groups and Sharon must do more than withdrawing from the Gaza Strip.  However, the Palestinian leader does not plan to disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad and Sharon still allows building settlements in the West Bank.  This does not match with the rosy pictures from Sharm el-Sheik."

 

ITALY:  "Sharon And Abbas Together We Lay Down Our Arms"

 

Antonio Ferrari said in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (2/9):  "It's too early to exult...but what happened yesterday in Sharm El Sheik...goes way beyond a basic step forward in ending the mother of all conflicts....  Sharon's acknowledgement of his adversary...went beyond due formality....  It confirms that the old general had the courage to put the past behind him and is now convinced that he can go down in history as the only premier that was capable of finding a solution to the conflict....  The warm handshakes at the beginning and end of the summit were more than a promise. The atmosphere of reciprocal trust, following years of resentment and suspicion, was the real victor of this summit."

 

"Allies By Force"

 

Sandro Viola observed in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica (2/9):  "The end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still very far away. The only thing that was agreed to in Sharm El Sheik was a cease-fire, nothing more. And if they would have discussed the crux of the conflict, like the layout of a future Palestinian state, Jerusalem, the refugees' right of return, there would have been no agreement. We would have witnessed another setback. But it is also true that after four years...of bloody clashes...the cease-fire reached in Sharm El Sheik represents a significant turning point."

 

RUSSIA:  "What Has Changed Since 2000?"

 

Andrey Popov wrote in reformist Novyye Izvestiya (2/14): "Whatever obstacles there have been on the way to a truce are 'tactical.'   'Strategic' ones are still ahead.   Those are well known and include the Jerusalem status, Arab refugees, and future state borders.   Barak and Arafat stumbled over those obstacles at Camp David in the fall of 2000.   What has changed since then? Having suffered intifada, with both sides determined to get what they wanted at all costs, Israel and Palestine have virtually lost romantics with their trust in peace through talks.   Instead, those who believe in the use of force have grown in number immensely.   While this may be a nuance to Western peacemakers, it must be a big, if not the biggest, problem to those who are trying to breathe a new life into the peace process."

 

"A Chance To Take Breather And Regroup"

 

Aleksandr Reutov noted in business-oriented Kommersant (2/14): "Experts say that, truce or no truce, radicals are not going to put up with Israel. Saturday's statement by Hamas and Islamic Jihad is merely a chance to take a breather and regroup.   Besides, the new Palestinian leader may not have time to do what he intends.   Britain's Daily Telegraph reported yesterday about Hezbollah's plans to put away Mr. Abbas."

 

"Talking About Talks"

 

Nationalist pro-opposition Sovetskaya Rossiya maintained (2/10): "Formally, the 'quartet' was not represented at the negotiations. This, however, does not mean that America, eager for domination in the Middle East, stepped aside, leaving the Arabs and Israelis on their own so they could sort out things between themselves....   It would be an exaggeration to say that Condoleezza Rice gave everyone instructions on the way to behave.  But the United States, clearly, won't let the reins of patronage slip out of its hands.   Overtly or covertly, America will continue playing on the Israeli side, which is no cause for optimism as far as an early settlement is concerned.   What happened in Sharm el-Sheikh was just 'talks about talks.'   The main events are still ahead."

 

AUSTRIA:  "The Beginning Of A New Beginning In The Middle East"

 

Deputy Chief Editor Viktor Hermann asserted in independent Salzburger Nachrichten (2/9):  "The path that Sharon and Abbas entered on Tuesday is full of pitfalls and obstacles. Sharon and Abbas had not even finished their speeches when the radical Hamas distanced itself from the ceasefire. This indicates one of the key problems of the Palestinian administration:  Mahmud Abbas is not master in his own house. The Palestinian authorities do not have a monopoly on power, which is a sine qua non for any functioning state apparatus. Hamas and Jihad do whatever they like and the Israeli army reserves for itself the right of revenge. As long as Abbas does not succeed in exerting control over these groups, he cannot guarantee peace and security. This means, however, that the basis for a positive economic development in the Palestinian territories is lacking, which, in turn, would be the precondition for strengthening Abbas' mandate for further negotiations. However, Sharon will also have a hard time trying to get the Israelis to accept the idea of renunciation and compromise. This is especially true of those radical settlers for whom already withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is an act of treason against the Chosen People. It is also a piquancy of history that it is Sharon, of all people, who now wants to dismantle settlements. After all, for many years he was the one who pushed their construction. When he did that, he created facts that could now make his life difficult."

