| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia South Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| 16 October 2000 MEPP: Sharm Al-Sheikh Summit: 'Opportunity for Peace' After 'Time of Anger'? |
Scene-setters on today's meeting in Sharm Al-Sheikh delivered generally pessimistic predictions for the "crisis management summit." In the Middle East, both Arab and Israeli media held low expectations for the confab. Israeli commentators worried that the U.S. does not understand the depth of Arab enmity against the state of Israel. Palestinian and other Arab writers contended that the U.S. remains uncritical of Israel and is only interested in ending the intifada. The consensus in the European press was that "the best one can wish for is a cease-fire...but certainly not a relaunching of the peace process." Yet several writers made clear that, despite the "low expectations," "never have the stakes been so high." As a German paper put it, "Jerusalem is no longer a problem between Israelis and Palestinians but between Israel and one billion Muslims." Regional highlights follow:
ISRAEL: Observers--from right to left--viewed the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit against the backdrop of "the new reality" of Israeli-Palestinian relations: a hot war rather than a cold peace. In a Tom Friedman-style letter from Barak to Clinton, analyst Nahum Barnea wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot: "'Mr. President,' Barak will say to Clinton, 'All his life (Arafat) believed that Palestine would be liberated with blood and fire. It seems Oslo did not change his outlook. The question is how we make sure his successor is different than him.'"
PALESTINIANS/ARABS: Palestinian writers led others in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and UAE in ratcheting up criticism of both Israel and the U.S. In sharply negative previews of the summit, Arab observers accused the U.S. and Israel of teaming up "to try to create a new negotiating framework that aims to end the intifada and preempt any possible joint Arab stand at the Arab summit" next week. Stressing that the Sharm summit "lacks Arab popular support," Jordanian commentators warned that the PA and Arab participants "need to prove" to "the Arab street" that the meeting was in the Palestinians' interests and not merely aimed at protecting Barak's "political future."
EUROPE: A number of editorials from leading papers in Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia were notably critical of Mr. Clinton's role in the peace process and questioned his ability to serve as an honest broker at this stage. They argued variously that he "overdid it at Camp David" this past summer, and that "the smoke of guns and hail of stones" in recent weeks evinced the president's "dwindling influence." A commentator for London's liberal Guardian averred that "a way must be found to break the U.S. monopoly over Arab-Israeli negotiations." Munich's centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung held, "The USS Cole attack and the hatred in the Arab press are evidence that the U.S. is being seen in its old colors again: as a friend of Israel."
ELSEWHERE: Commentators in Asia, Latin America and Africa worried about the possibility of a "low-level conflict" ensuing between Israelis and Palestinians which would "inflate the death count, encourage extremism" throughout the region, and push oil prices up and stock prices down worldwide.
EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Katherine Starr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 66 reports from 35 countries October 13-16. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "The U.S. Didn't Want To See"
Diplomatic correspondent Aluf Benn wrote in independent Ha'aretz (10/16): "How did it happen that the U.S. Government, with all its formidable intelligence capabilities and its close contacts in the region, failed to discover the Palestinians' hatred for Israel? Perhaps Washington simply didn't want to hear. It hoped that the global processes of an 'end to history' and the American leadership's longing for free markets and democracy would somehow appear in the Middle East as well--until the violent outbreaks of the last two weeks finally bared the bitter reality."
"From The Prime Minister, To The President"
In a Tom Friedman-style letter from Barak to Clinton, senior analyst Nahum Barnea wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (10/16): "'Mr. President,' Barak will say to Clinton, 'welcome to the Mideast.... I recommend you don't believe Arafat's poor-me face. When he understood that he had to stop the violence, he knew how to do so. The time has come for him to decide where his eggs lie--in the basket of Iraq, Iran and Libya, or in the American basket.... At Camp David I reached the conclusion that Arafat is not the man. He's no Sadat and he's no Rabin.... All his life he believed that Palestine would be liberated with blood and fire. It seems Oslo did not change his outlook. The question is how we make sure his successor is different than him.'"
"The New Reality"
Independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (10/16): "Israel must develop its 'Plan B'--how to behave now that the Palestinians have traded negotiations for what military analysts call 'low-intensity conflict' and what most people would call war.... The Palestinians have long argued that all Israel understands is force. The Israeli corollary to this assumption is that all the Palestinians understand is facts on the ground. The hard-learned lesson of the last seven years is that Israel could well have to return to the policies of the previous 26 years: that of slowly creating facts on the ground that increase the territorial price of the Palestinian refusal to negotiate peace."
WEST BANK: "Sharm Al-Sheikh Meeting, Gist In The Results"
Sameih Shubaieb argued in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (10/16): "The United States is assisting Israel by bringing an end to the Palestinian Intifada and rescuing the region from the consequences of a continuation of the Intifada. The U.S. is basically trying through the summit to help Israel and achieve stability as it is defined by the Israeli agenda."
"Sharm Al-Sheikh: Strike In The Opposite Direction"
Talal Okal declared in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (10/16): "Barak's policy and America's complete bias have left the Palestinians with only two choices: either to surrender to the Israeli-American logic and sign humiliating agreements that do not fulfill their minimum aspirations or to resist, using the same logic of force that Israel has been using. Again, the traditional logic of power wins. The Sharm Al-Sheikh summit is being held after all forms of pressure and threats were used against the Palestinians.... More than 100 martyrs and more than 3,000 injured have fallen due to Israeli rancor, but the U.S. did not see anything wrong with Israeli actions because they think that the Palestinians are responsible for the outbreak and continuation of the violence and also hold them responsible for curbing it. All those Palestinian killed and injured have not been sufficient for the American President and Secretary of State to show any sympathy towards the Palestinians."
