The idea floated by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to withdraw from most of Gaza, evacuating the Jews in the process, has, as described by Dubai-based Gulf News, left Arabs in a state of perplexity.
Most emblematic of this confusion was a statement from the Palestinian Authority's Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda newspaper. On the one hand, "Sharon’s recent verbal attempts to pull himself and Israel from the quagmire of the occupation in Gaza do not impress any body," the newspaper said this week; on the other hand, the same editorial comment continued, "The Israeli society, political parties, the Israeli army and the security organs in addition to Sharon’s government appear to have lost their way, confused and unable to steer their way into the right direction away from the occupation of Palestinian land and people. The curse of occupation is following them. Sharon’s government has one option only. End the occupation and move back to the pre 1967 borders."
One day later, an Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda columnist wrote, "Even when they admit that there is no benefit in occupying parts of our homeland, the Hebrew state's murderous rulers do not want to give the credit to our sacrifices and stands."
On the other hand, the PA Al-Quds newspaper doubted that the withdrawal will even take place. A February 5 editorial presented a confused statement to that effect: "Judging by past experience, Sharon’s decision to dismantle some current settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is just a smokescreen designed to turn public attention away from his two sons' troubles with the law, and to save his government from caving in under mounting right-wing pressure against the dismantling decision."
In the neighboring Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Al-Rai newspaper last week (February 4) surmised that the uprooting of Jews from Gaza is actually designed "to strike a hard blow at the Palestinian leadership...." By "moving ahead with his unilateral Gaza plan without consulting the Palestinians," the newspaper said, Sharon "intends to isolate the Palestinian leadership and prevent it from exploiting the Israeli retreat from Gaza for its own benefit." A negotiated deal, the editorial explained would allow the Palestinian Authority to claim "a political victory, the same way Hizbullah did last week through the prisoner swap."
The English language Jordan Times called the Prime Minister's offer of withdrawal "controversial" and "short-lived". "Now we know," the newspaper explained, in a February 9th editorial, "that the euphoria generated by Sharon's decision to withdraw from some 17 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip is conditioned on further expansion of already existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank."
Egypt's Al-Akhbar newspaper editorialized (February 5) that, instead of a clever plot, Sharon's announced withdrawal from Gaza will never take place. "Amid such Israeli massacres, the statements of Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon on his intentions to evacuate 17 settlements in Gaza Strip served as propaganda, which would not be implemented…. Sharon talks about dismantling settlements, yet, in fact, he expands them in addition to confiscating more Palestinian territories to back the occupation."
The same day, As-Safir of Lebanon carried an article praising the Israeli withdrawal proposal, calling it a "positive step". It could even be, the columnist wrote, the first step away from the " broad nationalist Zionist scheme." On the other hand, the columnist opined, Israel failed to cow Gazan Arabs, "so they have decided to evacuate."
The Saudi Arabian Al-Watan was also skeptical. "If Sharon is sincere in his intention to dismantle most of the Jewish settlements, the idea deserves more than a moment of thought," the relatively moderate, anti-clerical newspaper declared, "...however, most of Sharon’s decisions represent attempts to divert attention away from problems facing his government...." (February 8)
The English-language Gulf News, of the United Arab Emirates, ascribed more national, and clever, motivations to Prime Minister Sharon's proposal. The paper commented (February 4), "It may be that Sharon’s proposals are a part of his usual grandstanding prior to his visit to Washington later this month. Perhaps he intends on telling the American president that even though he is prepared to make such great sacrifices (of giving up land) the Palestinians still do not co-operate." On the other hand, the UAE paper noted, Sharon has never played "such valuable cards" in the past.
"The Palestinian leadership should look long and hard at what Sharon is offering and the circumstances surrounding it," Gulf News cautioned, "When Sharon offers anything, be sure he is about to take something as well."
Most emblematic of this confusion was a statement from the Palestinian Authority's Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda newspaper. On the one hand, "Sharon’s recent verbal attempts to pull himself and Israel from the quagmire of the occupation in Gaza do not impress any body," the newspaper said this week; on the other hand, the same editorial comment continued, "The Israeli society, political parties, the Israeli army and the security organs in addition to Sharon’s government appear to have lost their way, confused and unable to steer their way into the right direction away from the occupation of Palestinian land and people. The curse of occupation is following them. Sharon’s government has one option only. End the occupation and move back to the pre 1967 borders."
One day later, an Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda columnist wrote, "Even when they admit that there is no benefit in occupying parts of our homeland, the Hebrew state's murderous rulers do not want to give the credit to our sacrifices and stands."
On the other hand, the PA Al-Quds newspaper doubted that the withdrawal will even take place. A February 5 editorial presented a confused statement to that effect: "Judging by past experience, Sharon’s decision to dismantle some current settlements in the West Bank and Gaza is just a smokescreen designed to turn public attention away from his two sons' troubles with the law, and to save his government from caving in under mounting right-wing pressure against the dismantling decision."
In the neighboring Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Al-Rai newspaper last week (February 4) surmised that the uprooting of Jews from Gaza is actually designed "to strike a hard blow at the Palestinian leadership...." By "moving ahead with his unilateral Gaza plan without consulting the Palestinians," the newspaper said, Sharon "intends to isolate the Palestinian leadership and prevent it from exploiting the Israeli retreat from Gaza for its own benefit." A negotiated deal, the editorial explained would allow the Palestinian Authority to claim "a political victory, the same way Hizbullah did last week through the prisoner swap."
The English language Jordan Times called the Prime Minister's offer of withdrawal "controversial" and "short-lived". "Now we know," the newspaper explained, in a February 9th editorial, "that the euphoria generated by Sharon's decision to withdraw from some 17 Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip is conditioned on further expansion of already existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank."
Egypt's Al-Akhbar newspaper editorialized (February 5) that, instead of a clever plot, Sharon's announced withdrawal from Gaza will never take place. "Amid such Israeli massacres, the statements of Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon on his intentions to evacuate 17 settlements in Gaza Strip served as propaganda, which would not be implemented…. Sharon talks about dismantling settlements, yet, in fact, he expands them in addition to confiscating more Palestinian territories to back the occupation."
The same day, As-Safir of Lebanon carried an article praising the Israeli withdrawal proposal, calling it a "positive step". It could even be, the columnist wrote, the first step away from the " broad nationalist Zionist scheme." On the other hand, the columnist opined, Israel failed to cow Gazan Arabs, "so they have decided to evacuate."
The Saudi Arabian Al-Watan was also skeptical. "If Sharon is sincere in his intention to dismantle most of the Jewish settlements, the idea deserves more than a moment of thought," the relatively moderate, anti-clerical newspaper declared, "...however, most of Sharon’s decisions represent attempts to divert attention away from problems facing his government...." (February 8)
The English-language Gulf News, of the United Arab Emirates, ascribed more national, and clever, motivations to Prime Minister Sharon's proposal. The paper commented (February 4), "It may be that Sharon’s proposals are a part of his usual grandstanding prior to his visit to Washington later this month. Perhaps he intends on telling the American president that even though he is prepared to make such great sacrifices (of giving up land) the Palestinians still do not co-operate." On the other hand, the UAE paper noted, Sharon has never played "such valuable cards" in the past.
"The Palestinian leadership should look long and hard at what Sharon is offering and the circumstances surrounding it," Gulf News cautioned, "When Sharon offers anything, be sure he is about to take something as well."