 

CZECH REPUBLIC:  "Exhaustion From Disappointed Hopes"

 

Pavel Masa commented in center-right Lidove Noviny (2/9):  "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have 'only' agreed on ceasing violence.  But even this is uncertain since the extremists from Hammas oppose the agreement (from Sharm el-Sheikh)."

 

"How Much Time For Hope?"

 

Adam Cerny opined in business-oriented Hospodarske Noviny (2/9):  "The beauty of the hope from Sharm el-Sheikh is in the expectation of change.  The lifespan of such a hope will become apparent once the Palestinians and the Israelis reach the same point when they discovered a couple of years ago that they would not be able to make an agreement."

 

"Another New Start"

 

Jan Rybar maintained in leading, centrist MF Dnes (2/9):  "The era of Arafat ended, and the era of Abbas has begun - the man who took on himself yesterday to "halt violent actions against Israel."  The future of the peace process will depend on whether he will be able to keep his word." 

 

FINLAND:  "Ceasefire Is A Major Step Forward But Many Questions Remain"

 

Left-of-center Hufvudstadsbladet editorialized (2/10):  "There is cause for optimism for many reasons.  Both the Palestinians and the Israelis are psychologically tired of not being able to lead normal lives.  Arafat is gone, Abbas enjoys a high degree of confidence among the Israelis and internationally.   What role will Israel's best friend, the United States, play?  Bush has signaled renewed willingness to engage in the Middle East.  Only the United States has enough power, money and authority to revitalize the peace process which has run aground." 

 

"Hope For Progress In The Middle East But Peace Still Distant"

 

Leading centrist Helsingin Sanomat editorialized (2/10):  "The budding hopes of progress are mainly based on the growing credibility of Abbas and Sharon as peacemakers, and on the impression that the United States is resuming active diplomacy in the Middle East.  Without strong pressure from Washington, the negotiations will lead nowhere. President Bush's interest in Mideast diplomacy vanished soon after the Aqaba summit of 2003. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has let it be understood that things are different now that Arafat, whom Bush disliked, has left the scene."

 

HUNGARY:  "Peace Not Here Yet"

 

Gabor Miklos pointed out in top-circulation, center-left Nepszabadsag (2/9):  "All peace-implementing measures are going to demand from both nations that they acknowledge the historical grievances of the other side as well....  Therefore, the ceasefire must extend to human relations, too....  The Palestinians have decades of experience of how a Western-type democracy and market economy is working next door. In good times, they [the Palestinians] were able to work in it as second-class guest workers. The ceasefire will [only] mature into peace if they are able to experience the benefits of this world back home. We are talking about the best-educated nation of the Middle East. Their education has not brought them much so far. In the current situation there is no consolidated power whose interest would be maintaining tension, and peace, against its interest. Only global terrorism could act against it. Peace, prosperity and the chance for co-existence would shake its [terrorism's] very foundation. I do not think we have heard the last word from them. Those for whom human lives don't matter."

 

IRELAND:  "Israeli-Palestinian Truce Seen As A Feather In Bush's Cap"

 

The left-of-center Sunday Business Post reported (2/13):  "The truce between Israel and the Palestinians is still too fresh and untested to be described as a triumph. But the agreement is, at least, a feather in the cap for the Bush administration in general and Condoleezza Rice in particular. On her first trip to the Middle East since being confirmed as US secretary of state, Rice was able to nudge both sides towards the most significant agreement since the current cycle of conflict began more than four years ago. In doing so, she seemed to demonstrate that the US was once again willing to get involved in the effort to find a lasting peace in the region. Rice spoke cautiously in the days before the truce was announced. She seemed keen to preserve the sense that the two sides should find agreement themselves. When she arrived in Israel, Rice insisted that 'if the parties are able to continue to move on their own, that's the very best outcome'. But she also expressed the hope that Israel would continue 'to make the hard decisions that must be taken in order to promote peace'...Bush supporters counter that the rapid progress made since Abbas was elected proves that Arafat was part of the problem. They insist that the US president has gone further than any of his predecessors in expressing his desire to see an independent Palestinian state established. The road ahead is likely to be bumpy. But US reengagement was underlined by the appointment of Lieutenant General William E Ward as a 'senior security coordinator' last Monday."

