By Aroonim Bhuyan, IANS
Dubai : The media in the Gulf Thursday gave a mixed response to the George W. Bush-initiated Annapolis meet where Israeli and Palestinian leaders have vowed to reach a peace agreement by the end of 2008.
Opinions expressed by leading newspapers ranged from one extreme to another. Dubai’s Khaleej Times called it a “step forward”, a Gulf News editor branded it a failure of US policy while the Oman Observer advised caution.
In an editorial, ‘A good start’, the Khaleej Times said: “Annapolis, it appears, has turned out to be a step forward for peace. While the details before us of the Bush-inspired Middle East peace meet are sketchy, what’s clearly evident is a rare sense of optimism that guided both side as well as the hosts, at the 44-nation conclave. There, it seems, is light at tunnel’s end.
“For one, rival sides have agreed to carry forward the discussions with a timetable for the talks firmly in place,” it added.
Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are to meet Dec 12, an event to be closely followed by a sitting in Paris by the 40-odd participant nations to streamline funds for cash-strapped Palestinians.
This, the Khaleej Times said, “shows the urgency and seriousness all sides attach to the initiative”.
Abbas, under attack at home from the radical Hamas, set the tone for the talks with his impassioned call to the Israeli side: “Neither we nor you must beg for peace from the other. It is a joint interest for us and you. Peace and freedom is a right for us, just as peace and security are a right for you and us.”
In his column, Francis Matthew, editor at large of the Gulf News, described the outcome of the meet as a failure of US policy.
“It is never a waste of time to work for peace, but this week’s Annapolis meeting of more than 40 nations failed to deliver on any of even the most modest hopes it had generated before it started,” he said.
“All that came out of this huge gathering was an agreement to meet again in a few weeks, and to keep meeting so as to find a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict by the end of next year.”
While stating that the spirit of Annapolis was infectious, the Oman Observer, in an editorial, viewed the process with caution while voicing optimism.
The goals outlined at the meet “are beyond the wildest dreams of those wanting to witness the beginning of an era of peace in the Middle East”, it said, adding that Abbas, Olmert and Bush were returning home with great hopes.
“But getting these hopes translated into reality is a task that still is in the domain of the incredible. The craters and boulders on the road to peace are many. Bush may have seen them all and weighed the difficulties of surmounting these obstacles as he looks forward to a final settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as the most glorious achievement of his presidency that ends in January 2009.”
Noting that there was no dearth of sceptics viewing the deadline for settlement as unviable, it said: “Cynicism abounds for other reasons too. No one really believes that the Israelis will give up East Jerusalem so that the Palestinians can turn the city into their capital.
“A withdrawal from all settlements in the West Bank is another step that Olmert will be loath to take. Allowing the return of all Palestinian refugees to Israel is another subject the Israeli prime minister would hate to discuss. All the three steps are crucial for a full and final settlement. The opposition to them is bound to be violent and vociferous among the sizeable number of hardliners in Israel and scenes reminiscent of the withdrawal from Gaza might be repeated.”
Saudi Arabia’s Arab News said in an editorial: “It is easy to be guarded, if not indeed downright pessimistic, about the renewed Palestinian-Israeli peace talks that emerged from the Annapolis summit. However, before dealing with the realities that underpin all the reservations, it must be recognized that justice for the Palestinians is only ever going to come through negotiations.”