Dec 17, 2002 Op Eds

December 17, 2002 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

Conspicuously absent from US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s recent Middle East address on a partnership initiative with the United States was the central problem in the region, namely the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Anyone who imagines that he can market a partnership in the region without first ending the conflict needs to think again.

Ending the conflict begins with the acknowledgement that there is a problem — an indigenous population and territory under direct occupation by a foreign power. The occupation has not ended. If anything, Israel has dug in as never before. And the United States is playing a supporting role as never before. The newest Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Jimmy Carter, asserts that George W. Bush is not impartial about the issue. “Until President Bush, every president, Democratic or Republican, has in my opinion played a balancing role as a trusted mediator,” Carter said. “Now, though, it seems obvious that the present administration in Washington is completely compatible with the Israeli government and they have completely ignored ... the Palestinian Authority.”

These are strong words but not impossible to believe, as can be seen by the appointment last month of Elliott Abrams as Bush’s director of Middle Eastern affairs at the White House. Abrams is a passionate advocate of Israel and his appointment thrilled those who had criticized the administration for being too tough on Israel and too deferential to the Palestinians. Abrams was a fierce opponent of the Oslo peace negotiations even while they seemed to bear fruit. He wrote in the 1990s that it was a mistake for Bill Clinton to trust Yasser Arafat. He advocated that position from the start of this Bush administration, until it became Bush’s position last June. No matter what atrocities Israel commits, the US adopts nothing stronger than kids gloves, never calling a spade a spade. Naturally, Ariel Sharon views such indulgence as a green light to persist in violence against Palestinians, heedless of the exhortations and censure of all international parties. Right-wing Israelis like Sharon who represent the Greater Israel ideology, claiming all of historical Palestine as a Jewish homeland, have been especially successful at making their view of the region the dominant one among US supporters of Israel. The whole theme of the war against terrorism has permitted Israel to commit war crimes against the entire Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza.

There is also American double standard at work. On the issue of Iraq, the whole point of the US going to the UN was to get a resolution so stiff that no matter whether or not Saddam Hussein complied, the US would still move in on Baghdad to remove him and his weapons. On the other hand, in late September, in a Security Council resolution passed unanimously —with US abstention — Israel was called on to end its siege of Arafat’s Ramallah compound and to withdraw from Palestinian territory occupied since March. Israel still refuses to comply and the underlying rationale for it doing next to nothing to enforce its own stated position is that “We understand that Israel must defend its citizens.” Why the UN is to be sought after in one instance and ignored in another is one of those inconsistencies that the US widely indulges in.

Partnership and inconsistency don’t go together.

EU membership for Turkey will prove beneficial to Europe and Mideast
By Kinda Balkhair, Special to Arab News
-

CAIRO, 17 December 2002 — Meetings in the Danish capital of Copenhagen were a sham for Turkey, but a positive step for the 10 new members from mostly poorer Eastern European countries. Turkey, however, will have to wait another two years to begin discussions for membership into the EU.

Many questions loom as to how, when and why Turkey should be part of Europe.

In some European circles, there are vast differences between Christian Europe, and Muslim Turkey. Over 70 million of Turkey’s population are Muslim. Turkey’s current leader has a history of flirting with Islamist views and is now being watched with an eerie, suspicious eye by the West.

So why should Turkey be part of Europe? Many Europeans feel threatened that with a large population growth in Turkey Muslim Turks will be seen roaming the streets of Europe and taking up job opportunities — perhaps even playing a vital role in the European Parliament. This in turn may fuel anti-immigration sentiments.

Turkey is also a big country, and — like many of its Arab neighbors, thrives on cheap labor and a vibrant agricultural sector. All this could actually threaten EU interests. This threat can be summed up in a phrase: Religion and its infusion into politics.