 

"The Grim Reality Of Peace"

 

The left-of-center Sunday Business Post opined (2/13):  "So why should Tuesday's lofty declarations ring any less hollow than those declared in Aqaba and Washington? The election of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian president is one reason for a little hope. Abbas was actually invited by Sharon to visit his ranch in the Negev desert when they met on Tuesday. A small gesture, perhaps, but a significant one that suggests a warming of relations between hostile negotiators. What is unclear is whether Abbas, a highly intellectual man who studied law in Egypt before doing a doctorate in Moscow, can control the militants, resolve internal Palestinian law and order problems, and maintain his side of the ceasefire bargain. Another sign of hope is the American perception of Abbas as a man they can do better business with than his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. Condoleezza Rice pledged renewed US commitment to the peace process when she visited Abbas in Ramallah on Monday....  Increased US involvement can be a double-edged sword. Traditional US support of Israel, both financially and politically, has made it a partial, if influential, player in the Middle East. The US needs to take a more centric negotiating position for it to be seen as a credible player by the Palestinians. The other imponderable is Sharon, with his ability and commitment to sign up fully to a long-term peace deal, which will ultimately lead to an independent Palestinian state."

 

"Cautious Hope In The Middle East"

 

The center-left Irish Times held (2/9): "Yesterday's Israeli-Palestinian summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh is a welcome return to political engagement in this deadly and intractable conflict....  Realistically, however, it would be wise to be cautious, even sceptical, about this in the light of previous false dawns. The two leaders remain far apart and both sides have quite different expectations from any new process, even if there is a fresh momentum behind it and a palpable war fatigue among Israelis and Palestinians alike. There are plausible reasons for optimism that it will be possible to return to serious negotiations on the 'road map' set out at the Aqaba summit in June 2003, as the US says it wants to see happen....  Unfortunately the road map effort collapsed in mutual recriminations and renewed violence. Certainly there are several new factors now at play. Mr Abbas has been elected to succeed Yasser Arafat. Mr Sharon is in a new coalition with Labour. A re-elected President Bush has pledged to see a Palestinian state within four years and badly needs a settlement for the credibility of his wider foreign policy - not least in Iraq. His Secretary of State, Ms Condoleezza Rice, says the US will be 'very active' in pursuit of it, has called on Israel to make the necessary hard decisions for peace and has appointed a general to supervise the mutual military cessation.  Mr Abbas badly needs a rapid transition to substantive talks on an overall settlement, rather than the prolonged period without any violence sought by Mr Sharon....  Despite these huge obstacles the potentially transforming prize of peace demands the most determined effort to bring it about by all the parties to the conflict."

 

"Summit Is The Easy Part For Israeli Leader"

 

The center-left Irish Times (2/9):  "The summit, Mr Sharon knows, will be the easy part. He will have been relieved that none of the substantive issues at the heart of the conflict--final borders, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees--were on the table yesterday. But he will not be able to engage in diplomatic foreplay forever. Already yesterday, the gap between him and Mr Abbas over when final-status issues should be on the table was evident. The Palestinian leader said he considered the steps he had already taken to end the violence, including the deployment of his forces in Gaza, to be part of the first stage of the road map peace plan. But Mr Sharon, who has never been an enthusiast of the internationally backed plan, would only say that his blueprint for a Gaza withdrawal - meant to begin in the summer - could lead to the revival of the road map....  Already the Palestinian leader has won praise in Washington for the steps he has taken to douse the violence, and during her trip to the region earlier this week, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear she expected the sides to return to the road map. But the most serious challenge the Israeli leader faces in the coming months is the opposition at home to his plan to evacuate all 21 settlements in Gaza--especially from lawmakers inside his own ruling Likud Party who are fighting to prevent a pull-out."

 

NETHERLANDS:  "Now For The Real Work"

 

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad editorialized (2/9):  "The U.S. has committed itself to the process through the words and the optimism of Condoleezza Rice. She said the U.S. will be 'very active.' That, too, gives hope: for too long the Americans were absent in this conflict that has a worldwide negative effect."

 

NORWAY:  "Sharm-Offensive By Top Leaders"

 

Per A. Christiansen contended in newspaper-of-record Aftenposten (2/9):  "It would, of course, be nice if a definite step in the direction of peace could be made in Sharm el-Sheikh. And, after all, it is better that the parties talk with each other, than that they shoot at each other. But, when it comes to the realities of the conflict, they are equally far apart now as before....  The Americans administer the attempt to get the parties to follow the Roadmap to Peace, which was developed in cooperation with Russia, the EU and the UN, and which both the Israeli government and the Palestinian self-governing administration have accepted. Yesterday's meeting was also an American initiative. And that being the case, none of the parties could decline out of common decency. But if the talks are going to lead anywhere, both parties have to show a much greater will to create peace than they have done so far."

