Cairo, Egypt

Measured optimism, delusion, pessimism. After Annapolis the reactions of the Egyptian press on the conference held in Maryland have been painted in every shade, in the wait to be able to assess the concrete ways in which United States diplomacy plans to undertake restarting the Arab-Israeli peace process in 2008. And in the endless editorial confusion, Iran-centered theorems peep out. The State television in Egypt carefully observed the proceedings of Annapolis, with studio participation and links from Maryland which highlighted its historical importance. Optimists, albeit moderate, broadcasters became the spokespeople in line with the President’s politics. Likewise, pro-governmental daily newspapers, in particular Al Gomhuria (La Repubblica), who has on more than one occasion used the expression “new hope for peace” when referring to the Middle East. Whereas, Al Ahram (The Pyramids) played down the outcome, entitling November 29th “Annapolis: Israel rules out the possibility of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians next year”. The editorial by Morsi Attallah rubs salt in the wounds, accusing the United States of “not knowing the Middle East and its history”, which, in his opinion, is the main reason for the failure of the conference and of any American plan in the area.

And Al Akhbar (The News), almost as if to reassure anti-Israel readers, has opted for “Annapolis: the Arabs confirm they will not bring their relations with Israel back to normal before a total withdrawal”. In short, the voice of the President Hosni Mubarak is present on the pages of all three of the newspapers, and the ambiguous Egyptian foreign policy: “its jacket being tugged at” by, on the one side, the United States and Israel, with whom it signed a peace treay in 1979, and on the other by countries of the League and of its own public opinion, still mainly convinced that the ceasefire was a betrayal of the Arab nation. In terms of the results brought home by Egypt, the words of the foreign affairs Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit stand out in the governmental newspapers. He gives Cairo the credit for having convinced Syria and the Lebanon to take part in Annapolis. Ironic and sharp Al Masri El Youm (The Egyptian Today), whose title above the photo of the President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas, caught while putting on his glasses, reads: “Where is the road map?”

Regarding the motivations which would have pushed the Bush administration to pick up the Israel-Palestinian dossier once again; the Egyptian press have unanimously diagnosed an extreme attempt to save face, before history archives the two Bush mandates as a catastrophe. The most common comparison is with Camp David II, a conference organised by Bill Clinton at the end of his reign in office and revealed to be a failure. The independent daily Al Badil (The Alternative) has examined the Annapolis case from the point of view of the Arab League, pondering on the reason why the member countries participated. The conference, in fact, has left “all their wounds open: Lebanon without a President, Sudan at risk of exploding, Northern Iraq threatened by a Turkish invasion and Palestine, especially Gaza, in a terrible state”. For Al Masri El Youm, along with the writer Magdi Mehanna, Damascus leaves having lost right from the beginning, because it presented itself to the meeting only to avoid new accusations, but without being able to negotiate effectively. The weekly Ahram Weekly is of the completely opposite opinion. Clearly pessimistic, the independent Al Karama (Dignity) and Al Wafd (The delegation) are convinced that the “road map” was thrown away at Annapolis and that Israel obtained recognition by the Arab League.

The weekly Ahram Weekly, reporting the comments of political columnists and experts, puts forward the theory that Annapolis served to prepare an American military attack against Iran, as ResetDoc was already told by Amr Al Shobaki, political analyst of the Centre for Political and Strategic Studies Al-Ahram in Cairo (ACPSS), interviewed on the eve of the meeting: “I am not very optimistic – the scholar had stated – there does not seem to be enough international pressure on Israel. In my opinion, we are dealing with a case of keeping up appearances to outwardly justify the possibility of America deciding to intervene in Iran”. According to the weekly English-language newspaper, an anti-Iran front was formed in Maryland, not a front for peace. The American daily, the New York Times, and the Israeli Haaretz, came to the same conclusion on November 28th. They both outline a split between the philo-American, modern, and moderate Sunni Islam, headed by Saudi Arabia, and Sunni and Shia extremism, led by Iran.

From the Middle East peace process we move onto national Egyptian politics. The press of the opposition puts forward the possibility of another trip to Jerusalem for the 79 year-old President Hosni Mubarak, to prepare the ground for his son, Gamal, given that he is the successor to the “throne”. In the past, according to El Arabi, Mubarak would have refused the American offer of a Nobel Peace Prize instead of the trip to Israel. In the 30 years after Anwar El Sadat’s visit, Mubarak has never been to the neighbouring country, apart from for the Yasser Arafat’s funeral. In the end, all Egyptian means of communication, including the most important blogs, have reported spontaneous anti-Israeli protests in Cairo and in other cities in the days of the American summit: lawyers, doctors and students – students on hunger strike in various universities – reports of demonstrations, in different places and in different ways, in favour of the Palestinian cause, as always, under the control of the security forces. “I do not think there will be any results – Amr Al Shobaki had told ResetDoc – the Palestinians are divided within; Jerusalem and the refugees are not questions on the agenda. But what I have said could be denied, things are always trying to be changed. Annapolis could at least be a small step forward”.

Translation by Sonia Ter Hovanessian