When Turkey’s new leader Abdullah Gul was elected as prime minister, two frequent questions were targeted to Turkish politicians and insiders: “Will your leader incorporate Islamist views into politics?” And “Will he allow US troops to use Turkey as a base if, and when America goes into war with Iraq?” Turkey is treading on sensitive ground, and unless it can grapple with the challenges it faces from the EU and remove what stumbling roadblocks there are, the country will not move forward. Too much pressure has been put on Turkey from both the West and the Middle East to change.

Too much change at too short a time is wrong. The West is xenophobic — always worrying that anyone with Islamist views is an extremist and anti-democratic. The Middle East sees Turkey as a traitor; a country not proud of its Islamic heritage.

Unless East and West can bridge the yawning gap and unless both can begin to merge with one another we will have missed a historic opportunity. The West and the Middle East have much to learn. If Turkey becomes a member of the EU in two years time, it might actually prove to the world at large that Islam, Muslims and those with ‘Islamist roots’ can be part of a civilized, democratic, Europe. In other words, Islam can coincide with democracy. Turkey will also comprise a big chunk of the decision-making process in Middle East affairs.

Europeans who argue that Turks only wants to join the EU because of economic benefits and not because they feel European are living in a fantasy world. The structure of our world today is based on mutual interests and benefits. Why else would America want to see Turkey become part of a greater Europe other than because it is an invaluable ally in the war with Iraq!

There is also much to learn from the West. Until recently, Turkey has been working hard to improve its human rights record — it has been criticized for past torture and ill-treatment of the minority Kurds. It is also working hard to adopt democratic values, a basic criteria for its accession into the EU. All these elements will encourage Arab countries to emulate Turkey.

Instead, however, remarks made by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president that Turkey’s entry would mean “the end” of Europe, has sent a negative signal to the Muslim world. Likewise, Turkish Prime Minister Abdullah Gul’s disappointment with the EU’s “act of prejudice against us,” could make Turkey cringe from completing its transition toward democracy and modernity. So long as Europe has given Turkey a firm reason to believe that it can join the EU, then Turkey has a chance to grow. If it is Turkey’s human rights record that needs reform, Turkey admits that it is working on it. In the meantime, Europe might find it useful to assess its own records as well. To what extent can Europe mold Turkey to its own set of social values, before admitting it to the EU?

The wisdom of interfering in the Israeli election

By Hassan Barari

Jordan Times, 12/17/02

AS ALL parties in Israel have completed their primaries and parties' lists for the upcoming general election, the focus is now on the general election in which a Likud landslide victory is almost a foregone conclusion unless some sort of divine miracle comes into play. Not only will Ariel Sharon emerge victorious, he will also have the choice of either setting up a narrow government with the radical right or a national unity government with Labour. Of course, the latter choice is contingent on the approval of Labour chairman, Amram Mitzna, who does not have much leeway over this issue as a result of the Labour primaries.

While the election is without doubt an internal affair, where which only Israeli voters can make a difference, many people in our region still grapple with whether or not we have the right to intervene in the upcoming election. Notwithstanding this concern, and given that the outcome of the election, regardless of who the winner is, will have far-reaching consequences on the region as a whole, I contend that it is both our right and duty to interfere. It is in the best interest of the region to reverse the rightwards tide in Israeli politics and to help initiate a new dynamic within Israel that would catapult the pragmatic camp (not only the peace camp) to power. Without this and in the complete absence of an effective and evenhanded third party intervention, the whole region will be hostage to the whims and miscalculations of the Likud-led government. Therefore, what is at stake is momentous and definitely warrants our intervention.

Paradoxically, such intervention is unlikely to assist the pragmatic camp to achieve electoral victory in the upcoming election. Yet, minimising the number of seats to be won by Likud and parties on the right means that Labour could forge a credible opposition with a clear-cut ideological alternative. If, for the sake of argument, Sharon is to form a government without Labour, this will help expose the bankruptcy of Sharon's policies. Undoubtedly, Sharon government will, in effect, be hijacked by ministers whose obsession with security will distort the government's approach to any future peace initiative, thus deteriorating rather than ameliorating the security situation. A corollary of this would prompt Israeli public to come to its senses and look for a different alternative. Therefore, if Mitzna manages to keep his party out of the government, the Israeli public, which is known for being fickle, will probably pin its hopes on Labour to save Israel from the endless predicament.