 

SERBIA:  "New Beginning"

 

Influential Belgrade-based Politika opined (2/11):  "President Bush has improved his rating in the U.S. thanks to the elections in Iraq and...thanks to Secretary Rice's European tour. The tour is sending signals that the U.S. and Europe are facing a new beginning.  The U.S. engagement in achieving a ceasefire between Israelis  and Palestinians, and signs from Berlin and Paris on their willingness to mend fences are surely encouraging."

 

SLOVENIA:  "Time For Peace"

 

Vojislav Bercko commented in left-of-center independent Vecer (2/9):  "Almost five years have passed since...Barak and...Arafat shook hands in Camp David. There have been no handshakes since then....  The Israeli, rather than the Palestinian side, is responsible: in his weak government coalition, Sharon could not afford to negotiate with Arafat, whom he persistently described as a terrorist....  The ceasefire is weak since Abbas lacks support of all extreme Palestinian groups....  Nevertheless, two factors raise hope that the ceasefire may develop into a lasting peace....  The Israelis and Palestinians alike are tired and fed up with fighting, terror, fear, and tears....  And, American President George Bush has made the stabilization of the Middle East his foreign policy priority. Knowing that--in spite of elections--events in Iraq do not develop according to the plans of the Pentagon and White House, the Administration needs a resounding success in the Middle East....  Reaching Israeli-Palestinian peace is the easiest--although far from easy--path to American triumph. Particularly, because part of the responsibility for eventual failure would be carried by the United Nations, the EU, and Russia."

 

SPAIN:  "Hope For Peace In The Middle East Emerges"

 

Daily-of-record La Nacion editorialized (2/10):  "In order to reach a lasting peace in the Middle East, four things are firstly required. One, convey hope for a peace process that has been stalled due to violence. Second, guarantee individual security both to Israelis and Palestinians on equal terms. Third, that the leaders of the two sides share a confident view that a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians is feasible. Finally, that the main countries of the world and the entire international community are decisively committed to the peace process. The recent summit between Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas in Egypt is an important step forward... The US, as requested by the EU, has visibly committed itself again to the Middle East peace process. The deal reached on the margins of the Red Sea is still fragile and, in order to advance, it needs the two sides' good faith and the support of all, but a renewed attitude of hope has spread and an incipient amount of security has been obtained. Both sides openly convey their willingness to make progress as a whole, and the international community, with the indispensable US leadership, has again committed its efforts to the peace process in the Middle East.  It is not a minor thing. This is why there is a prevailing feeling that we are witnessing a different opportunity. Time will tell if we took advantage of it."

 

"A New Era Without Europe"

 

Conservative ABC maintained (2/9):  "No matter what the outcome in the mid-term is, it is certain that the U.S. will be the main engine so that it finally results in a definitive peace agreement.  In fact, U.S. involvement in the achievement of this suspension of hostilities has been decisive.  The steps promoted by Condoleezza Rice show that the new Bush Administration has taken very seriously its wish to articulate a new geostrategic design for the Middle East that corrects the pile of problems left behind by European powers when they dismembered the centuries-old Ottoman empire and imposed their arbitrary colonial drawing pen during the interwar period....  But the most striking fact of the peace process opened yesterday is the lack of weight of European diplomacy.  This way, Europe starts to show a grave weakness in its institutional architecture."

 

"Palestine-Israel, Starting Again"

 

Business-oriented Expansión said (2/9):  "Without doubt it has been the US that has generated the favorable atmosphere for the understanding by demonstrating in recent days an unmistakable commitment to the revival of the peace process and in pursuing concrete results, like the immediate financial aid to the Palestinian Authority--US $40 million--the calling of a summit with Sharon and Mazen in the United States, and the designation of General Ward to oversee security in the region....  The danger now for the embryonic peace process is the vicious circle, in whose end all international diplomacy should be actively involved, especially the U.S., and also it would be desirable that Europe is involved, to define concrete advances, feasible, and beneficial for both parts."

 

"Obligatory Steps"

 

Centrist La Vanguardia stated (2/9):  "The cease of hostilities is an obligatory and indispensable step in restarting the dialogue between Israel and Palestine....  To arrive at this dialogue, a change of strategies should be produced.  Israel should abandon the idea that its security is only from force of arms, and the Palestinians should be convinced that they will never have an independent state by following the road of terrorism.  But it will not be easy....  If George W. Bush wants to crown his second administration with an historic peace between Israel and Palestine, like his predecessor Bill Clinton pursued with enthusiasm, he should involve himself much more and count on Europe."

