| Office of Research | Issue Focus | Foreign Media Reaction |
|
Commentary from ... Europe Middle East East Asia Africa Western Hemisphere |
| 18 October, 2000 MEPP: Will 'Fragile' Sharm Al-Sheikh Accord Pass Test On Ground? |
In voluminous commentary worldwide, observers judged the Sharm Al-Sheikh cease-fire understanding--"grudgingly and gracelessly accepted" by Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat "after intense U.S. arm-twisting"--to be "fragile" and a "meager result" at best. Onlookers in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa concluded that the true value of the agreement will be assayed "over the coming days in Gaza, Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus and Bethlehem." A key concern for some was the "cold fury" in the Arab streets--"undispelled" by the summit's results, and to which even "U.S.-backed leaders in Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf" are vulnerable. In the Mideast, editorials signaled that the continuing violence provided an ominous answer to the question of whether this accord can work. Both Israeli and Arab commentators concluded that a return to negotiations, as called for at Sharm, "currently looks surrealistic." And, in increasingly vitriolic language, Arab dailies called for a continuation of the intifada and for Arab leaders to take a hard line in support of the Palestinians at this weekend's Arab summit. Regional highlights follow:
ISRAEL: Soul-searching editorials focused on whether to continue with Arafat as a peace partner or "wait for a changing of the guard among the Palestinians." A Yediot-Zemach poll found that 55 percent of Israelis support the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement, while 41 percent oppose it and 4 percent are undecided. However, 77 percent of respondents do not believe that Arafat will act to reduce violence, while 21 percent do and 4 percent are undecided.
PALESTINIANS/ARABS: Papers excoriated the Sharm confab, contending that the meeting ignored the root causes of the intifada, and was held just to satisfy President Clinton and to protect Israel and the U.S. from rising Arab anger. Virtually all joined major Palestinian and Egyptian dailies in calling for Arab leaders to declare "solidarity" with the Palestinians at the upcoming Arab summit in order to show that the intifada enjoys universal support from the Arabs. A few editorialists focused on the diplomatic and media "battles" that have become factors in the current confrontation. Jordanian, Lebanese and Bahraini writers argued that Arabs must make better use of public diplomacy tools--i.e. the Internet and public interest groups--in order to "win America's friendship" and international sympathy for their Al Quds cause.
ELSEWHERE: While papers in Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America worried whether the Sharm agreement could be implemented given the "abyss of mistrust" between the two sides, there was relief in some quarters that the U.S. president had managed to "salvage the summit." Writers in EU countries saw the Arab League meeting as offering an opportunity for Arab leaders to give their imprimatur to the Sharm understanding, and, to that end, held that "the U.S. and Europe should increase the pressure on moderate Arab countries to take the lead" in Cairo.
EDITORS: Gail Hamer Burke and Katherine Starr
EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 67 reports from 43 countries, October 17 - 18. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.
MIDDLE EAST
ISRAEL: "Poll Indicates Plurality of Israelis Support Sharm Al-Sheikh Agreement"
A Yediot/Mina Zemach poll (10/18) found that 55 percent of Israelis support the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement, while 41 percent oppose it and 4 percent are undecided. However, 77 percent of respondents do not believe that Arafat will act to reduce violence, while 21 percent do and 4 percent are undecided.
"The Test Of The Agreement Will Be On The Ground"
Op-ed page editor Robik Rosenthal wrote in the lead editorial of popular, pluralist Maariv (10/18): "The agreement was wrapped in a presidential declaration--which shows once again that the sheriff of the world is capable of what the likes of Chirac and Mubarak, even UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, were unable to do. But what is obvious, also to President Clinton, is that the key test of the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement will be on the ground. If the situation becomes quiet...[this] will enable the United States...to attempt to bring back the sides to the negotiating track--an option that currently looks surrealistic.... Only an unambiguous cease-fire order by Arafat...could bring about tranquillity. But the continuation of cynical maneuvers by the PA chairman...would reduce the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement to ashes."
"No Rejoicing"
The independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (10/18): "Any cessation of violence is a virtue, but it is still too early to rejoice over the cease-fire resolutions reached at Sharm Al-Sheikh on Tuesday.... Enough with equivocation: It is the Palestinians, not Israel, that must now prove their desire for peace.... Saturday's Arab summit in Cairo provides an opportunity for the Arab states that say they back the peace process to make it abundantly clear to Arafat that they will not support his past behavior, which has only served to inflame the entire region."
"Arafat Is No Longer A Partner"
Guy Bechor wrote in mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (10/18): "It seems that the prospect of becoming, after the declaration of Palestinian statehood, a sort of mayor of a miserable, encircled and insignificant country tempts [Arafat] less than his current fame in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In other words, he no longer acts as someone who has an interest in establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but as the founder of a warring...country.... Not only would the continuation of the process with Arafat and his cultural world be a waste of time, but it would be harmful to the essence of the dialogue between the Israeli and Palestinian nations. Israel cannot determine the identity of the Palestinian leaders, but it can wait for a changing of the guard among the Palestinians, which cannot be far away."
