"It is legitimate that Libya demands the European Union to pay €5 billion (Dh25.4 billion) per year in order for Tripoli to help to address illegal migration to Europe," noted the London-based newspaper Al Quds al Arabi.
The initiative, if answered positively, would benefit Europe, which so far has failed to effectively fight this phenomenon. Countering illegal migration has been a drain on the budget of Northern African countries, and also caused security problems. The Maghreb states, for example, experience the infiltration of immigrants from sub-Saharan countries, many of whom remain for a period of time to save enough money in order to cross the Mediterranean Sea.
For this reason, other Maghreb countries need to join Libya and demand reimbursement as well. All stakeholders - Europe and Northern African countries - should be aware that illegal immigration can have serious economic and security implications, especially with the rising risk posed by al Qa'eda. "In this context, we hope Libya and other Maghreb countries not only demand financial compensation. They should also make other political demands, such as a European foreign policy that supports the Palestinian cause, and condemns the Israeli crimes in the Occupied Territories."
Iran and Syria's quiet honeymoon continues
An opinion piece in the pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al Awsat, Adel al Tarifi said that the Syrian-Iranian summit came to solidify the strong role of Damascus as a mediator between Tehran and the international community. It also showed that Damascus is the only Arab country that has some influence on Iran.
The West has grown convinced that Syria's relations with Tehran are so close that their interests are intertwined. Interestingly, even though the two countries have different ideological perspectives, they have succeeded in maintaining their alliance for more than 30 years. Some even argue that the stability of both regimes depend on the other by way of advocating the option of "resistance".
The good relations between the two countries can be beneficial in helping the international community to establish channels of communication with various groups that Iran supports. And perhaps this has encouraged many Arab and western countries, including the US, to accept the idea of re-integrating Syria as a full member of the international community.
So far, the alliance between Syria and Iran has surprisingly survived the ideological differences since it is based on common interests and balance of power. It is expected to endure as long as the US regional in the region and alliances remain unchanged.
Provocation doesn't work for Iran or Israel
"Whether you care for Iran and its politics isn't the issue. The issue here is whether you care for Lebanon and its sovereignty," says columnist Rajeh al Khouri in an article for Lebanese daily Annahar.
It is on this basis that US positions toward the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's planned visit to Lebanon next week can be qualified as utterly insolent. They provoke the Lebanese people's sensibilities, not because the Lebanese-Iranian relationship is good, nor because Tehran repeatedly expressed its preparedness to help the country, not even because a large faction of the people support Iran.
What is infuriating is that Israeli insolence and US political idiocy mean that Lebanon is treated as an immature state devoid of any sovereignty or independence. Israel has continued its impertinent political aggression by sending message after message to Beirut via the US, France and the UN secretary-general warning that Mr Ahmadinejad's visit might have serious implications in the region. It even went so far as to demand the Lebanese president and the prime minister to cancel the visit.
It is unprecedented in the history of civilised countries for a state to demand another to cancel a president's official visit. If the state of Israel has no claim to civility and respect of the sovereignty of other nations, it is strange that other states would agree to deliver its rude messages.
Two views on tribunal but not on security
If a referendum was held on the International Tribunal for Lebanon, Lebanese political players would express two opposing views but at least they would agree on rejecting any incitement to violence, argues Saad Mehio in an opinion piece for the UAE newspaper Al Khaleej.
Both the March 8 and March 14 coalitions will be against the tribunal. They will possibly describe it as a "politicised" tool that Israel and the US use to spark internal crises. The March 14 alliance forces will accept the role of the tribunal to exercise justice, but they might oppose it if it ever stands in the way of peace. For March 14 politicians, it is important to maintain the tribunal. They think that any attempt to disengage from the tribunal means breaking the alliance with the West and other moderate Arab states. The March 8 alliance, however, looks into this issue as a major conspiracy knitted by the West.
Between the two camps stands the populace, who care less about regional or international considerations when judging the role of the tribunal. Mostly, the Lebanese are interested in immediate matters related to security and livelihood.
* Digest compiled by Mostapha Almouloudi