However, the main question is, and here is the nitty-gritty of the matter, how to interfere positively to bring about the aforementioned scenario. First and foremost, an explicit Palestinian intervention would be both imprudent and counterproductive. The calls made by many Palestinian senior officials close to Arafat for Israelis to vote for Labour will fall on deaf ears and, indeed, provide Likud with much needed ammunition to cast Mitzna as a leftist who is willing to deal with Arafat or, to put it differently, as a Yossi Beilin with a beard. Palestinian enthusiasm to help Mitzna is premature and in effect fails to grasp the real dynamics in Israeli society, which are conditioned by the perception of the lack of security. Needless to say, Arafat's ill-advised policies, his incapability to handle the situation since Oslo and the suicide bombings inside Israel proper have contributed considerably to the ascendance of the right into power.

Having said that, however, a more implicit and subtle intervention on the Palestinian side is a must. For example, declaring a unilateral moratorium of military activities will have the potential to sideline the impact of security on voters' preferences. Succeeding in this endeavour will definitely preclude Sharon and the coterie of right-wing political thugs from making political capital out of a perceived security threat and, equally important, will not push the floating votes towards Likud and other right-wing parties.

Certainly, other players, such as Egypt and Jordan, can impact the outcome of the election, albeit slightly. President Hosni Mubarak's invitation to Mitzna to visit Cairo was a smart move designed to help the latter improve his standing among the Israeli public. I cannot see any reason why Jordan cannot do the same. It is widely believed that Jordan enjoys a better standing than any other Arab country among the Israeli public. Even many in Israel believe that Jordan can always influence the preferences of some voters, and this happened in 1996 election when King Hussein invited Netanyahu to visit Amman and, at the same time, declined Peres the same privilege. It is widely believed in Israel that the King's move was designed to impact the outcome of the election. It did help Netanyahu, then a newcomer to politics, to appear as a statesman.

To conclude, in the run-up to election, we cannot afford to keep observing how events unfold without making a substantial effort to influence them. It is a given that Likud's victory in the next election will take us back to square one. In light of Sharon's improper and reckless behaviour during the last two years, I contend that enfeebling Likud is in the best interest of all of us. Potentially, a combination of coordinated efforts by the Palestinians, Egyptians and Jordanians might yield valuable results.