"Israel Has Failed The Test"
Palestinian affairs correspondent Amira Hass wrote in independent Ha'aretz (10/18): "The bloodbath that has been going on for three weeks is the natural outcome of seven years of lying and deception, just as the first intifada was the natural outcome of direct Israeli occupation.... Those who did not want to know, for the last seven years, that for the majority of Palestinians this is not peace but a new, more sophisticated type of occupation, are still not ready to understand that this is a popular uprising. Now the vast majority of victims have come from among the Palestinian insurgents. Will the message of the uprising be understood in Israel only when Palestinian groups obey Hizbullah, and try methods which will inflict heavy casualties on the Israelis as well?"
WEST BANK: "Sharm Al-Sheikh Summit: Great Risks And Few Achievements"
Ahmad Majdalani opined in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (10/18): "It seems that there were specific goals that the United States sought to achieve by pressuring and blackmailing the parties into holding the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit: First, to end the popular Palestinian intifada that may destroy all the arrangements and agreements achieved since the beginning of the peace process, second, to render the upcoming Arab summit useless, third, to quell the popular Arab uprising that has intensified since the Al Aqsa incident, (this uprising threatens many regimes in the region), and forth, to save Barak because the conflict with the Palestinians has increased his isolation internationally and regionally and because his government is collapsing."
"Continuing Preparations"
Hassan Al-Kashef wrote in independent, pro-Palestinian Authority Al-Ayyam (10/18): "The United States will try to sell the Sharm Al-Sheikh document to the Arab governments, while continuing to support the Israeli killers. The U.S. Congress is preparing to adopt statements against the Palestinians cause. These statements are more honest that President Clinton's words that did not promise the Arabs or the Palestinians anything, even another round of useless talks. The American administration would not spare any effort to render the upcoming Arab summit useless and make sure that its decisions would not reflect any Arab unified stance."
EGYPT: "Agreement Won't Pacify Arab And Palestinian Anger"
Mohammed Saffer wrote in pro-government Al-Akhbar (10/18): "Any one who thinks the intifada of the Al Aqsa mosque is just a transient spark that will flash and disappear is mistaken. Any one who believes an agreement to stop the violence could pacify the anger in the hearts of the Arabs and the Palestinians and return the situation to what it was would be mistaken. The person who thinks that he could kill the spirit of the revolution that broke out in the Arab and Muslim street would be certainly mistaken.... Arabs do not reject this spirit and the results of the intifada, which succeeded in standing in the face of aggression on the sanctuaries, and managed to break its will and uncover the conspiracy against the Arabs."
"No Guarantee Of Halting The Violence"
Magdy Mehana held in liberal, opposition Wafd (10/18): "President Clinton outlined three points for the Sharm summit: halting the violence, security coordination, agreement to a fact-finding mechanism. These are simple goals that do not tackle the core of the issue that brought about the recent developments. Agreeing to these three points does not guarantee the halting of violence, and does not guarantee the collapse of the agreement. No one guarantees that Israel would respect its agreements and pledges."
"Going Into The Arab Summit, All Arabs Must They Support Palestine"
Pro-government Ahram held (10/18): "The parties meeting in Sharm agreed to the redeployment of the Israeli forces, lifting the siege imposed on the Palestinian people, re-opening the airports, ports, and passes, and forming a fact finding committee that investigates the events that have taken place during the last two weeks. If this becomes realized on the ground, then the summit would be considered the summit of salvaging the Palestinian people. If the Sharm summit would be considered the salvage summit then the Arab summit, which will be held next Saturday would be 'the solidarity summit.' The message of this summit is that the whole world should know that the Palestinian people are not standing alone in the face of Israel's arrogance. All the Arabs support Palestine."
JORDAN: "Deferred Peace"
Uraib Al-Rantawi contended in center-left, influential Al-Dustour (10/18): "The peace process, as we have known it since Madrid and Oslo, has been used up, since the maximum that Israel is willing to offer is below the minimum acceptable top the Palestinians. With his chapter closed, the next five to six months are a period for reshuffling the cards and testing each other's will. During this time, Palestinians and Arabs need to prove once again that peace is an Israeli/American interest, just as much as it is important for the Arabs. Unless they prove that the regional interests of the United States, and the security and stability of Israel may be threatened by the absence of peace, then peace may remain elusive, and it will certainly not be just and comprehensive."
"Attempts To Understand Bias"
Bater Mohammed Ali Wardam had this to say in center-left, influential Al-Dustour (10/18): "The Al-Aqsa intifada has shown once again the American absolute bias to Israel, and the ability of the American media to twist facts to turn the victim into the villain, and vice versa. This time, however, this bias has reached a new and more provocative height. The matter is more than the power of the Zionist lobby. There are clearly powerful religious, political, and cultural links between the United States and Israel, which are enough to wring the neck of any unwelcome facts. Since the Arabs cannot expect any level of American impartiality, they need to use their cards wisely and effectively. They have some powerful cards that enable them to exercise real pressure; but are they up to the task?"
LEBANON: "Sharm Al-Sheikh: Summit Of The Best That Was Possible"
An editorial by George Bashir in pro-Syria Ad-Diyar said (10/18): "The summit of the best that could be accomplished. This was the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit, that ended with resentment that was clear on President Clinton and Barak's faces. According to very well-informed diplomatic sources, Barak was reminded by Clinton of the necessity to stop Palestinian massacres and the necessity to bring the UN and EU as participants into the fact-finding committee. Tiredness, sleepiness, and pessimism were on the faces of the participants in Sharm Al-Sheikh. Egyptians used all their wiles to get the Americans to support the Arab and Palestinian positions...but, as soon as the summit ended, Secretary Albright went to Saudi Arabia in an effort to contain any Saudi inclination to include oil in the formula of peace and war.... The Sharm Al-Sheikh summit was designed to satisfy President Clinton. The positions it took were only aspirations, not serious decisions.... Barak and Arafat did not meet even once. It was also noted that there was clear coordination between King Abdullah, Arafat, and Mubarak.... We hope that the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit will push Arabs to work for a successful Arab summit, by taking decisions that will not disappoint Arab public opinion again!"
