Abbas lacks a mandate to represent Palestine

In a lead article, the London-based newspaper Al Quds al Arabi described the present diplomatic efforts  to revive the direct negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis as a new "carnival" led by Washington to show the public that the peace process is progressing towards a settlement that can lead to an independent Palestinian state. Negotiations were set to tackle the final status issues such as settlements, the right of return of refugees, the status of Jerusalem, in addition to borders and water. But it is not known yet what will be the response of the Israeli government and whether it will be ready to give any concessions.

Engaging in direct or indirect negotiations does not translate automatically into an agreement. Similarly, signing an agreement does not mean it will be implemented to the letter. The Palestinian Authority did sign several accords with Israel but the latter did not commit to them, as it relentlessly pursues an unchanging occupation policy. This newspaper considers any agreement with the Israelis as illegitimate, since Mahmoud Abbas, whose presidency ended two years ago, has no mandate from the Palestinian people, whether at home or abroad, to negotiate and make concessions on their behalf. Any accord is, therefore, illegal and non-binding for the Palestinians.

As the US withdrawal from Iraq approaches, Iraqis fear al Qa'eda will stage a comeback, which might in turn spark a new wave of internal conflicts among different political forces, Hazem Saghiya commented in the London-based newspaper Al Hayat. If this ever happens, it will be evidence that the US has utterly failed in its policy in Iraq. Meanwhile, the stalemate over the formation of a new Iraqi government has left a vacuum conducive to the growth of terrorism.

Now it is clearer that the Americans made a flagrant mistake in 2003, when it decided to dissolve the Iraqi army. At the time, they could not have realised the future outcome of such a hasty decision, because since then "Iraq has lost an apparatus to ensure order and maintain unity, as well as deter Iraqis from fighting each other." Yet this is not an excuse for all that has happened to Iraq. The political elite is also responsible because many actors unconditionally supported the US policy to disarm Iraq. This situation gave rise to the emergence of militias that were loyal to various political groups and defended their close-knit interests. This leads to a second point that is linked to the shallow perception of nationhood that many political players hold. For them the tribe still comes first. Various partisans are happy to side with extremist groups such as al Qa'eda, who can attack their rivals in politics.

"For more than 60 years, the UN has accumulated substantial experience that should, in principle, set it up as a protector of international peace and security, and as a judiciary authority to prosecute those who commit crimes against humanity," noted the UAE newspaper Akhbar al Arab in its editorial.

Yet throughout its life, the UN has acted only as a "witness", and never as a "judge" or an "advocate". In most international issues, it has been passive and acquiesced to the wishes of major powers, while it cared less about the ultimate goal for which it was initially founded. "It is time now for the UN to resurrect itself. It should shake the dust of passivity and actively undertake its responsibility over conflicts in order to adjust the balance of powers."

It was tragic when the US took over the UN's role. The US waged war and appointed itself as "policeman" of the world to punish, at its will, whoever dared oppose its policies. This approach has turned out to be the norm rather than the exception in international relations in contrast to the values and principles of the UN. There are currently countless international issues that should not remain the preserve of US jurisdiction, but of the UN, which should assume its responsibilities and guarantee good governance in international affairs.

In a comment piece for the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Jareeda, Saleh al Qallab maintained that the Muslim Brotherhood has emerged ungrateful to governments that have offered it protection at a time when they were prosecuted in other places. "It is only in Jordan that the Muslim Brotherhood can participate in political life as a party and have a say in government. Without the support of the regime, which the movement now opposes, the Muslim Brotherhood could barely continue to exist."

In Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood consists of two wings. The first holds the prototypical name of the Muslim Brotherhood Group, while the second is the Islamic Action Front Party.  "Their counterparts in Egypt, however, beg for participation in future elections as a political party, but it is unlikely their request shall ever receive approval." The movement in Jordan is boycotting the upcoming legislative election due next November as they did in 1997. Although it took part in the 2003 polls, the Muslim Brotherhood found itself extremely distanced from the masses it claimed to represent. "And again all indicators point to the fact that the public opinion in Jordan cares less about its boycott, believing it reflects only an internal crisis."

* Digest compiled by Mostapha El Mouloudi @Email:melmouldi@thenational.ae