Carter, Annan and global peace

By Abdelwahab El-Affendi

The Daily Star, 12/17/02

Two recent events which may not qualify as major happenings focused world attention on the pressing issue of global peace.
The first took place in Oslo, Norway, where former US President Jimmy Carter received the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 11. He is probably the most deserving recipient of this award.
Carter, who swept to the White House on a wave of disillusionment with the Nixon-era politics of intrigue, brought to the US presidency an idealism not seen since the days of Woodrow Wilson (who won the prize in 1919). It is no wonder that he was quickly rejected by the US establishment and public in favor of the Reagan era, which is still with us. Carter’s idealism and his principled support for human rights and international legality were blamed for “losing” Iran and Nicaragua, and for reducing American influence internationally. Proponents of realism, such as Henry Kissinger, ridiculed it as fanciful and unworkable in the real world.
Undaunted, Carter persisted in his idealistic pursuits. Described as a “one-man” United Nations, his Carter Center departed from the traditional prestige- and profit-inclined presidential libraries and organizations to become a genuine campaign hub not only for international peace, but also for the struggle against disease and poverty. Carter’s campaign against the guinea worm a vicious parasite that infects the human body and destroys it from within was a miracle of perseverance. Not only has the campaign reduced the incidence of the disease by over 90 percent, but also Carter claims to have personally visited each of the 23,000 African villages where it was rampant.
Carter, who indirectly established his center as an “alternative” US administration, pursued an American diplomacy with a difference undertaking initiatives in such diverse places as Sudan, Haiti, Cuba and Korea.
In his Nobel lecture, and in interviews he granted to the media, Carter sharply criticized the Bush administration’s policy of pre-emptive strikes against Iraq and elsewhere, arguing that “for powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences.” The best way to achieve peace, he said, is to address the widening gap between rich and poor, adopt international dialogue and seek equitable resolutions to conflicts such as that in the Middle East. While careful not to criticize President George W. Bush directly, Carter’s emphasis on multilateralism and justice for all, and his argument that the single superpower world has become a dangerous one, represents a powerful indictment of the belligerent approach of the Bush administration.
The second event took place one day after Carter’s lecture when another Nobel Peace Prize laureate, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, delivered a speech on the occasion of the BBC’s 70th anniversary celebrations.
Annan has more reasons than Carter to sing the idealistic tune, and he did indeed lament the growing divide between the privileged and deprived. Reiterating the need to weave webs of international solidarity to bridge this division, which has “become an affront to human dignity,” he argued that the UN’s role was to go beyond realpolitik to the rule of law and collective security. However, his prescriptions for solutions were rather timid, and there was a general sense of frustration evident in his remarks.
Annan’s intervention could not have come at a worse time for the ideal of the UN, since it was made in the same week when US bullying removed the (rather transparent) fig leaf masking US hegemony over the organization. The way the Bush administration overruled the UN arms inspectors and took possession of Iraq’s weapons declaration was widely (and rightly) seen as a naked usurpation of UN authority. Annan was besieged by questions from the audience charging that the world body has become a US puppet. He rejected the criticisms, arguing that Washington does exert strong influence in the UN, but it is not alone in doing so. But the picture he paints of the UN and defends is more akin to Kissinger’s Machiavellian designs than to Carter’s idealistic prescriptions.
The UN chief’s feeling of powerlessness can be read in the words addressed in his lecture to the Iraqi people. He told them they could avoid war and escape sanctions only if they complied with UN resolutions meaning with American ultimatums. “I will be deceiving you if I promised you otherwise,” he declared plaintively.
Annan’s words to the Palestinians didn’t offer more comfort either. While acknowledging that UN resolutions should provide the basis for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he made no promise that they will ever be implemented. When challenged on UN double standards over resolutions regarding Iraq and Israel, he lapsed into the usual sophistry about Chapter VII (“the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to peace”) versus other provisions. What he succeeded in conveying is that there is no escape from realpolitik and the politics of hegemony. The UN, it would seem, doesn’t have double standards, but one standard in which the weak lose out and the powerful get what they want.
This isn’t Annan’s fault, as he was at pains to point out, nor that of the UN. He replied to those who protested that Arab and Muslim countries don’t appear to have a voice in the UN by saying that the organization is a group of countries, and you only get enough support if you convince others that your cause is worthy. He was too polite to say that the Arabs and Muslims have to get their act together first and stop squabbling before they can hope to influence others.
The corollary of this point of course is that, in this international jungle, you can only get what you can grab. The message for Arabs and others is that they should fight for what is theirs by right. But Annan was quick to dismiss this logic when confronted by a questioner who said he was a moderate Muslim who was inclined to shift to extremism whenever he observed how the UN operates. Annan cautioned him that violence is counterproductive, which isn’t true. Is it not through violence and nothing but violence that Israel is subduing the Palestinians and the US is blackmailing Iraq and others? It is not thus a question of violence, but how much violence.
Annan holds a tiny ray of hope for the world’s disillusioned masses, pointing out that indeed rights are not granted automatically but must be fought for. Taking encouragement from the way mass protest has forced government and big business to yield to popular pressure, he called on citizens worldwide to forge solidarity networks to agitate for change and justice.
With men like Carter and the tens of thousands of anti-war protesters worldwide, this is not such a farfetched idea. But it is a sad situation when those who are in a position of power, like Annan, feel the need to appeal to the powerless to do their work for them.