"A Battle On Internet And Sharm Al-Sheikh"
Younes Aoudeh wrote in anti-American Al-Kifah Al-Arabi (10/18): "While the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit was sending its garbage to the Palestinians through a vague declaration...that only aimed at taming the Palestinians, the battle continued on the Internet. The two parties are Hizbullah, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel on the other. Hizbullah's site tried to defend itself from the electronic shells that bombarded it from about 60 sites from the United States and Israel.... Hizbullah's site fell.... But in a relatively short time, Hizbullah set up a new site that was also attacked quickly by 105 sites (70) from the United States and (35) from Israel. Two million fifty thousand viruses were counted. This war only means that Hizbullah's site on the Internet has a great impact on its viewers. That was on the Internet. As for Sharm Al-Sheikh, the deformed agreement that was reached only aimed at destroying Palestinian morale.... Simply put, Sharm Al-Sheikh failed to read the real message of the Palestinian intifada which is uniformly supported by the Arabs."
SYRIA: "Criminal Escalations"
Izziddin Darwish commented in government-owned Tishreen (10/18): "With the convention of the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit, observers have noted exceptional Israeli escalations in the Palestinian territories in the last few days. Israeli escalations have become an important step in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiation process.... Barak's government has totally failed the peace test and has become more intransigent and extremist through its cooperation with Sharon."
"President Assad's Visit For Arab Solidarity"
M. Agha asserted in government-owned Syria Times (10/18): "Neither the Sharm Al-Sheikh meeting nor any other summit can stop the legitimate national struggle as long as Israel occupation continues. The Israeli government's human rights violations and terrorist practices will not only jeopardize stability and security in the region, but also in the world at large. The American taxpayer must think better about U.S. ammunitions [going] to Israel to continue its occupation and violations of human rights in the occupied lands."
BAHRAIN: "Attacking America Won't Help The Palestinians"
Ahmed Juma' declared in semi-official Al-Ayyam (10/18): "Those who believe that it is necessary to fight the United States and call for boycotting it and threatening its interests in the world are not much different from Israel itself, which continuously works to make the United States the enemy of the Arabs and its own close friend. It is definite that the wider the gap between the United States and the Arabs gets, the closer the United States gets with Israel. Therefore, we must win America's friendship, not through making more concessions but through an organized political and media work plan. There are millions of Americans who are neutral and we should work on making their voice stronger. This might take some time but it is natural that you cannot win their support overnight. As to those who consider this as surrender, or part of the normalization process, I say to them that your call for attacking American interests in the world will lead not to the destruction of Israel but to the destruction of what the Palestinians have achieved so far."
"The Choice Between Sustained Resistance And Outright War"
Chief editor Anwar Abdulrahman of semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij wrote (10/18): "Two schools of thought prevail during the present crisis. One favors a strategy of planned, sustained resistance; the other calls for comprehensive military war against Israel. I certainly hope Arab nations will not opt for war against Israel, not because their forces are not worthy, but simply because America will not allow Israel to suffer defeat at any cost. The other alternative might prove long and arduous, but could inflict devastatingly painful blows on Israel. The only institution now geared for such operations is Hizbullah. Again and again its commanders have proved the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare using wily tactics that are impossible for Israel to match. Such a war could bring Israeli might to its knees over time. One predictable and terrible consequence of such a war could be Israel attacking Beirut. Tel Aviv's air force may level Lebanon to ashes. But when the destiny of a nation is at stake, there is only one option--to wage war. Victory requires great sacrifices."
KUWAIT: "The Other Party"
Emad Al-Saif wrote in independent Al-Qabas (10/18): "Regardless of the results from the Sharm Al-Sheikh Summit, these results will not be reflected in real life in the occupied territories. Arafat can no longer control the uprising, neither can his security forces. The uprising has formed its own popular leadership from within the occupied lands. Therefore, any decision by the summit to bring an end to the violence, if such a decision is taken, will have no effect in real life."
OMAN: "Is There Any Shame Left?''
Saleh Al-Fahdi wrote in independent Al Watan (10/18): "The disgrace, shame, subservience and all other types of abandonment inflicted on the Arab and Islamic nations are due to their 'chasing' after peace.... How can the governments of Arab nations accept all these types of contempt and not sever their relations with Israel--as it is in the case of Egypt and Jordan who are still bound by peace agreements with Israel? We have seen that the Sultanate of Oman has hastened to close its commercial bureau in Israel and close the Israeli commercial bureau in Muscat. The same measures have been taken by Qatar. Why, then, do the other Arabs wait until the Arab summit of October 21-22 to sever their relations with Israel? In my opinion, this summit has been delayed due to the pre-planned summit of Sharm Al-Sheikh, which was intended to kill two birds with one stone. The summit was intended to please America and Israel and at the same time lay down principles and directives for the Arabs to follow. The second aim of the summit was to absorb public anger by the issuing of (hollow) formal resolutions.... What is left for the Arabs to do in their proposed summit now that the United States has blocked their path from making any of the decisions that the Arab nation has looked for a very long time?"