"An International Role, Not An American One"
Hassan Al-Kashef opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (10/15): "The quadrilateral summit is a surrender to the fact that the U.S. maintains its monopoly over the negotiations. The Camp David summit confirmed that the Palestinians were facing a joint American-Israeli front and that the United States rejected any role for the international community. The recent efforts of Kofi Annan have not changed this fact because his role did not stem from international legitimacy, nor was it clearly against the [Israeli] occupation? We need an international role, not an American one, because America neither believes in our rights nor cares that out blood is shed. Neither Clinton nor Albright has uttered a word of consolation for or sympathy with the Palestinian people [sic]. The only American concern and sadness expressed was for the Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped and killed [by the Palestinians.]"
"U.S. Also At War With The Palestinians"
Abdallah Awad observed in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (10/15): "The warplanes that bombarded [the Palestinians] were not Israeli, they were American and among the most advanced in the world. It is no secret that the only reason the United States gave such weapons to Israel was for them to be used to kill and to destroy Arab, and especially Palestinian, targets. But this support is not limited to the military hardware, but also includes U.S. protection for the Jewish state in its war against any other country in the region, especially against the Palestinian struggle for statehood. From the very beginning, Israeli warfare against the Palestinians has been pre-approved by the United States. The American position regarding the emergency session of the Security Council and U.S. efforts to remove specific mention of Israel from the resolution is clear testimony to the support of the United States, not only for Israel's war against the Palestinians, but also its encouragement to wage such a fierce war using warplanes. So, the Palestinians are not only at war with the Jewish state, but with the United States as well."
EGYPT: "Clinton's Interest In Holding A Summit"
Columnist Gamal Zayda said in pro-government Al Ahram(10/15): "The events of the past two weeks have proved without doubt that this was a plot made in agreement between Barak and Sharon to solve the government's crisis. Barak was forced to either dissolve the government and call for early elections, a step which may have harmed his political future or form a coalition government with Likud.... They, thus, agreed that Barak provoke the feelings of Arabs and Muslims by visiting Al Haram Al Sharif, the situation would explode and the peace process deteriorate. In this way Barak would secure his political future and would not be forced to sign a deal that allows the establishment of the Palestinian state. However, Barak and Sharon did not take into consideration the will of nations and the uncontrollable explosion of the situation. This explains Clinton's interest in holding a summit."
"U.S. Must Review Its Position On Israel, Terrorism, And Iraq Sanctions"
Pro-government Al Ahram-2 held (10/15): "The entire Arab region shook over the Israeli violence against the Palestinain people. This violence was protected by the United States, which showed a flagrant pro-Israel bias even while that state commits violence. This shocked Arab nations, which supported their governments' endeavors to have firm and friendly relations with the United States. As a result, demonstrators in all Arab countries, protested this pro-Israel American bias against Palestinians, especially when the United States is also insisting on being coercive against the Iraqi people. Events have proved that the America's extreme bias toward Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinian people will only raise bitterness that can trigger a volcano of anger among Muslim and Christian Arabs and Muslims worldwide against the United States. Because it is important to forge equitable relations between the United States and Arab countries based on mutual respect, it is important that Washington reviews its position on the Israeli aggression and terrorism as well as its position on sanctions against Iraq. Otherwise it will difficult for the United States to regain its credibility and status among Arab nations."
JORDAN: "Return To Basics"
Columnist Mahmoud Al-Rimawi wrote in leading, semi-official Al-Ra'i (10/16): "The Sharm summit, planned for today, lacks Arab popular support, and the prospects of its failure are greater than those of its success. What is to be done? Is the solution a return to previous positions that led to the intifada? Sharon's visit was only the spark that set off the confrontations. Or is the answer a return to negotiations as in Camp David? But Israel caused the failure of that meeting, which is what charged the atmosphere. The answer is to break out of this circle of divisive issues. The Palestinian question is not merely a negotiating issue, but a question of liberation based on the inalienable right of people to rid themselves of occupation in all its forms. Without acknowledging this fact and acting upon it, negotiations could continue for ten more years or longer as Shamir predicted at the Madrid Conference, and as successive Israeli governments sought to do, while shedding rivers of blood."
"The Pre-emptive Summit At Sharm El-Sheikh"
Daily columnist Mazen Al-Saket wrote in center-left, influential Al-Dustour (10/16): "The Palestinian Intifada and sacrifices have created a situation in the Arab and Islamic world that made it necessary to convene an Arab summit, because the situation threatened to get out of the control of regional and international designs. So the present summit will try to create a new negotiating framework that aims to end the Intifada and preempt any possible joint Arab stand at the Arab summit. But the people's rejection of the Sharm summit is in reality a rejection of American-Israeli ambitions in the region. Therefore, the PNA and Arab participants at Sharm need to prove to the people that the Sharm summit achieves more than aborting the Intifada and Arab solidarity."
"A Nation Looking For A Leader"
Bilal Al-Tal, former Director of Press and Publications, wrote in semi-official leading Arabic daily Al-Ra'i (10/16): "The blessed Al-Aqsa intifada has proven that the Arab Street is still capable of imposing its conditions, and that it is still capable of making sacrifices. But the gap between this Street and the official Arab order is vast. There is the need for a leader that earns the trust of the people by rising to the level of their expectations and embodying their aspirations. The Al-Aqsa intifada has shown us to be a nation looking for a leader that leads us to the fulfillment of our ambitions."
