Palestinians need to reassess their strategy In a comment article for the Jordanian newspaper Addustoor, Arreb al Rantawi considered the circumstances for direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis counterproductive. He wrote that freezing settlement activities was the sole precondition to engage in a new round of talks in the future. "The negotiations as they are now serve better the Israeli interests, and can hardly bring justice to the Palestinians. For this reason, any eventual talks should highlight an alternative Palestinian strategy that should put forward all the demands raised in the past rounds."
Suspending negotiations is not enough, however. A new approach needs to be consolidated, such as encouraging "rational talks and rational resistance as well as action to restore the territorial integrity and rebuild the Palestinian Authority's institutions." If this does not happen, Israel will continue imposing its intransigent policies in disregard of international pressure.
To change this situation, Palestinians should review their negotiation history, their plans and the resistance option. They need to assess the factors that led to the failure of previous agreements, and refuse new talks if the Americans promise guarantees, or if the Israelis freeze settlement expansion.
Ahmadinejad's visit reasserts Iran's power
In a comment article for the UAE newspaper Al Khaleej, Saad Mehio characterised the expected visit to Lebanon by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a great event historically and strategically. First, it will defy the deal concluded by the former US president George W Bush and the former French president Jacques Chirac in 2004, which forced Syria to retreat from Lebanon. The visit might also mark the beginning of a growing Iranian influence in the Levant. The last such episode dates back to the Achaemenid Empire under the leadership of Cyrus the Great 2,500 years ago.
"Of course, President Ahmadinejad will come neither as emperor nor as an invader; yet his visit may denote a rising political and ideological influence of the Islamic Republic in the region." Second, the visit will also bring into focus the balance of power in the region, which has clearly changed since "the revolutionary project" to revamp democracy in the Middle East was launched by President Bush. This has been seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently in southern Lebanon.
"President Ahmadinejad will not be able to declare victory over the West and Arab moderate states from southern Lebanon… Nevertheless, his presence a stone's throw from the Israeli borders will be a strong message about the extent to which Tehran can go in confronting Israel."
Peruvian writer was not worthy of Nobel
In a lead article in the Lebanese newspaper Assafir, Satea Noureddine criticised Arab commentators who hailed the Peruvian writer Vargas Llosa, the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature this year. He blamed them for presenting the man as an exceptionally outstanding creative author, and as a close friend.
"Many Arab literary circles likewise failed to properly assess the author's work, which had deviated from the authentic Latin American literature traditions … They rush to praise his victory without questioning what he had given in return." Many have overlooked the fact that Mr Llosa began his career as a leftist radical before changing his political orientation to the extreme right and running for president in the 1990s. Moreover, they failed to mention how he downgraded the legacy and original character of Latin American literature, which has helped to transform South America's countries from banana republics to major contributors to human civilisation.
Apparently, the prize was awarded to a writer who waived his identity, and thus is not a representative of Latin American literature on a par with Gabriel Garcia Marquez, for example. This is especially seen in his latest work, which reflects the notion of the end of history that has obsessed the cultural elite in the West and especially in the US.
Special Tribunal poses a danger in Lebanon
"Every crisis in Lebanon ends by adopting a compromise solution, which satisfies various partisans and meets their interests," wrote Hassan Yousef in a commentary article for the Qatari newspaper Al Watan.
This has been the norm except in the case of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which has thrown every party into confusion. Hizbollah has said it will not hand over any of its members to the International Tribunal. Nor will the party agree on financing the court that potentially might indict some of its elements. Prime Minister Saad Hariri together with his allies in the March 14 coalition, however, renewed his support for the role of the court and called for it to continue in its mission.
Some analysts argue that the crisis will remain a political debate with less serious developments, in contrast to when politcal powers in 2006 unanimously rejected the International Tribunal system. Other observers maintain that the debate might escalate to affect the proper functioning of the government, and in the worst case scenario, develop into direct confrontations on the streets.
* Digest compiled by Mostapha Elmouloudi