SAUDI ARABIA: "Pressure On The Peace Front"
London-based, internationally-circulated Al-Sharq Al-Awsat held (10/18): "The Sharm Al-Sheikh summit's agreement could bring an end to violence...but perhaps it will fail to accomplish this objective. Certainly, a pledge to respect the agreement is key for its success or failure. But it is evident that optimism about peace has become very difficult in the atmosphere of cultural animosity and discrimination that dominates Israeli society. Genuine peace lovers ought to create a new humanitarian cultural environment, which however is not easy in the present Israeli society."
"Will The Sharm Agreement Be Implemented?"
Jeddah-based, moderate Al-Bilad said (10/18): "No doubt, the coming hours will witness a real test of the effectiveness of the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement. It is evident that prospects for a return to peace negotiations are slim."
TUNISIA: "Anticipated Setbacks!"
An editorial by Editor-in-Chief Mustapha Khammari in independent, French-language Le Temps held (10/18): "The diplomatic niceties cannot hide the failure of the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit.... The summit achieved nothing, decided nothing, and settled nothing. President Clinton hoped that the psychological impact of his traveling from Washington to Sinai to push Palestinians and Israelis to make peace would make a difference.... Some observers believe that the summit's failure marks the end of America's high profile role in the MEPP.... Without being so categorical, we must recognize that President Clinton traveled to Sharm Al-Sheikh to help his Israeli ally, who is currently entangled in a crisis that he cannot get himself out of except by killing children and civilians. By attempting to bail the Israeli government out, Washington seeks to perpetuate its own influence, which is strongly contested in the region. A successful Sharm Al-Sheikh summit would have helped America to consolidate its influence in the region. It would have also undermined the upcoming Arab summit by limiting its room to maneuver.... The oral agreement announced in Sharm Al-Sheikh returns the Palestinians and Israeli to the status quo before the intifada. It does not address any of the key issues.... Palestinians can find enough stones to throw for a 100-year intifada if that is what it takes."
"What Has Been Left For The Arab Summit!"
An editorial by Editor-in-Chief Fatma Karray in independent, Arabic-language daily Ash-Shourouq made this point (10/18): "No intelligent person in the world would have wanted the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit to be a success.... The results of the summit demonstrate Israeli supremacy and American support for evil. They also limit the ability of the upcoming Arab summit to address the issue of the violence.... The intifada is no longer merely a Palestinian or Arab issue. It is an intercontinental issue.... America, the leader of the New World Order, showed itself during the summit to be against the principles of justice and honor. The United States hurried to Sharm Al-Sheikh to apply pressure on the Palestinians and support Israel's oppression and discrimination against them. America says that it cannot tolerate instability in the geopolitical relations of the nations of the Middle East. What are Arabs to make of this American reasoning?"
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Arabs Must Sever Diplomatic Relations With Israel"
Sharjah-based Al-Khaleej asserted (10/18): "What is important now is that neither the Palestinian Authority nor any Arab party should interpret the call to stop violence as a cessation of the intifada because doing so before the realization of Palestinian demands.... Will equal complicity with the Israeli-American desire to bury the intifada and eliminate its political consequences.... The Arab summit must sever diplomatic relations with Israel, or at least freeze them, stop all kinds of normalization, support the intifada and support the declaration of a Palestinian state."
"Intifada Takes Orders From No One"
Sharjah-based, nationalist Al-Khaleej held (10/17): "The answer to the summit came from the escalating intifada which has burned the lands under the footsteps of the invaders.... The intifada has proven that it takes orders from no one except the martyrs and that no one controls its decisions, because it is the decision of Palestinian anger and the defense of holy sites."
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "The Fragility Of Peace"
The independent Financial Times opined in its lead editorial (10/18): "Both Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat have committed themselves to call for an end to violence, to eliminate points of friction and to return to the situation that existed less than three weeks ago..... The last point may be President Clinton's wishful thinking because, in that short time, the ground beneath the peace process has shifted.... It is not clear that either leader is politically strong enough to put the extremist genie back into its bottle. But neither side is likely to make serious concessions until there is a new president in the White House. Hence the need for a united front for peace from the UN, the EU, and moderate Arab leaders. Barak and Arafat need all the support they can get to return to the negotiating table."
"A Deal, But Only Just"
The liberal Guardian editorialized (10/18): "The agreement to halt the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian violence, grudgingly and gracelessly accepted by the two sides yesterday after intense American arm-twisting, is as fragile as a gossamer threat on a windy autumn's day.... [The] cold fury remains undispelled. Its root causes...remain unaddressed. The deep, unfeigned anger of younger generations of Palestinians at a peace process they see weighted against their nation's interests has both wrongfooted and galvanized their corrupt, lackluster leadership, and stirred the apathetic Arab world beyond.... He is increasingly in danger of being seen by them as the stooge of a discredited, U.S.-led scheme to circumvent UN resolutions, stifle Palestine's legitimate aspirations, and consolidate Israel's quasi-colonial dominance. Nor are the U.S.-backed leaders in Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf immune from this radicalizing shift in opinion, one encouraged as before by Syria and Iran but now also by a dangerously resurgent, oil-rich Iraq. In Israel, too, many of the assumptions of the past decade are under scrutiny. Israel's peace camp...has been deeply destabilized and dismayed by this furious eruption."