LEBANON: "Arafat And 'Russian Roulette'"
A front-page editorial by Aouni El-Kaaki in pro-Syria Ash-Sharq declared (10/16): "America has succeeded again in breaking the Arab line. Some Arabs helped it reach this suspected goal. All decisions that will follow Sharm el-Sheikh will simply be an attempt to save Ehud Barak and free him from his impasse.... It will be a programmed operation to abort the heroic uprising... We can only describe Arafat's agreement to participate as a deadly 'Russian roulette' bid. In this sense, he is betting on luck.... Arafat is back to playing the most dangerous role in the Palestinian people's history, and the Sharm El-Sheikh summit represents the most dangerous scheme against the Palestinian people."
"From Deadline For Forming The Government To Sharm: The Concern Is The Same"
A front-page editorial in mainstream Sunni Al-Liwa' held (10/16): "Because the participation of American President Bill Clinton in the summit is taking place on the eve of the American presidential elections--which increase the biased American pro-Israeli position, there is a deep Arab sense of fear of the continuous American pressures that will lead to stopping the intifida without coming to grips with the real causes that ignited it. It is summarized by Barak's endless hesitation in implementing peace process promises with the Palestinians. In this regard, the intifada will not be renewed simply in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, but will reach all Palestinian lands occupied since 1948, and it will ignite the whole region with it against what is American and...British!!"
SYRIA: "The Arab People's Right"
An unsigned editorial in government-owned Al-Ba'th read (10/16): "The Sharm Al-Sheikh summit comes in the wake of biased U.S. stands.... The Arab people are watching this summit and its outcome carefully as it convenes amid preparations for the Arab summit.... There is a growing fear that this summit [Sharm Al-Sheikh] will curb the uprising of the Palestinian people.... Dennis Ross' statement confirms Arab fears that the summit aims at stifling Palestinian violence [minimizing Arab unity and the role of the Arab summit]. President Clinton and Secretary Albright made similar statements.... The major U.S. concern now is to support the Israeli policy of aggression. American leaders want us to turn ourselves into guards for Israel's security."
"A Summit Up To The Challenge"
Mohamed Khalaf Jarad, chief editor of government-owned Tishreen stated (10/16): "The upcoming Arab summit has a legal obligation to make major, practical decisions that meet the current challenges.... That is, to stop the massive extermination of the Palestinian people. The Sharm Al-Sheikh summit is trying to cool the tense atmosphere before the [Arab] summit, while calming popular anger...however, this will cause more anger and unrest.... Syria believes that the main condition for a successful Arab summit lies in its ability to achieve Arab solidarity with the Palestinian people, while not allowing foreign powers, mainly the U.S., to intervene in Arab affairs and to downplay Arab enthusiasm and support for the Palestinian people and their cause."
"A Poker Game"
Fouad Mardoud, chief editor of government-owned Syria Times wrote (10/15): "The U.S. administration is trying to intimidate the Palestinian people, who are rightly sounding an alarm about Tel Aviv's intentions on the peace process and on the holy city. U.S. support to the Jewish State has reached new peaks... U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke announced that he will veto any Security Council resolution that condemns Israel. But the most dangerous poker game is President Clinton's plan to hold an Israeli-American-Palestinian summit within 48 hours.... "Barak...by endorsing and defending Sharon's provocative visit to the Aqsa Mosque, wants someone to let him off the hook. It seems that the U.S. has decided to be that 'someone'. That is another grave miscalculation. President Clinton's attempt to hold his proposed summit without providing the correct conditions beforehand will make it the most dangerous poker game the American President has ever played.... It will add more risks to the quagmire in the Middle East."
BAHRAIN: "Arab Solidarity Required"
Semi-independent Arabic daily Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment (10/16) by managing editor, Abdulmun'em Ebrahim: "We saw Yemen involve itself in military actions by radical Islamic
groups. Bombing the American destroyer in Yemen will not benefit the Palestinian uprising. On the contrary, it will do harm and will connect Yemen to the internationally hated organization of Ben Laden. As to the Arab summit in Cairo, it has been aborted since Arab leaders began exchanging accusations. In this state of confusion do we still expect the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit and the Arab summit to succeed? Having a just case is not enough. You have to know how to carry out your battles militarily, politically and in the media too. It is strange that some Arabs call for waging a war against Israel while we still have wars against each other. The war (against Israel) requires an Arab solidarity which cannot be achieved as long as the Arab intelligence departments remain busy spying on each other instead of directing all their efforts against Israel."
"International Representation Needed"
Semi-independent Arabic daily Akhbar Al-Khalij ran this comment (10/16) by Mousa Saeed: "The Palestinians did it right when they insisted on inviting international (UN and European) representation to the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit. (Even) if such representation is unable to put an end to Israel's arrogant behavior, it will at least bear witness to the Israeli and American false claims."
KUWAIT: "In Whose Interest Is The Race For Summits?"
Masouma Mubarak wrote in independent Al-Siyassah (10/15): "Holding the four way summit will undermine the upcoming Arab summit October 21. This summit will physically demolish the need for the Arab summit which is what the U.S. and Israel are striving for. The race for the summits will not be in the interests of the Arabs nor is it in the interests of the Palestinian uprising."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Arabs Between Two Summits"
Riyadh-based, conservative Al-Riyadh opined (10/16): "The influence of the U.S. president has been used to put pressure on Arafat, with the support of the Europeans and the UN Secretary General. In contrast, the Arabs have no similar strategy to counter this.... Certainly, to rely on the United States, or even on those lined up at Sharm Al-Seikh as onlookers, especially Arab onlookers, will not achieve balanced results. This is because the U.S. media's reporting, in advance of the summit, has held the Palestinian side responsible for this crisis, a judgment that the United States endorsed well before the arrival of its president in Egypt."
