Representatives of the various terrorist organizations and militias operating in the Palestinian Authority, under the auspices of PLO leader Yasser Arafat, met in Cairo at the beginning of this month, in order to work out a unified front for a ceasefire (or hudna) proposal. The talks ended without producing any agreement between the factions. How did the Arab press view the talks?
The Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Ayyam this week advised the terrorist organizations to continue to “look for common ground despite diverging opinions, which means that the dialogue should be continued both inside our homeland, as well as outside it.” At the same time, the paper recognized that Arab public opinion is that the factions “distance ourselves from meetings that end in the way the last one did. Such repeated failures make the people indifferent toward the entire process, and to anyone who has anything to do with them.”
Meanwhile, the PA’s Al-Quds editorialized that Israel was to blame for the failed talks. “The real problem with regard to the stumbling peace efforts and the Cairo talks lies in Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. Under no circumstances can the Cairo talks constitute a pretext for Israel to claim that the cause of the faltering peace efforts is the Palestinians failure to agree on a cease-fire,” the daily declared. However, the same Al-Quds confidently declared when the talks were still ongoing that they “will undermine the argument that the Palestinians are too dispersed to negotiate and will dispel the excuse that there is no Palestinian partner to talk to.”
Across the River in Jordan, the Jordan Times editorialized on December 10 that the failed talks were “certainly a setback for the peace process.” However, even the Jordanian newspaper’s position is that “Most of the reasons cited by some Palestinian factions for not suspending all military activities against Israel were understandable....” The reason to support a ceasefire “for a certain time,” the Jordan Times explained to its readers had more to do with serving “the Palestinian quest for independence and statehood.... Hamas and other Palestinian factions have in effect played into the hands of Israeli hardliners.... Hamas has also provided precious ammunition to the Israeli anti-peace camp, which is now using the failure of the Cairo talks as proof that the majority of Palestinians were never serious about peace in the first place.”
The Jordanian editorial sees the ceasefire talks only as a political maneuver: “Statesmanship would have warranted a truce of sorts so that the ball would once again be in the Israeli court. Now it may be that the international community will view the Palestinian factions as culprits who refused to give peace a chance.”
Farther afield, the motivations dictating against a ceasefire agreement could be read even as the talks continued in Cairo. December 7, Al-Khaleej of the United Arab Emirates urged against what it called “a unilateral ceasefire”, because it “means presenting a free gift to the enemy who may see it as a victory and thereby pursue its terrorist acts against the Palestinian people. ...The people who initiated the Intifada must keep the flame and its spirit alive.’’ Another Dubai-based newspaper, Al-Bayan, advised that “The delegates [to the Cairo talks] should not pay any attention to the false promises delivered by the Zionist propaganda machine regarding the ‘road map’ for peace or the Geneva Initiative. These talks are nothing more than a ploy to hide Israel’s failure and Washington’s inability and inefficiency.”
The Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Ayyam this week advised the terrorist organizations to continue to “look for common ground despite diverging opinions, which means that the dialogue should be continued both inside our homeland, as well as outside it.” At the same time, the paper recognized that Arab public opinion is that the factions “distance ourselves from meetings that end in the way the last one did. Such repeated failures make the people indifferent toward the entire process, and to anyone who has anything to do with them.”
Meanwhile, the PA’s Al-Quds editorialized that Israel was to blame for the failed talks. “The real problem with regard to the stumbling peace efforts and the Cairo talks lies in Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. Under no circumstances can the Cairo talks constitute a pretext for Israel to claim that the cause of the faltering peace efforts is the Palestinians failure to agree on a cease-fire,” the daily declared. However, the same Al-Quds confidently declared when the talks were still ongoing that they “will undermine the argument that the Palestinians are too dispersed to negotiate and will dispel the excuse that there is no Palestinian partner to talk to.”
Across the River in Jordan, the Jordan Times editorialized on December 10 that the failed talks were “certainly a setback for the peace process.” However, even the Jordanian newspaper’s position is that “Most of the reasons cited by some Palestinian factions for not suspending all military activities against Israel were understandable....” The reason to support a ceasefire “for a certain time,” the Jordan Times explained to its readers had more to do with serving “the Palestinian quest for independence and statehood.... Hamas and other Palestinian factions have in effect played into the hands of Israeli hardliners.... Hamas has also provided precious ammunition to the Israeli anti-peace camp, which is now using the failure of the Cairo talks as proof that the majority of Palestinians were never serious about peace in the first place.”
The Jordanian editorial sees the ceasefire talks only as a political maneuver: “Statesmanship would have warranted a truce of sorts so that the ball would once again be in the Israeli court. Now it may be that the international community will view the Palestinian factions as culprits who refused to give peace a chance.”
Farther afield, the motivations dictating against a ceasefire agreement could be read even as the talks continued in Cairo. December 7, Al-Khaleej of the United Arab Emirates urged against what it called “a unilateral ceasefire”, because it “means presenting a free gift to the enemy who may see it as a victory and thereby pursue its terrorist acts against the Palestinian people. ...The people who initiated the Intifada must keep the flame and its spirit alive.’’ Another Dubai-based newspaper, Al-Bayan, advised that “The delegates [to the Cairo talks] should not pay any attention to the false promises delivered by the Zionist propaganda machine regarding the ‘road map’ for peace or the Geneva Initiative. These talks are nothing more than a ploy to hide Israel’s failure and Washington’s inability and inefficiency.”