 

"Arduous Decisions"

 

Left-of-center El País declared (2/9):  "It is to be expected that good faith will prevail in their gestures from Sharm el Sheij and these will mean a ray of light after Arafat's death.  But even if everything goes initially well, the immediate future is full of challenges.  There have been many false dawns in this sixty-year-old conflict.  And almost a miracle is necessary to control so many variables in such a degraded scenario."

 

SWEDEN:  "Another Historic Moment In The Mideast"

 

Independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter editorialized (2/9):  "The remarkable thing is that Sharon and Abbas met, and that there is common willingness to break the spiral of violence. It is obvious that main responsibility rests with the two parties. But the role of the international community, not least the U.S., is central. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to the region was tangible evidence of much needed new approach by the Bush administration. Otherwise the process, that has only just begun, risks being history before any real progress is made."

 

TURKEY:  "Peace?  Maybe!"

 

Zafer Atay a economic-political Dunya commented (2/14):  "If the terms of the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement are implemented, the Palestinian and Israeli leaders will meet again this week.  Thousands of Palestinians will be freed from Israeli prisons.  Thousands of Palestinians suffering from unemployment in Palestine will be able to fill vacant jobs in Israel.  The US and the EU will release all kinds of assistance after the 'cease-fire' agreement, and the people living in poverty will achieve prosperity.  The leader of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, believes that an independent Palestinian state can only be created through dialogue.  For many years, Abbas worked as Arafat's deputy, but no one ever seen him with a gun on his belt.  Sharon, on the other hand, is a warrior.  In the past, he took part in many bloody incidents.  But, lately, he realized that guns and tanks cannot solve any problems.  The whole world is waiting cautiously and acting with optimism.  I wish peace would come immediately.  But, in a region where logic is in short supply, even to wait for a possible peace gives one hope."

 

"The Peace Winds In Middle East Strengthen Bush's Power"

 

Hakan Celik Posta noted (2/10):  "The summit in Egypt brought very important results for peace in the Middle East.  Israel and Palestine promised to stop attacks on one another.  Now, the whole world wonders whether these promises will be kept.  It is a positive development for the US that the peace agreement was reached during Condoleezza Rice's Middle East tour.  This will be registered as a positive mark for Rice, and the Bush Administration's activity in the region will increase.  The international community urges the US to not open a new war front before the Palestine-Israel issue is solved.  Current developments will help the Bush Administration increase pressure on Syria and Iran.  As host of the summit, Egyptian President Mubarak announced that as a good will gesture he will appoint an ambassador to Israel.  The ruling AKP of Turkey put distance between itself and Israel in order to get closer to the Arabs.  Naturally this policy negatively affected Turkish-Israeli bilateral ties and eliminated the possibility of Turkey for playing a role in solving the Israel-Arab dispute.  Thus, when Turkey offered to become a mediator in the Middle East dispute and to host a summit, it was not accepted by either side."

 

"One More Chance For Peace"

 

Hasan Cemal Milliyet observed (2/9):  "After yesterday's Abbas-Sharon summit, a new door opened slightly toward peace in the Middle East.  One more time a 'cease fire' was declared.  But this time everyone is more cautious.  Of course, this is not very surprising.  Witnessing the disregard of a ceasefire decision ten times before, it is only natural for the people to be more careful.  Since there are fanatics on both sides ready to destroy the peace, one cannot blame these people for being cautious.  For a lasting ceasefire, Mahmoud Abbas should reorganize his security forces and arm them in order to establish internal security on the Palestine side.  If he cannot accomplish this, many people believe that the radical Islamist groups can undermine the peace at any moment.  There are many difficulties on both sides' path to peace.  Nevertheless, it is still rather exciting that the door to the peace process was opened at the Sharm-El- Sheikh summit.  We want to be optimistic because it is not possible to survive without hope."

 

"A New Chapter?"

 

Hadi Uluengin Hurriyet stated (2/10): "It was interesting that Rice talked about 'opening a new chapter' shortly after she started her Paris visit.  Her approach might be an indication of a more flexible policy line in the second Bush administration.  At this stage, deeds are needed more than the words in order to believe that this is the case.  It is certain, however, that there is in both the US and Europe the desire to open a new chapter . Secretary Rice very rightfully highlighted the common values shared by America and Europe, which put her diplomatic approach onto the right track.  As the US and Europe prepare for a new chapter in their ties, another brand-new chapter has appeared in the Middle East.  The Israel-Palestine peace is good news for the whole world and for the relationship between the US and Europe."