"Summit Will Not Weaken The Intifada"
London-based, pan-Arab Al-Hayat held (10/16): "The most dangerous thing facing the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit is the possibility of a new American mistake--a deliberate or a careless mistake.... Such a mistake is very likely because the United States thinks that merely ending the tragedy is not a sufficient reason for the U.S. president's travel to the region.... Of course the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit will not weaken the current intifada, since summit participants are not the ones who will decide whether the intifada will continue or end."
OMAN: "The War Against Israel"
Omani national Awadh Ba Qwair penned this in government-owned Arabic daily Oman (10/13): "The barbarian attacks recently carried out by the israeli armed forces against the Palestinian people has transgressed all international law.... What happened yesterday is a declaration of war against an unarmed nation. The war against the Zionist entity that we mean now is not a military war, since this needs specific calculations and arrangements. Rather, the war we refer to here is a diplomatic war and the closing of Israeli commercial offices, such as has been completed by the Sultanate of Oman, by way of making a firm political stand. Also, this war encompasses an economic and commercial boycott as well as an international political campaign to isolate Israel from the rest of the world.
"Another vital action....which could be undertaken by the Arab media is the disclosure of Israeli criminal practices against the Palestinian people, and the involvement of the UN far from the control of the United States, which is clearly biased in favor of Israel.... The United States has hastened to block the international community's attempt to halt the Israeli aggression against the innocent Palestinian civilians. Perhaps the United States should also be condemned since it boasts that it leads the new international system. U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright should understand that she is no less Zionist than her Zionist friends are."
TUNISIA: "Do Not Abort it"
Editor-in-Chief, Abdelhamid Riahi observed in independent As-Shourouq (10/15): "The stated goal of the Sharm El-Sheik Summit is to discuss ways to stop the violence in the occupied territories. This seemingly noble goal conceals the real purpose of the summit--to end the Intifadah at any cost.... President Clinton places the blame for what he calls "violence" on President Arafat. Hence, during the summit, the U.S. will pressure Arafat to stop the Intifadah. UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, asked both Palestinians and Israelis to stop the 'violent' actions. Thus, he puts the Palestinian victims on the same level with their Israeli torturers. Clearly, Prime Minister Barak holds the Palestinians responsible for everything that is happening in the territories.... Initially, Arafat and Mubarak wanted to impose conditions on the summit. However, in the end, they reconsidered and will attend the summit without preconditions. All these factors will work to abort the Intifadah and convert it into simple acts of violence as far as the international community is concerned.... The Intifadah will be saved only if Arafat stands up to the other participants in the summit as he did at Camp David II. If Arafat withstands the pressure to make concessions, he will be supported by Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims around the world."
"A Summit To Get Rid Off Another"
Senior Editor, Nourredine Hlioui asked in independent, French-language Le Temps (10/16): "Can President Arafat withstand the pressure...that will be placed on him by Clinton and Barak during the Sharm El-Sheik Summit? Although it will be difficult, observers believe that the Palestinian leader will have enough moral fortitude to not step beyond redlines.... The fact that the Sharm El-Sheik Summit has been put together hurriedly (in less than a week) suggests that it is intended to weaken the Arab Summit, which is planned for later this month."
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "A Summit To Eliminate The Palestinian People From Any Equation"
Sharjah-based Arabic daily Al-Khaleej held (10/16): "Barak and Clinton aim to chop off the head of the intifada and the heads of all mujahideen, confiscate the stones in the hands of Palestinians, and waste all the Palestinian blood shed during the intifada. In short, they want to eliminate the Palestinian people from any equation."
"Economic Boycotts Are The Only Language Israel And U.S. Understand"
In a front-page column Sharjah-based Arabic daily Al-Khaleej ran this comment by UAE Minister of State for Financial Affairs Muhammad Khalfan bin Kharbash (10/16): "Since the West knows only the language of economic interests, boycotting goods and commodities from the nations that help the Zionist entity will therefore send a clear-cut message to their governments to pay attention to their interests. It is the duty of every Arab and Muslim to boycott their goods in solidarity with their Muslim brethren."
"With Or Without The Summit, Barak Remains In Crisis"
Semi-official, Abu Dhabi-based Al-Ittihad observed (10/15): "Ever since Oslo, we have noticed in all the meetings a European and Russian absence which we cannot explain except by an implicit American desire to unilaterally not only sponsor the peace process but to control its tracks according to Israeli interests.... If the summit convenes, the United States will try its best to lift the burden of events off of Barak's back.... Whether or not the summit succeeds in stopping violence in the occupied territories and re-launching the negotiations, the Al-Aqsa Intifada has succeeded in eliminating [Barak's] role inside the Hebrew state and in the Arab-Israeli dispute in the Middle East. He has become a prime minister without a base or a future."
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Managing The Mideast Crisis"
The independent Financial Times said in its lead editorial (10/16): "Never have the stakes been so high, and expectations so low, as at today's summit in Egypt. The outcome is all the harder
to predict because mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer just the triangular affair with the United States that the rest of the world has grown used to.... The logic of recent events may point to the United States in any future peace negotiations, sharing its broker role. But joint mediation may not make it easier for this crisis management summit to resolve the immediate issues of a cease-fire. The summit will be doomed if both sides stand by their full demands."