Abdelwahab El-Affendi is a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster.

Decisive moment for peace in Middle East
London | By Mustapha Karkouti | Gulf News, 17-12-2002

-

This is a decisive week for the Palestinians, indeed for the entire Middle East, as representatives of the "quartet" hold two vital meeting this Wednesday in New York, and on Friday in Washington.

This is also the view of the UN special co-coordinator for the Middle East peace process, Terje Roed-Larsen. He told me, while he was passing through London last week, the "quartet" talks this time is "a kind of make or break for Palestine and peace in ME."

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and External Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten, and Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, are invited to meet this Friday in Washington by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

The "quartet", comprising the United Nations, the European Union, United States and Russia, have introduced in the course of the year, a "road map for peace" to be implemented in Palestine in three stages.

In stage one, Israel should, with improving security in the Palestinian occupied territories, withdraw its forces to September 2000 borders and support free Palestinian elections in early 2003.

But many Palestinian spokespersons, Western diplomats and international volunteers, have indicated on numerous occasions that comprehensive security reforms are being undermined by Israeli military forces, who seem these days to enjoy the upper-hand in running Israel's policy.

Therefore, holding an election under these circumstances would seem as a joke, given that about 80 per cent of the Palestinian population are not allowed to travel within their own towns and villages to cast their votes.

The second phase envisages a period to last till the end of 2004 with a "focus on creating a Palestinian state with 'provision' borders as a way station to a permanent status."

The third phase takes place by 2005 and talks about "negotiations aimed at a permanent status solution in 2005."

Though the 'road map for peace' avoids talking about the real problematic issues, such as the refugee right of return and status of Jerusalem, it does uphold the main principle for a settlement: Land for peace.

This is essential for any meaningful peace settlement to succeed. But unfortunately, no sign is yet on the part of the Israeli government showing any willingness to move along the "quartet" thinking.

Roed-Larsen is a very quiet man who doesn't speak nonsense. He has been involved in the Palestinian affairs long before the 1993 Oslo Accords, of which Larsen was the main architect.

As director of the Fafo Institute for Applied Social Science in Oslo in the 1980s, Roed-Larsen initiated a research project into the living conditions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The relationships with both Palestinians and Israelis that he established during the period of preparing and implementing the project, has led to his involvement in establishing the secret channel for negotiations between the PLO and Yitzhak Rabin's government in 1992.

With the deafening sound of war drums against Iraq, the Norwegian diplomat is extremely worried that the situation might dangerously flare up in the entire Middle East if the "quartet" fails to deliver this time.

Roed-Larsen cites the level of poverty in the occupied territories, particularly Gaza which has been reduced to dire straits economically since Israel sealed the crossings to Palestinian workers when the intifada broke out in September 2000.

He said the poverty rate is above 70 per cent and unemployment is higher than 50 per cent. "More than 20 per cent of Palestinian households have lost all their income," Larsen added.

Last Friday, five young Palestinians from Gaza died in search of work. Unemployed and desperate, the only crime committed by these young men was to take an illegal route into Israel to find illicit jobs. They paid with their lives.

Now with the situation as dire as it is, it seems the only road to occupied Jerusalem is the "road map". This Friday, the "quartet" representatives are due to meet the U.S. President George Walker Bush and have his seal on the final blueprint.

Roed-Larsen is not necessarily optimistic. On the contrary, he reckons the situation could remain gloomy for a while. But he is hopeful that the "quartet" will make a lot of difference soon.

"There is a lot at stake," he says. The credibility of the powers represented in the "quartet" is at stake. The only super power without which no peace can be achieved in the Middle East. The European Union which is the largest donor to the Palestinians, Russia with its clout and the UN.