FRANCE: "An Abyss Of Mistrust"
Luc de Barochez maintained in right-of-center Le Figaro (10/18): "President Clinton was able to impose an agreement on principle on the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in spite of their reticence. But the peace process is far from relaunched. On the contrary, the summit has shown to what extent there is an abyss of mistrust between the two parties.... Considering how difficult it has been to implement signed agreements in the Middle East, extreme caution must be applied with regard to President Clinton's closing declaration.... While the West's interest is that Barak and Arafat find a compromise to avoid an oil crisis and renewed international terrorism, the players themselves do not necessarily have the same priority: Barak's political future is riding on this issue, while Arafat has practically no control over his own troops."
"A Mediocre Scenario"
Gerard Dupuy argued in left-of-center Liberation (10/18): "Clinton waged his all on this summit. The make-believe agreement he has managed to extract illustrates to what extent good will missions have failed in the face of the stubborn antagonism of history.... Unfortunately, the mediocre scenario that unraveled by the Red Sea signals not only the limitation of America's power, but also the fact that outside of the U.S.' diplomatic alternatives there is nothing else."
GERMANY: "After The Crisis Summit"
Wolfgang Guenter Lerch front-paged this article in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (10/18): "It will now be important to see whether the two 'peace enemies' will be able to implement the declarations of intent they made in Sharm Al-Sheikh. In the case of Arafat, this seems to be questionable, since new unrest in Gaza and on the West Bank accompanied the meeting in Egypt.... Even after the crisis summit, the Middle East continues to offer a picture of continuous uncertainty.... If Arafat were encouraged by the Arab leaders...in Cairo to continue the peace process, a bit of hope would have been won."
"Peace As A Mirage"
Peter Muench argued in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (10/18): "With the agreement from Sharm el-Sheikh, all sides involved tried to turn back the clock, at least to the ominous day in September when Ariel Sharon ignited the fuse with his visit to the Temple Mount. But 18 days with more than 100 people killed cannot be forgotten and cannot be undone. The sign of the times do not point to peace. And for Bill Clinton, the prophet, time is running out anyway."
"Meager Result"
Centrist Mannheimer Morgen judged (10/18): "A summit of the failed met in Sharm Al-Sheikh. Israel's Premier Barak is at his end. And if he had to form an emergency government, this would be the official declaration of his failure.... Arafat is only strong in his camp as long as he is able to avoid concrete demands regarding the core questions of peace. That is why Barak is right when he thinks that peace is impossible with Arafat at the helm.... In the meantime, the streets have taken over, and we must doubt that the fundamentalists on both sides will tolerate the meager results from Sharm Al-Sheikh."
ITALY: "Clinton's Bet"
A front-page commentary by Bernardo Valli in left-leaning, influential La Repubblica held (10/18): "The truce that resulted must undergo the litmus test. We will see its real results in the coming days in Gaza, Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus and Bethlehem.... Indeed, instead of an Israeli-Palestinian resolution...we had Clinton's declaration.... We can doubt whether Bill Clinton really succeeded in defusing revolt and repression in Gaza and the West Bank. It is, however, sure that at the moment he has scaled down the importance of the Arab summit...in Cairo next Saturday. Indeed, that extraordinary meeting might have given the crisis an exceptional and dangerous dimension if it were to take place without any agreement.... This is Clinton's real success."
"The Hardest Task Is Up To Arafat"
Igor Man opined in centrist, influential La Stampa (10/18): "It is a tiny agreement...but if it is implemented it will be remembered in history.... Indeed, for Barak it is easy to order the withdrawal of tanks.... For Arafat it is a different matter.... If Arafat, who desperately wants peace, can obtain the political support of the Arab world it will really be possible to work for peace. If not, it will be a catastrophe."
"Bill's Last Tiny Victory Amid Courage And Dedication"
Antonio Ferrari filed from Sharm Al-Sheikh in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (10/18): "There is the agreement. It is a modest one, a lame one, it is so vague that it is even difficult to call it an agreement. But it is there.... Facts on the ground will tell us if the complicated mechanism devised in Sharm Al-Sheikh can work.... Indeed, what was reached yesterday will not be remembered as the Sharm Al-Sheikh agreement, but as the desperate understanding wanted, with all his strength, by Clinton."
RUSSIA: "Success"
Vladimir Dunayev commented in reformist Izvestiya (10/18): "Bill Clinton is celebrating a victory.... Sharm Al-Sheikh really was a success. They did it, after all. Barak and Arafat, without preliminary conditions, agreed to make peace. Few believed they would. The American president made that possible."
"Clinton Salvages Summit"
Arkady Dubnov observed from Sharm Al-Sheikh for reformist Vremya Novostei (10/18): "Bill Clinton gets all the credit for the relative success of the summit."
"Hopeless"
Andrei Pravov filed from Tel Aviv for centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (10/18): "There is little hope that the accords reached will be implemented."