"Dishonest Brokers"
Michael Adams judged in the liberal Guardian (10/16): "Clinton is threatening to interfere once again in the search for a peace settlement in the Middle East. If possible, he should be kept at arms length by Kofi Annan...whose quiet diplomacy has begun to make peace look like a possibility. [Clinton] has masqueraded as an 'honest broker,' while all the time he and his team of Middle East advisors have worked...to advance the interests of Israel. A way must be found to break the U.S. monopoly over Arab-Israeli negotiations and to return the search for peace to where it belongs: the UN. This is what Europeans should aim for.... The fact is that, between them, Israel and the United States have colluded in a policy designed to favor the Israelis, rather than produce a balanced peace."
FRANCE: "Peace Is Out Of Bounds"
Jacques Amalric held in left-of-center Liberation (10/16): "The best one can wish for is a cease-fire...but certainly not a relaunching of the peace process.... Yet, even this modest result will require that both Barak and Arafat have the will and the capacity to do this. We can honestly have some doubt, considering that in the past two weeks the Palestinian side has shown a preference for warlike actions, while Israel has opted for ultra-protective reactions.... We can also trust in several Arab nations to do their upmost to convince Arafat not to go to Egypt: Syria, Iraq and Iran are hostile to the American/UN mediation."
"One Summit, Little Hope"
Marc Henry wrote in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/16): "Barak's and Arafat's priority is to avoid...making the slightest concession that will shock their respective public's opinion.... In the best of cases, a vague declaration on a cease-fire is to be hoped for."
"Clinton's Dreams For A Nobel Peace Prize Evaporate"
Francois Sergent argued in left-of-center Liberation (10/16): "The peace process is in shambles, America's strategy is being questioned, particularly as regards the Camp David summit, which raised so much hope and ended in failure.... Clinton is being accused of having trusted in Arafat and having betrayed America's only true ally in the region, Israel.... Clinton is being accused of having precipitated the Barak-Arafat meeting, hoping to end his presidency with a global agreement, but without having prepared the ground sufficiently well, particularly as regards the Arab nations."
GERMANY: "Clinton Is To Blame"
Stefan Kornelius asserted in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/16): "When the heavyweights of the Middle East peace process meet on the Red Sea this Monday...they will also be able to take note of a new distribution...at the conference table. President Clinton will fly in with a great entourage but the stage will not be left to him alone. Over the past few weeks, the political influence...has shifted behind the smoke of guns and the hail of stones. Clinton will find out that his influence on the parties in the conflict has dwindled. The United States has forfeited its role as an honest broker--through excessive ambition, a flurry of activities and diplomatic thoughtlessness. The attack on the USS Cole and the hatred in the
Arab press are evidence of the fact that the United States is being seen in its old colors again: as friend of Israel and as its protective power. Over the past few weeks, President Clinton forfeited the neutral role.... At the end of his term, he fell victim to his own obsession with historic greatness. Clinton's potential as honest broker has been exhausted.... The escalation of the past weeks has drastically reduced U.S. influence in the region. The Arab world is triumphant over the return of the UN and the EU to the negotiating table."
"Summit Of Disillusion"
Dietrich Alexander argued on the front-page of right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (10/16): "After the enormous setback of the past two weeks, the protagonists must begin again from scratch. Stones and bullets buried all the hopes that had come to the fore in the previous years during the policy of rapprochement.... The newly attempted dialogue must again become the basis [for peace] but this requires time, for the whole Arab world is in turmoil. It has turned the struggle for Israel into a pan-Arab case, and it follows each step of Palestinian leader Arafat with suspicion. Jerusalem is no longer a problem between Israelis and Palestinians but between Israel and one billion of Muslims."
ITALY: "Clinton's Illusions"
An analysis by Vittorio Zucconi in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica maintained (10/16): "Three men without power will meet this morning for a desperate summit...and, for this very reason, may succeed in performing the little miracle of a truce. Arafat, Barak and Clinton--the three men who met four months ago in Camp David as a result of American pressure--are now forced to meet again with blood at their necks, only to look together at the disaster provoked by their mistakes and miscalculations.... Nobody can expect anything more than a cease-fire from the meeting in Sharm Al-Sheikh.... The three 'prophets' have their hands empty (and dirty) and they can only try to 'freeze' the situation and stop it on the shore of the Red Sea."
"The Last Chance For Peace"
Washington correspondent Alberto Pasolini Zanelli wrote in leading, rightist opposition Il Giornale (10/16): "Nobody has ever seen a summit of this kind, not even during the worst emergencies.... To talk of 'reduced' hopes is a gentle euphemism. Clinton and Kofi Annan probably have even fewer illusions than the others. To avoid a total failure is the most ambitious goal."
"Courage Of The Mediator--Clinton Should Intervene With Toughness"
Sergio Romano front-paged this view in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (10/16): "The problem is dramatically 'simple' at this point.... The drama of the last few days has emphasized the risks involved in temporary solutions and can improve the prospects for an agreement. But it is necessary for a mediator to intervene with toughness.... The future of the Middle East requires a surgeon capable of telling each of the two sick men, with brutal clarity, that...a return to the past will be a defeat for both."
RUSSIA: "U.S. Finds Way To Arafat's Heart"
Reformist Izvestiya front-paged a comment by Yevgeny Krutikov (10/16): "Having both sides give up their preliminary conditions...is the main accomplishment of Western diplomacy. Credit for that goes to the United States and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who have managed to get through to Yasser Arafat's heart, via Egyptian President Mubarak.... With Russia fast losing sway, Igor Ivanov's mediation proved 'hesitant.' While he was quick on the wing, ordered to Egypt by the president, he failed to talk Arafat into dropping his demands. In the meantime, the Americans honestly did their part of the job. No doubt, Washington takes credit for forcing Ehud Barak into agreeing to a summit without preliminary conditions."