 

"A New Era Without Europe"

 

Conservative ABC maintained (2/9):  "No matter what the outcome in the mid-term is, it is certain that the U.S. will be the main engine so that it finally results in a definitive peace agreement.  In fact, U.S. involvement in the achievement of this suspension of hostilities has been decisive.  The steps promoted by Condoleezza Rice show that the new Bush Administration has taken very seriously its wish to articulate a new geostrategic design for the Middle East that corrects the pile of problems left behind by European powers when they dismembered the centuries-old Ottoman empire and imposed their arbitrary colonial drawing pen during the interwar period....  But the most striking fact of the peace process opened yesterday is the lack of weight of European diplomacy.  This way, Europe starts to show a grave weakness in its institutional architecture."

 

MIDDLE EAST

 

ISRAEL: "Shalom's Choice"

 

Independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz editorialized (2/14): "While [Foreign Minister Silvan] Shalom is not part of the 'putsch' nor counted with the Likud rebels, practically speaking his behavior is undermining the Prime Minister's policies and challenging the legitimacy of the disengagement process that Sharon is leading.  But it is much worse than that, because Shalom is responsible for explaining the disengagement plan to the world and persuading the world of its legitimacy and chances for its implementation.... There will not be a referendum because the Knesset and government have already decided on disengagement, because the Prime Minister has stuck to his position, and because the plan is on course and there is no way back without causing damage to the country, and Shalom knows this.  If building his political strength in the party is so important to him that he is prepared to support a lost cause, just so that he will be remembered for it, he should leave the government and devote his private time to the issue. Israel's foreign policy should not be damaged by someone trying to have his cake and eat it, too."

 

"Ink On His Hands"

 

Independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz editorialized (2/11): "The goal of Abbas's policy is to entice Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their comrades in the rejectionist front to restrain themselves -- without confronting them, without arresting their members (other than temporarily detaining operatives and then releasing them) and without depriving them of their arms caches. Abbas's idea is to present this restraint to the world, if it is achieved, as fulfillment of the Palestinian obligation to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, which is dictated by the first stage of the road map. American acceptance of this claim would shift the burden of road map implementation onto Israel.  The Americans did not make do with this. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the appointment of an American 'security coordinator,' Lieutenant General William Ward.... Words are not enough. Abbas -- unlike his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, who sabotaged peace... has thus far kept his hands clean of Israeli blood.  That is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient.  If Abbas remains armed only with flowery documents -- only with ink on his hands -- neither he nor his government will have a future."

 

"Bombs And Qassam Rockets On The Katif Bloc"

 

Nationalist, Orthodox Hatzofe editorialized (2/11): "It has suddenly started to turn out that the 2005 summit could join the list of bygone summits in past years on which no superfluous hopes could be pinned.  The shooting on the day following the meeting, as the members of the Israeli delegation were coming back home, does not presage anything good.... The Sharm el-Sheikh summit made no strides toward peace.... The shooting continues.  The bombs are falling.... This has so far been the net achievement of the Sharm summit."

 

"It's All Right To Believe"

 

Editor-in-Chief Amnon Dankner stated in popular, pluralist Maariv noted (2/9):  "So many wise people write and speak cautiously, warn against sinking into euphoria and express great skepticism and fear that everything will immediately crumble, until a desire arises to be optimistic despite everything.  Because most of these wise people have been wrong and misled us so many times--admittedly, usually in the other direction--so why not this time too....  The greatest contribution of this change in Ariel Sharon's approach, aside from the concrete issues, lies in enabling us to understand that if this steadfast rock, this advocate of adhering to every inch of land, can behave so differently now, it is a sign that a lot of other things in the region can change.  If things have really changed, if the two peoples really calm down somewhat in a period of relative quiet and prosperity, it will be possible to slowly and cautiously advance to the next stage.   It is advisable to be balanced and not hope for great things, since those who read the road map realistically see it ending not in a full peace and final status arrangement, but rather in a long-term interim agreement that includes a Palestinian state with non-final borders, which will leave much work for the coming generations of state leaders and military commanders.  Much will depend, of course, on the degree of quiet that exists here, meaning the level of terror, which will not disappear completely, regrettably enough.  In fact, this leads us back to square one of the Oslo accords, in other words, the idea that quiet and a scarcity of violence will build mutual trust, which will smooth the way to the final status arrangement."