AUSTRIA: "For Clinton's Sake"
Foreign affairs editor Christian Ultsch judged in conservative Die Presse (10/18): "The operation Sharm el-Sheikh has been successful: The Mid-East peace process is artificially kept alive; the diplomatic machines remain switched on. But this is all. Whether the 'first aid measures' that Bill Clinton was allowed to read out at the bath resort at the Red Sea will ever be implemented is still written in the stars.... The deep mistrust between Israeli Prime Minister Barak and PLO chairman Arafat could not be overcome in Egypt.... That they might resume serious peace negotiations in the next few weeks is merely wishful thinking."
BELGIUM: "Clinton's Personal Involvement"
Jerusalem correspondent Renee-Anne Gutter asserted in independent La Libre Belgique (10/18): "Palestinians and Israelis agree: the success of this Sharm Al-Sheikh summit is due to Bill Clinton.... The success of the summit is also due to President Mubarak, who, in coordination with Mr. Clinton, has increased the pressure on Mr. Arafat.... The Egyptian president wanted to first and foremost prevent any destabilization of his own regime and of the entire region. And he will be able to welcome his Arab counterparts in Cairo this weekend reinforced by a success which confirms his leadership in the Arab world."
DENMARK: "Agreement Looks Like A Breakthrough"
Left-wing Information editorialized (10/18): "After more than 24 hours of negotiations Arafat finally agreed to do everything in his power to stop the violence in Gaza. The agreement looks like a breakthrough for Arafat--first and foremost because Israel appears to have agreed to accept an international inquiry into the recent disturbances.... Seven years ago, no Israeli prime minister could have succeeded in announcing that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state--the fact that this is possible today is in itself a gigantic step forward. Nevertheless, the Israelis seem to continue to think that they can palm the Palestinians off with a micro-state surrounded by Israel's military and inflitrated with Jewish settlers while, at the same time, presenting it as a worthy and righteous peace settlement."
FINLAND: "Washington Should Put Pressure On Israel To Be Realistic"
An editorial in independent Iltalehti held (10/18): "With 20-20 hindsight, one could ask if Bill Clinton had too much on the plate when he tried to have last summer's Camp David summit answer all the basic questions about the Middle East situation. On the other hand, those questions need to be answered sooner or later--and not just Clinton, but also Yasser Arafat was running out of time. Washington should put pressure on Israel to be realistic. That may be easier after the U.S. presidential election, where Jewish votes are important. But unrest in the Middle East is a danger to the entire world, and especially to the world economy."
GREECE: "The Arab Conference, A Barometer Of The Future"
Influential, pro-government Eleftherotypia ran this by Michalis Moronis (10/16): "The fact that Barak and Arafat did not sign the agreement President Clinton announced at Sharm Al-Sheikh simply means that pretenses were maintained. The main thing is that Clinton did not pointlessly make a trip that was at the same time arduous and risky for his stature, and that Barak and Arafat, if nothing else, did not want to indicate that they were abandoning the peace process. Besides, the agreement the American president announced satisfies a demand by each side.... Only the third part of the agreement about U.S. mediation with the two sides offers any hope for a return to the peace process.... In any case, however, the conference confirms the American role as the referee in the Middle East, since Washington will be front and center in the investigation of the issue, and, if it deems it appropriate, will call a new meeting between Barak and Arafat in 15 days."
HUNGARY: "Together--Against Each Other'
Middle East expert Csilla Medgyesi wrote in left-leaning Magyar Hirlap (10/16): "The cease-fire is just the first, and most probably the easiest step. The difficult part comes now, both leaders have to have it accepted at home. At the end of September Arafat and Barak had let the genie out of the bottle. Then later, in Sharm Al-Sheikh they tried, under pressure, to cram the genie back inside. Many helped to reach the accord but it is up to the parties involved to carry it out."
IRELAND: "Summit Hope"
The conservative, populist Irish Independent editorialized (10/18): "Claims of success for the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit meeting rest on flimsy foundations. No matter how Middle East and world leaders try to dress it up, progress was minimal.... But even a U.S.-dominated inquiry, when it investigates the 'points of friction' to which the president referred, must surely identify these as overwhelmingly the work of the Israeli government. And the United States and Israel must take heed of world opinion on these matters. The use of helicopter gunships, tanks and rockets is deplored. Almost everywhere outside the United States and Israel, a Palestinian state and a compromise on Jerusalem are supported. Israel, once admired, has lost status internationally. The remedy is in her own hands and in those of her American patron."
NORWAY: "A Fragile Hope"
Independent VG commented (10/18): "Irrespective of the result of the crisis summit in the Egyptian resort city Sharm Al-Sheikh, there will not be peace in the Middle East as long as Israel holds Palestinian areas occupied.... The burning question now is therefore not whether the summit can revitalize the peace process that most people believe is stone dead. It is no longer about securing the peace, but about preventing a war. It will not take long before we know the answer that will come from the Israeli occupied areas."
"Arafat And Barak Hesitate By The Edge"
Newspaper-of-record Aftenposten observed (10/18): "An agreed and oral statement from the U.S. president that avoids the word 'cease-fire', but talks about an 'immediate, concrete initiative' to stop the use of violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis. That was yesterday's result of the summit on the crisis in the Middle East--and the first careful step away from the edge.... The result was fragile. But the lesson learned from this new crisis is still that there does not exist any alternative to working through painful compromises. This makes large demands of the parties' leaders, but the last days have shown that when the parties themselves cannot or will not show responsibility, the international community must be willing to push through solutions that prevent an open war."