"Clinton Overdid It At Camp David"
Aleksandr Chudodeyev contended on page one of reformist Segodnya (10/16): "Clearly, Clinton overdid it at Camp David. He wanted to become the chief peacemaker so much, he, as American newspapers said, wouldn't excuse Arafat and Barak so that they could relieve themselves, holding them as hostages of his Middle East policy. Evidently, this time the president will be less forthright, trying to prove to the American electorate that the Democrats did not fail but, rather, temporarily lost the step in the Middle East."
"U.S. No Longer Neutral In Conflict"
Yelena Ovcharenko and Yevgeny Umerenkov remarked in reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (10/16): "After the USS Cole accident, the United States can no longer be considered neutral in the conflict. As for Moscow, it is not only traditionally on good terms with the Arabs but has noticeably strengthened ties with Israel in the last few years. Also, we did not cause Desert Storm or shell Lebanon and Libya. So Russia has an impeccable record as a mediator."
AUSTRIA: "The Pictures Weigh The Same"
In liberal Der Standard (10/14-15), foreign affairs editor Gudrun Harrer wrote: "The two pictures...of the triumphant Palestinians with their bloody hands...and the Palestinian boy crying in mortal fear in Gaza...belong together, they both weigh the same. U.S. President Bill Clinton made this very clear when he sharply condemned the killing of the soldiers and at the same time expressed understanding for the 'rage of the Palestinians.' For some, this will be much too much, and for some much too little (like the American abstention from voting when the UN Security Council condemned Israel)."
GREECE: "UN On The Side"
The lead editorial in widely-read, pro-government Eleftherotypia said (10/15): "The Egyptian proposal to hold a four-party conference on the Middle East to deal with the dangerous crisis marks the return of U.S. arbitration, and the marginalization of the UN. The meeting was sought by President Clinton, who is responsible for the failure of Camp David.... World public opinion wants a permanent peace in the Middle East which is guaranteed by the international community. This peace, as proven by the Camp David attempt, cannot be secured by the global policeman of the New World Order."
"The Middle East Tragedy"
Writing in independent, center-right Kathimerini, diplomatic editor Costas Lordanides stated (10/15): "President Clinton's administration ends with a confirmation of its foreign policy failure, at least concerning the Balkans and the Middle East, and with the EU simply confirming its inability to intervene in areas of vital interest. There is no doubt that the demonization of the U.S. is naive, mainly because the U.S. intervenes only when invited by its allies, who become strict critics of U.S. policy in case of a failure.... Nobody disputes the need to resolve international problems or the positive contribution that the U.S. can have. But the worst thing is to have a solution that will overlook the deep historical or other differences among the concerned parties, and mandate the cohabitation of the warring parties despite their irreconcilable differences."
HUNGARY: "Slim Chance"
Middle East expert Csilla Medgyesi commented left leaning Magyar Hirlap (10/16): "Never in the history of the Middle East peace talks has the opinion of the participants been as uniform as this time: All agree that no breakthrough can be expected of the Sharm el-Sheik summit. It is as if they were not even expecting to reach a peace accord within a reasonable time. But they do not have any other chances; both the Jewish and the Palestinian state struggle with a deep internal political crisis as well as serious social and welfare problems. And those problems can't be addressed until there is peace and an independent Palestinian state."
LITHUANIA: "US Political Tool- Not Only A Stick"
Ceslovas Iskauskas wrote in Lithuanian Lietuvos Rytas (10/16): "En route to history, the current U.S. administration is fervently trying to better its image in the world. In some places it [the administration] is not sorry to devote time and energy to carrying out peacekeeping and playing the mediator role, in other places it is abolishing sanctions and promising millions to new regimes.... Bill Clinton's White House will go down in history as an administration that at least tried to remove long-term American sore spots and to strengthen positions in those regions of the world that were traditionally held as constant sources of strain. There is no doubt that in this way the U.S.--as a great country--is striving to secure its interests. However, if those efforts lend the slightest impetus to the achievement of peace, then they must be evaluated as progress by humanity."
MALTA: "Day Of Savagery And Of Anger"
The English-language eponymous Malta Independent held (10/16): "Looking at the scenes of the Palestinian mob crowding in for the lynching of the three hapless Israelis...one could see the savagery, the bestiality that takes over human beings, which turns them into lynch mobs and which leads on and on to retaliation and counter-retaliation.... Yesterday's mayhem may be just the beginning of a further deterioration of world peace as more peoples get sucked into this useless conflict. At this point, what the saner peoples of the world must do, apart from wondering once more at the depths to which the human spirit can descent under the guise of nationalism and religion, is to do their utmost to stop this conflagration from getting bigger and enveloping more peoples. Enough deaths have already occurred."
NORWAY: "A New Hope For Peace"
The financial newspaper Dagens Naeringsliv commented (10/16): "The only reason that something positive can come out of the meetings is the prestige that is put into this.... The world will not accept that the parties continue the violence that is shown daily on TV and in shocking photos in the newspapers."
"Give Peace A Last Chance"
The social democratic Dagsavisen noted (10/15): "In today's hateful climate it will take a lot [of effort] if Barak is to go as far as he did last summer. And Arafat's manuevering room as far as what he can offer his furious people hasn't become larger, to put it mildly. Therefore one should not have too high expectations of this summit. But if one manages to stop the violence, call off the occupation and bring the situation fairly back to what it was before Ariel Sharon's famous provocation on the Temple Mount on September 28, the most important things will have been achieved."