 

"Abbas's Absent Talk Of Compromise"

 

The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (2/9):  "In the next few months, Sharon has committed to carrying out the most concrete down payment toward such a state that Israel has ever made, include signing and implementing Oslo itself.  Disengagement is neither conditional nor an experiment. It is a concrete manifestation of Israel's deep and irreversible consensus, as Sharon said to the Palestinian people, that we have 'no desire to continue to govern over you and control your fate'....  Israel has given up the dream of many of its citizens to permanently reclaim the Biblical heartland that it captured in 1967.  At least as profoundly, the perception of a Palestinian state has flipped from being regarded as a mortal threat to being seen as a historic necessity.  The Palestinians, by contrast, have not begun the parallel evolution that must take place for a two-state solution to have a chance.  They have not begun to give up their claim to a Palestinian right to live on both sides of the Green Line.  Abbas has not begun to speak, even in general, of the need for painful Palestinian concessions, let alone specifically of the need to give up, forever, the dream of 'return' to Haifa, Jaffa or Safed, where Abbas himself was born.  On the contrary, on Tuesday he repeated the well-worn code words for such unacceptable demands....  Abbas, then, missed an opportunity to speak to Israelis as Sharon spoke to Palestinians.  'The time has come for the Palestinian people to achieve their independence and their freedom,' Abbas said.  That goal is certainly within the Palestinians' grasp.  Indeed, nothing is stopping the Palestinians from doing what they need to do to achieve it: abandon terror, democratize, and give up the dream of two states, both of them Palestinian."

 

WEST BANK:  "After The Summit"

 

Independent Al-Ayyam held (2/11):  "Although the summit concluded with limited outcomes, it will open the way for the political process to take off and allow for the opportunity to achieve new agreements.  The rockets that were fired on Israeli settlements and military outposts in Gaza were completely 'political,' mainly used to undermine security and to score political gains on the ground.  The firing of those rockets carried a message to everyone that the current Palestinian Authority does not represent the real Palestinian position, and that there are other effectual powers on the ground with a role and the ability to act and enforce conditions.  That message also meant to communicate that these powers should be part of the Authority and that without them, the PA would not be able to forge any security or political agreement."

 

"Let's Carry On The Dialogue And See What Happens"

 

Official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida said (2/11):  "There are those who have clearly gone too far in their criticism and attacks on Hamas and the other factions, merely because these factions question the occupation's intentions and do not buy into the justifications of the need for enforcing calm.  Despite the public's desire for an improvement [in the situation], people have tremendous respect and support for Hamas and the resistance.  Several work plans are needed to achieve quiet, none of which should be aimed at undermining Hamas..  We don't want quiet on the basis that people are fed up and need to relax and travel freely.  Neither do people welcome that quiet in order to see some of their sons let out of prisons just a month before they are due to be released anyway.  We aspire to a calm based on mutual conviction that there is a real political horizon that will lead to independence and freedom."

 

"An End To Bullets"

 

Basim Abu Sumaya wrote in official Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (2/10):  "Can we imagine Israeli PM Sharon being our guest, putting a floral wreath on the late Abu Ammar's grave and announcing before the PLC his recognition of the independent Palestinian state?  Everything can be possible...once we reach a peace agreement with Israel....  If [Sharon] should think of coming to Ramallah tomorrow escorted by convoys of tanks and military forces and asking to meet the President and the PM at one of the [Israeli] military headquarters such as 'Beit El' or 'Dhahiya,' he would be persona non grata.  He must not even think about doing so before translating what was announced at the Sharm summit into action, including the implementation of Israel's commitments under the original, not the revised, Roadmap....  Let the announcement of a mutual cease-fire be binding on both parties and an end the bullets between them.  Only then, I believe, will we not hesitate to welcome Sharon with olive branches, and applause if necessary, when he visits us."

 

"President Abbas's Policy: Taking Away The Pretexts"

 

Muhammad Yaghi asserted in independent Al-Ayyam (2/10):  "While Israel uses the ongoing 'violence' as a pretext not to return to the final-status negotiations, a complete end to the state of violence so as to disclose the real intentions is required.  Since the American administration has refrained from intervening in the conflict for the same reason, it's essential to get it involved again by doing what it has demanded for the past four years.  In brief, this is what the Palestinian President aims to do....  Abbas's policy aims at returning the negotiations to the final track using an international consensus headed by the U.S., which wants to close the file on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for reasons bigger than the conflict itself, such as the wish for success in Iraq.  Solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would mean more diplomacy dedicated to the Iraqi issue and more active, confident and capable American diplomacy for strengthening democracy and freedom in the Arab world."