POLAND: "The Return Of Hope"
Ryszard Malik opined in centrist Rzeczpospolita (10/18): "The U.S. president knows his two partners very well, and he managed to broker a consensus one more time. It seems today that his calling the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit a success was too premature. But considering the very dangerous situation in both Israel and the Palestine Authority, the very fact that the meeting occurred...and an agreement was reached to end the fighting is a positive development and augurs well to the still remote prospect for peace.... What happened in Sharm Al-Sheikh is not a great success, but it makes the return of hope possible."
THE NETHERLANDS: "After The Summit In Sharm Al-Sheikh"
Left-of-center Trouw had this editorial (10/18): "Given Bill Clinton's statements about promises made at the summit, we have reason to call this summit a small success. Now we have to wait for the promises to be executed. The omens were not too positive.... Given the circumstances and once again, given the U.S. president's statements, the maximum possible has been achieved at this summit.... A meager accord, Egyptian President Mubarak said; nevertheless it is the first step toward resumption of the peace talks. Let's hope it does."
SLOVENIA: "Attention: Falling Stones"
Left-of-center Delo opined in a front page editorial (10/18): "At the Middle East peace negotiations, Bill Clinton always assumes a position of 'an honest' intermediary who seeks a balanced resolution for the recurring crisis between two equivalent enemies.... [According to Clinton] teenagers with stones in their hands are equivalent to soldiers in tanks.... The problem is that the situation in the field is not as balanced; and the United States is not as impartial as shown on TV. Israel is America's only ally in the Middle East, and the United States is the only unconditionally reliable ally of Israel.... Nebulous provisions [contained] in a heap of agreements are called Pax Americana in the Middle East. Peace which pays more regard to American strategic interests and needs of [Israel] than to the needs of affected people. After seven years, this formula has resulted in a resumption of encounters. The most recent agreement is written in the same style.... It may have at least one crucial effect: it will drive away from TV screens the unpleasant images, which are disturbing the calm flow of the American election campaign."
SPAIN: "Just Words"
Left-of-center El Pais remarked (10/18): "Developments over the next few days are crucial, [depending on] if the Palestinians and the Israelis can take effective measures to calm their respective peoples. The United States and Europe should increase the pressure on the moderate Arab countries to take the lead in the Arab League meeting."
"Controlling The Hotheads"
Conservative ABC opined (10/18): "The next few days will be decisive. Fingers crossed, we can only wait to see if Ehud Barak and Yaser Arafat are capable of controling the hotheads and avoid the madness of a new war."
TURKEY: "No Sign For Peace"
Kenan Akin editorialized in conservative/religious Turkiye (10/18): "The summit in Egypt failed to produce a written commitment to peace. And this means the so-called agreement will not last.... All efforts toward peace are doomed to fail unless the issue of Jerusalem is resolved."
SOUTH ASIA
BANGLADESH: "Break The Cycle Of Violence"
The independent, English-language Daily Star editorially commented (10/18): "Mr. Clinton proved once again his prowess in persuasion as he shuttled from one leader to the other well into the early hours of Tuesday to talk them finally into an agreement. Although the post-summit reaction from both leaders still indicated indignation and mistrust for one another, their consent to disengage from violence offers the silver lining in the deep dark cloud cast over peace in the region.... The mayhem in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip should end now, and both leaders must realize that irresponsible behavior at this juncture could very well lead to a full-blown war like the one the region experienced three decades ago."
"Sharm Al-Sheikh Summit"
The centrist, English-language Independent held (10/18): "Indeed, most Arabs on the streets, not only in the West Bank and Gaza, but also virtually throughout the Arab world, are openly and indignantly wondering why Arafat is at Sharm Al-Sheik at all.... A fragile truce at Sharm Al-Sheikh will contribute little to Arafat's declaration: 'We are on the way to Jerusalem until a Palestinian child raises the Palestinian flag on the walls of Jerusalem.' The sympathy of the righteous throughout the South, however, is certainly with the Palestinians."
INDIA: "Violence, Old And New"
The centrist Telegraph ran this by columnist Manvendra Singh (10/18): "Nobody could have predicted a month ago that a summit meeting would have to be called only to bring down levels of violence. But then nobody could have visualized the Israeli state partaking in the stupidity of Ariel Sharon's combustible visit to the Holy Wall and the Haram as-Sharif. The provocative nature of Ariel Sharon, and his rabble-rousing, was beyond the comprehension of the average Palestinian.... The United States, of course, has egg on its face, and in another action many dead soldiers. It is surprising, to say the least, that the instant reaction to the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in Aden was to label it as a response to the violence in the occupied territories. Nothing could be further from the truth."
PAKISTAN: "The Killing Of Peace"
An op-ed by Iffat S. Malik in the centrist, national News observed (10/18): "As seen, no single party is solely to blame, though the largest share undoubtedly falls on Israel.... There can never be peace in the Middle East until the Israeli government and people appreciate one simple fact: peace comes at a price. In Israel's case that price is the land it occupied in the 1967 War."
EAST ASIA
JAPAN: "Will Accord Bring An End To Violence?"
Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri editorialized (10/18): "Both Barak and Arafat must do whatever they can to implement the accord to 'answer faithfully' the desperate and untiring mediation roles played by President Clinton and [UNSG] Annan."