"War Replaces Hope"
Chief Editor Steinar Hansson of social democratic Dagsavisen asserted that (10/14): "It is wrong to say that the Oslo Process was the wrong way to go. There was hardly any other possibility than moving gradually forward. But the great danger with such a peace solution has all the time been that it cause harm more when everything is just half done. One creates hope and expectations, but not real results. Any oppressed people, as the Palestinians are, will be more rebellious when they have tasted the freedom and then lost it again."
POLAND: "Better Than Death"
Dawid Warszawski wrote in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (10/14): "This war could have been avoided if Arafat had had enough political imagination to accept Barak's compromise offer at Camp David, and if Barak had enough political savvy to block Sharon's visit to the Mount Temple.... Today it is much too late. The war moved beyond the borders of Israel and Palestine. U.S. sailors were killed in Yemen; synagogues are burning in France; Jews in Chicago were shot at. In the face of these criminal acts, everyone--the media above all--should not spread hatred. Tomorrow, the war may pull in not only individual perpetrators but also nations.... It is indispensable that...an international investigative committee be set up. It cannot, though, operate under the UN aegis because one-fourth of UN condemning resolutions concern Israel! In the world that has also Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and China, this is a clear evidence of blatant lack of objectivity.... Moreover, time is pressing. A government of national unity including Sharon is being shaped in Israel and Arafat is releasing Hamas murderers from prison. Soon there will be no room for any sort of compromise.... The two nations are more hostile to each other than ever before. But one thing is worse than a compromise with an enemy--it is death."
ROMANIA: "Arafat Is Victim Of His Own Miscalculations"
Bazil Stefan wrote in pro-government Romania Libera (10/16): "The problem is whether Yasser Arafat, who carries most of the blame for the new outburst of violence, can still stop the street violence.... He is the victim of his own miscalculations. He thought that the street protests would strengthen his position against both the radicals in his own camp and Barak.... [Now] things are out of control.... Come November 7, Bill Clinton will be a 'lame duck.' Much water will flow under the bridge before the new president will agree to--and be prepared to--start carrying the heavy burden of negotiations.... If the desire for peace is overwhelmingly strong, then there exists a real chance for concluding a peace treaty at Sharm el-Sheikh. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case."
SPAIN: "Opportunity For Peace"
Conservative ABC opined (10/15): "And the miracle has succeeded. Tomorrow...brings an encounter that supposedly is a new triumph for international diplomacy, diplomacy that has maintained frenetic activity on various fronts during the last few days. On few occasions have we seen diplomatic movements as distinctive and intense.... And among the [diplomatic] weapons that the EU has highlighted is the protagonist role that Spain has assumed in this new opportunity for peace.... The EU, in the past a circumstantial actor in the conflict, has reacted and now has to save face and assume responsibility in the conflict.
"Stop The War"
Centrist La Vanguardia wrote (10/16): "Bill Clinton, nearing the end of his mandate, needs to make sure that what started on such good footing at Camp David does not end with shooting in Jerusalem.... The Arabs and Jews have no alternative but to cool their heightened emotions and return to the negotiation table to try and reach a definitive peace, or embark--who knows for how many years--on a new era of war-like confrontations."
TURKEY: "The Mideast Flame From The American Angle"
Yasemin Congar wrote in mass appeal Milliyet (10/16): "The summit in Egypt has no more 'independent Palestinian state' or 'status of Jerusalem' issues as part of its agenda. The Palestinian side stands a witness to the ongoing violence and their leader Arafat refrains from calling an end to violence. As for the Israeli side, Prime Minister Barak offers a new coalition formula which will include Sharon and his party and which shows Israel responding to violence with gunfire. President Clinton characterized his main goal for the summit to stop the bloodshed. It will be unrealistic to expect a result beyond this goal."
SOUTH ASIA
PAKISTAN: "Israeli Attack On Palestine"
Pro-Muslim League Urdu-language Pakistan held (10/14): "If the United States wants to deflect the wave of hatred facing it, then it should play the role of a just and honest broker in the resolution of the Palestine issue. After the Israeli attacks, the Palestinian Authority demanded a UN Security Council meeting, but the United States opposed it.... In such a circumstance, neither can peace be established nor can the wave of Arab hatred against the United States subside."
"Negotiating Table Again After The Killings Of Palestinians"
Karachi-based right-wing, pro-Islamic unity Urdu daily, Jasarat held (10/16): "Monday's summit in Egypt is tantamount to providing a justification for the Israeli aggression and atrocities. The fact that there is not a single statement of condemnation of Israel from the Western world is open evidence of their partisan and biased attitude."
"Rage Rules Palestine"
An op-ed by Anwar Ahmad in the centrist national daily News held (10/16): "To be on the right side of the rage this ignited in Israel, Barak ordered destruction of Palestinian buildings and, to rub salt in the wound, invited Sharon to join a government of national emergency. With the moralizing U.S.-U.K. nexus having lost whatever credibility it had with the Palestinians, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was thrown into the inferno. An uneasy summit of Clinton, Arafat, Barak, Hosni Mubarak and King Abdullah is scheduled for today to defuse the tensions and control the dangerous spin-offs for Israel, the United States and its Arab proteges. The mood across the Arab world is black indeed."