 

"Abu Mazen And The Truce Challenges"

 

Tawfiq Al-Madini commented in independent Al-Quds (2/10):  "The American-Israeli vision of the Roadmap is simple, yet dangerous: in exchange for U.S. promises to keep the Palestinian regime alive, the PA must end violence against Israelis everywhere including the occupied territories and to fight and dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism, i.e. the armed Palestinian resistance groups....  By this Israeli blackmail, Sharon weakened the Palestinian party's expectations from the Sharm summit...where Sharon claimed that a return to the Roadmap, which the summit aims at reviving, is impossible unless the PA gets rid of the resistance....  The challenges and hardships Abu Mazin faces will increase the burdens on the PA.  The ones responsible for this are Sharon...and the current American administration, which made things worse when President Bush promised Sharon to cancel the international resolutions on the Palestinian cause, judaize most of Palestine and undermine the foundations of Palestinian independence.  A return to the June 4, 1967 lines becomes impossible, in Bush's view, when he admits Israel's right to annex the six large settlement blocs...and to build the separation wall...that transforms what remains of the Palestinian land into racist ghettoes and military detention camps."

 

"Agreement Demanding Israeli Commitment"

 

Independent Al-Quds editorialized (2/9):  "The meeting that brought President Abbas and Israeli PM Sharon together in Sharm el-Sheikh yesterday...resulted in the announcement of a mutual cease-fire and an end of all forms of violence....  Perhaps the positive atmosphere and the speeches of President Abbas, PM Sharon and the host, President Mubarak, are a positive step that couldn't have been possible in the past four years.  Such an atmosphere can continue and be reinforced through constructive and realistic positions by the Israeli party, which could make this meeting a beginning of a new era in the Palestinian-Israeli relations."

 

"Sharm El-Sheikh, A Quick Initial Reading"

 

Hani Habib opined in independent Al-Ayyam (2/9):  "The outcome of the summit...can be seen as a start of a long and hard path, just like any other serious beginning.  It's also an opportunity that can turn fragile if the various parties fail to overcome the obstacles in the way of the negotiations.  By the various parties we specifically mean the Palestinians and the Americans, since the Israeli position, which Sharon reiterated at the summit, is well known.  Regarding the American party, the success of its efforts will lie in its ability to use a new policy based on balanced pressure on both sides [Palestinian and Israeli] in order to reach a just solution....  Perhaps the presence of Condoleezza Rice, who enjoys great support from President Bush, at the head of the State Department will enable the American role to become less prejudiced toward Israel once the U.S. actually wants its efforts on the Palestinian-Israeli issue to bear fruit."

 

SAUDI ARABIA:  "Awards' Summit"

 

Jeddah's conservative Al-Madina contended (2/10):  "It is difficult to identify a winning party at Sharm El-Sheikh summit, which was held without the participation of the principal sponsor of peace....  In fact, the whole thing was nothing but a ceasefire and a break for exhausted Israeli and Palestinian fighters after many years of continuous fighting.  The results of the summit were very predictable, especially after the visit of the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Israel just before the summit....  The summit has succeeded in awarding prizes to both sides of the conflict.  Sharon got the Egyptian and Jordanian Ambassadors back and Abu Mazen got a wave of commendations from President Bush and Miss Rice.  In addition, he received conditional promises of economic support from Washington and the EU....  The decisive issue here is whether or not the American coordinator can be fair and truthful in his mission to monitor any violation of the ceasefire terms that were signed by the two rivals.  We will wait and see!"

 

UAE:  "Another Opportunity Beckons In Mideast"

 

The English-language expatriate-oriented Khaleej Times noted (2/10):  "Hope is in the air again. With Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announcing a historic truce...moves for peace in the region get a fresh lease of life.  But almost immediately, militant factions Hamas and Islamic Jihad have disowned the truce, saying they are not part of it, and therefore, not bound by the ceasefire agreement. Similarly, many hardliners in the Israeli Knesset are not exactly happy with Sharon's overtures....  Yet if peace has to prevail in the region, there has to be a beginning somewhere....  There's got to be a day when adversaries meet and decide to settle their differences for the sake of peace in the region and the well-being of their future generations....  It's always small steps that make a new way or break new paths....  If the majority want peace, let those who don't want it stay behind. They must not be allowed to mar another golden opportunity."

 

JORDAN:  "After Sharm El-Sheikh"

 

Saleh Qallab argued in semi-official, influential Al-Rai (2/9):  "All indications point to the fact that the launch of the peace process is serious, that all these contacts and meetings are not mere public relations, and that the Americans are determined to reduce the tension so that they might focus on other important issues such as Iraq and the war on terrorism....  <