"If these powers can not achieve peaceful settlement for the Palestinian issue no one else can," Larsen says.

He believes if the "quartet" approves the final blue-print of the "road map", it will be very hard for any party in the Middle East conflict to reject, or even try to hamper. "Quartet means the world and when you have the entire world standing behind these efforts and supporting the road map, the only movement is forward," he says.

But the main question remains: Is the Israeli government ready to move along the "road map"? With the general election due in Israel on January 28, it is difficult to predict what policy the new government will adopt.

With all polls showing up till now Ariel Sharon is ahead of his rival Labour leader Amaram Metzna, the former general is expected to form Israel's new government.

But, can a Sharon-led-government in 2003 which is likely to be a coalition of right-wing Likud members many of whom would be Benjamin Netanyahu supporters, and fundamentalist smaller parties, be different from a Sharon-led-national unity government in 2002?

It is hard to tell. But observers believe that recent statement made by Sharon, after he defeated his rival Netanyahu in the Likud leadership race, may at least appear that he was responding in anticipation of the expected "quartet" final blue-print.

Sharon has said that he was willing to accept an "independent Palestinian state", but with a lot of conditions. That it should be demilitarised and occupy only 41 per cent of the West Bank and Gaza.

The writer is the former president, Foreign Press Association in London.

Assad, Blair and the Middle East crises

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 12/`7/02

Arab newspapers are just about unanimous that the questions of Iraq, Palestine and the US-led “war on terror” will be the focus of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s current state visit to Britain, the first of its kind.
The visit by Assad, who trained as an ophthalmologist in the British capital and is accompanied by his London-born wife, Asma Akhras, will feature talks with both Prime Minister Tony Blair and Queen Elizabeth II.
Syrian Information Minister Adnan Omran tells Saudi Arabia’s leading pan-Arab daily, Asharq al-Awsat, in an interview: “The region faces ongoing aggression (in Palestine) as well as the threat of aggression (on Iraq). It is natural that Israeli practises be on the agenda for the talks in London, in the hope that Israel can be persuaded to stop its aggression and that a serious international effort is made to force Israel to implement UN resolutions, roll back its occupation of all Arab lands occupied in 1967, and (make way for) the establishment of a Palestinian state with (East) Jerusalem as its capital.
“Where the threat of aggression against the Iraqi people is concerned, that too runs contrary to the UN Charter and the wording as well as the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which ordered arms inspections under UNMOVIC supervision,” he adds. “It is only natural for this issue to be discussed. Syria has been unequivocal in its opposition to any aggression on Iraq and for the respect of the UN and its resolutions.”
In Damascus, the ruling party daily Al-Baath says Assad and Blair will be resuming the dialogue they started during the latter’s visit to Damascus in November last year. In an editorial, it recalls the interview Assad gave to The Times last week his first to a British newspaper in which he gave warning that an American-led war on Iraq would have catastrophic consequences, creating “fertile soil for terrorism” across the Middle East. “The consequences are not going to be contained within Iraq,” he said then. “The entire region will enter into the unknown.”
Assad will be repeating this in London, “one of the world’s most important capitals.” He will also be reaffirming Syria’s belief that “whoever wants to see genuine peace prevail in the region must uphold international legitimacy and UN resolutions.”
Another official Syrian daily, Tishrin, says: “The visit is of great consequence not only because it is the first by a Syrian leader since independence, but for the reason that it comes at an extremely complex and sensitive point in time, whether as concerns Iraq and the likely repercussions on the whole Arab region or as concerns the Arab-Zionist conflict, which sees (Israeli Premier Ariel) Sharon and his murderous army generals destroy the very essence of Palestinian life and survival … to the point of striving to annihilate Palestinian society altogether.”
Tishrin recalls that at his joint press conference with Blair in Damascus last year, Assad did not mince his words or his trenchant views on the difference between “resistance and terrorism or between terrorism and Islam,” declaring at the time: “The dissimilarity is enormous … Resistance is a social right, a religious right, a legal right, a right upheld by UN resolutions and enshrined in the UN Charter … Islam and all other monotheistic religions believe in one God and preach peace on Earth, not war or terror.”