EAST ASIA
JAPAN: "No Peace, No Future"
Liberal Asahi observed (10/15): "If there is no peace, there will be no future. Both Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat must attend an emergency peace summit proposed by U.N. Secretary General Annan and put the current (deadlocked) peace process back on track. Two weeks of deadly fighting have inflicted heavier-than-expected casualties on both sides. Why did Barak and Arafat fail to nip the bloodshed in the bud? We cannot help but question their leadership. What was believed to be a terrorist attack also inflicted heavy damage on the U.S. warship USS Cole, which was refueling at Aden Port, killing at least 17 U.S. sailors and injuring many others. It is believed that those involved in the attack were related to Palestinian radicals. With the U.S. presidential election less than a month away, the leadership of President Clinton, whose term of office will end next January, is declining. Should Barak and Arafat fail to restore peace, they would go down in history as the breakers of Middle East peace."
HONG KONG: "Cycle Of Violence"
The independent South China Morning Post remarked in its editorial (10/14): "It is still possible that outsiders will prove able to rescue Israelis and Palestinians from their own worst instincts, but the chances decrease with each new atrocity and violent retaliation. Despite the best efforts of a diverse crew of foreign leaders, the two sides have not yet come near reaching agreement to halt the bloodshed, let alone reviving their derailed search for peace.... Despite all this, chances of major war remain slim; neighboring Arab states are too weak to fight Israel and many have other priorities. But low-level conflict could inflate the death count for weeks, spreading tension across the region, encouraging extremists and increasing antagonism on all sides. Prolonged turmoil will continue to push oil prices up and stock prices down. U.S. President Bill Clinton and moderate Arab leaders hope to organize a Middle East summit to solidify a ceasefire and restart the peace effort. But with the belligerents not yet ready to call a halt, the summit remains an aspiration. Meanwhile, as they have for decades, the Israelis and Palestinians continue to prove they remain brave enough to wage war, but still lack the courage to make peace."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
BRAZIL: "The Conclusion Of A Peace Accord Now Could Be A Nightmare...."
National conservative daily Jornal do Brasil's editorial commented (10/14): "President Clinton ...has called for a ceasefire from both sides.... The future of the Middle East must be decided on the negotiation table, not in the streets. The Palestinian leader has lost control over the youngsters who are in the streets throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers.... What is even worse, he has already lost the confidence of the adults who accuse him of concessions in exchange of non-fulfilled promises.... On the eve of U.S. presidential elections and with Barak facing serious problems in his government coalition, the peace accord conclusion now...would be a nightmare...(it would mean) leaving the Palestinians with less than was offered to Arafat in Camp David last July. That's what will happen if the conflict does not start to slow down immediately...or else, the war already triggered behind the scenes of the intifada will become a people's confrontation or even worse, a war between religions."
"The New Intifada"
A byliner in independent daily Jornal da Tarde by Antonio Amaral de Sampaio, former Ambassador to Brazil in Damascus said (10/16): "The term of the most pro-Israel president in the U.S. history is ending. In order to improve his biography and help Al Gore's campaign, Clinton needs to impress his party with diplomatic action. Milosevic's fall will not work because this murder was rejected by his own people. Saddam, Fidel, Kadhafi and the Iranian 'mullahs' are still in power, without any sign that they will fall. There is only one big issue to solve: Palestine. The new hostilities will freeze the peace process, besides punishing the Third World by increasing oil prices."
CHILE: "Middle East Crossroads"
Government-owned, but editorially independent La Nacion held (10/13): "Israeli and Palestinian leaders must do everything within their power for weapons not to replace politics.... Madeleine Albright said...that a military solution would never resolve the problems between Israel and Palestine. And she is right. Experience has shown beyond any doubt that long-lasting hostility has taken them nowhere, and that the only thing that yields any results is to put down the weapons and create, through dialogue and goodwill, the conditions so that the two parties can live together."
COLOMBIA: "The Middle East"
In editorial commentary, Bogota's second leading El Espectador observed (10/13): "The current situation in the Middle East is an opportunity for Colombians to reflect on how difficult it is to accomplish peace successfully.... This is a tough moment for Colombia to begin sitting on the UN Security Council. Hopefully the Colombian minister of foreign affairs' moderation reflects the positions Colombia will assume in the Council. It wouldn't be appropriate to impose sanctions on either party."
AFRICA
CAMEROON: "Mideast Peace Summit"
Columnist Ekinneh Agbaw-Ebai wrote in the government-owned English/French Cameroon Tribune (10/16): Determined to save a relationship he has worked years to establish, U.S. President Bill Clinton left for an emergency Egyptian summit between feuding Palestinian and Israeli leaders... Apart from restoring calm as a central objective, Clinton's goals are to set up a fact-finding mechanism on how the violence erupted on the West Bank and in Gaza, to prevent a recurrence and to find a way back to dialogue and negotiations... Clinton is reaching for maximum diplomatic assistance and reducing chances that, in the event the summit fails, blame would be focused totally on the United States."
SOUTH AFRICA: "Passions Out Of Control"
The Independent judged (10/15): "Arafat, a consummate political survivor, is having to defer to the broader will of the Muslim world. He is also aware...that peace will have to include Arab states such as Syria and Lebanon and regional powers such as Iran. But most importantly, real progress towards peace will come only when the international community is able to play its role in finding a peace acceptable to the whole world and not only to Washington, which has maintained such an iron grip over the Middle East peace process.... The involvement of Kofi Annan...is a step in the right direction.... It is the U.S. veto in the UN Security Council that has become an obstacle to implementing the plans. In another 50 years or so, Jews and Arabs will live in peace again. It is time to drop the guns and get back to the negotiating table."
##
Middle East