CHINA: "Further Efforts Still Needed For Implementation"
Ge Xiangwen and Shao Jie wrote in official Xinhua Telegraph (10/18): "The Sharm Al-Sheikh summit has basically achieved its intended goals. However, since both sides' demands have not been fully satisfied, further efforts are still needed to put an end to their disputes."
THAILAND: "Middle East's Past"
Nitipoom Nawarat commented in top-circulation Thai Rath (10/18): "Whenever a conflict flares up, the United States, Great Britain, France and other western countries will always side completely with Israel, simply because Israel serves as a deterrent to the integration of world Muslim countries, the realization of which would send a chill down the spine of the West."
AFRICA
CAMEROON: "Sharm Al-Sheikh, The Last-Chance Summit"
Columnist Gregoire Djarmaila made the following the comment at the end of a news article published in the government-owned, English/French-language Cameroon Tribune (10/17): "On the nineteenth day of this new intifada which has led to the death of more than one hundred people, the protests have taken a critical turn for Yasser Arafat, who is being called upon not to make any concessions resulting from American and Israeli pressure being put on him at the Sharm Al-Sheikh summit."
GHANA: "Israel's Aggression"
Ekow Kesson wrote on the opinion page of ruling party-affiliated Ghana Palaver (10/16-17): "It is a sad case that the sponsor and broker of the peace deals, the one supposed to be a referee, is the enemy himself. The Arabs and Palestinians are not negotiating with 'proper' Americans, but with Jews carrying American passports.... Shamefully, these 'peacebrokers' are received in Arab capitals as negotiators and not as enemies and blackmailers."
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA: "Meeting Under Pressure"
Paula Lugones, on special assignment in Sharm Al-Sheik for leading Clarin, observed (10/17): "Palestinians and Israelis could only reach a cease-fire declaration without too many technical details. Something to satisfy Bill Clinton.... Arafat unwillingly attended this summit. He wanted to attend first the extraordinary Arab summit next Saturday in Cairo to get the support of Arab countries for the declaration of a Palestinian State.... It is clear that not all the Arab countries--some of them good allies of the U.S., like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia--wanted to bet too much in favor of the Palestinians. A challenge of this sort could destabilize the whole region and increase the already volatile oil prices.... Arafat is between the sword and a hard place--he does not want to disappoint his people but at the same time is under international pressure to stop violence. For his part, Barak also has domestic storms.... If Clinton manages to have them sit at the negotiationing table, what will peace negotiations be like with an (Israeli) government that will include Sharon? In fact, Barak had offered Arafat much more than any other Israeli prime minister had ever offered."
BRAZIL: "Will The Already Prolonged Peace Process Survive The Latest Blood Bath"
National independent Jornal do Brasil posited (10/18): "The partial cease-fire negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians...is the best solution for the summit conference summoned at the last moment to put an end to the blood bath initiated after Ariel Sharon's visit to the esplanade of Mosques.... The question now is if the already expiring peace process will be able to survive the latest blood bath.... After difficult negotiations, the peace process is resumed, at the point where it was left off...but what is to be feared is the almost complete absence of a real dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians.... No one really expects Arab leaders to declare war on Israel. This time is already past. What is expected now is the materialization of the peace of the brave. In the Promised Land it takes more audacity to conclude a peace than to make war."
CHILE: "Danger Of A War"
Popular, conservative La Segunda noted (10/13): "The biggest risk of the new and violent crisis between Israelis and Palestinians is that the violence is beyond the control of its leaders, and even of the large powers.... The palpable effects of the crisis in oil prices and stock markets are a threat to economies and development worldwide.... This is not just a regional conflict, it is a matter of worldwide repercussions. Unfortunately, the United States seems to have lost faith as a mediator with at least one of the parties, and the most aggressive sectors have managed to impose themselves.... Only the awareness of the implicit danger this violence entails will stop the forces involved from engaging in a new war."
CUBA: "Deep Evil"
An opinion piece by Marina Menéndez from the international page of the Communist Youth Wing Juventud Rebelde put forth (10/17): "Sadly, it doesn't seem that there will be an immediate breakthrough toward peace. Not at the previously unthinkable conference table--because they were not even negotiating.... The politics of plundering Palestine is so old, and has been so exalted, that at this moment it would be very difficult to stop the conflict, unless they are ready to make justice and change the current order in the region..... According to the opinion of many Palestinians, what the United States and Israel are pursuing is to abort the new intifada and to weaken the support that the Arab world has expressed these days for the just Palestinian cause. In the best of cases, the meeting most probably will finish with barely the appearance of a respite, in the middle of the asphyxiation of what is already a virtual war after the last Israeli bombings. An evil that never ends."
MEXICO: "No To Rhetoric Of Violence"
Sergio Nudelstejer wrote in nationalist Excelsior (10/17): "Ariel Sharon's visit to the Mosque explanade was the spark that Al Fatah forces used to mobilize; thus to begin the tragedy.... The current bloodshed brings about a dilemma for Israel: Either it continues its policy of understanding and easing of tensions with the hope that the Palestinians would show in turn greater understanding, or to use more dissuasive force.... Arafat should carry out a tremendous effort to calm the Palestinians and other fundamentalist Arab forces. At the same time, Israel should respond in kind and to try to reach a viable and fair agreement for both parties."
##
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