“Syria together with the Arabs, Muslims and a majority of the nations in the world,” the paper says, “perceive the Zionist government’s racist practices against the Palestinian people as the most dangerous kind of terrorism. Consequently, ending the occupation and implementing UN resolutions to establish a just and comprehensive peace based on the (Saudi-cum-pan-Arab) peace initiative is liable to defuse tensions, frustrations and violence” in the region.
As Assad told Blair at their meeting last year, says Tishrin, “Syria has not changed its position on peace meaning that we want to reach a just and comprehensive peace in the region despite all the difficult conditions which have faced the process of peacemaking and despite all the setbacks which we witness at the moment. Syria continues to deem peace its strategic, rather than tactical, choice. Despite this, Israel keeps proving day after day that it is against this kind of peace. For that reason, the (Syrian) quest for peace is irreconcilable with the (Israeli) quest for more killings.”
Tishrin has “no doubt” that Assad will plead the case for a political and diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis “particularly after Iraq responded positively to Arab and international appeals and accepted to implement Resolution 1441 and all its provisions. Recourse to war will not solve the Iraq problem it can only make it more complex. Because of the geopolitical, demographic, historical and national links between states and peoples of the region, any military blitz against Iraq will trigger all sorts of convolutions and a whole series of reactions and upheavals liable to shake peace and security in the region, if not the whole world.”
Assayed Zahra, writing in Bahrain’s Akhbar al-Khaleej, says Assad deserves all the praise he is getting if only for his defense of the Palestinian cause in the interview he gave to The Times in which he said that Palestinian organizations such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas “express the view of millions of Palestinians inside the Occupied Territories” and those Palestinians are in turn supported by “300 million Arabs, by over a billion Muslims, and by millions of people all over the world.”
It is impossible to describe all these people as terrorists or supporters of terrorism, the Syrian leader argued in the interview.
Zahra says Assad stands out because other Arab leaders are getting us used to taking one of two positions: Some of them have the “audacity” to condemn suicide operations and resistance organizations and to “extend their condolences” on the death of Israeli civilians, while others have elected to totally avoid referring from far or near to the Palestinians’ right to resist the occupation, specially when addressing the foreign media.
If all Arab leaders and officials were as frank and outspoken in explaining Arab positions and in defending Arab rights without sounding apologetic, “many things would have been different,” according to Zahra.
Asharq al-Awsat speaks of a “historic visit” to London by “the man who could have a key responsibility in shaping Iraq’s future and in finding a solution to the Palestinian problem.”
The visit by Assad, the paper writes in its lead editorial, is “indicative of Syria’s strategic decision to consolidate its relations with the leading Western powers. Before the visit, Syria as a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council voted in favor of Resolution 1441 ordering Iraq to disarm.
“Syria’s vote was on behalf of the Arab League, which gave the Security Council resolution a moral dimension,” the paper adds. “At the same time, Syria played a constructive role in preventing military escalation along the Lebanese-Israeli border, thus preventing the situation there from getting out of hand. And as a strong ally of Iran, Syria is in a position to play a useful function in reinforcing dialogue between Tehran and European capitals. Likewise, Syria has a very important task in shaping Iraq’s future. In addition, no one can belittle Syria’s influence in Lebanon,” where it will make sure that the $4 billion in soft loans from last month’s “Paris II” donor conference will be properly spent to shore up the Lebanese economy.
Damascus, the paper writes, has been actively cooperating with Washington to share information on Al-Qaeda cooperation that is credited with having saved American lives. Accordingly, it says, Damascus would expect London to broker the removal of Syria’s name from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.
At the same time, the Saudi daily adds, Britain can lend a hand to political and economic reform in Syria.

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.