Going somewhere?

The message to Hizbullah and its leader is clear: the party cannot do whatever it pleases, whenever and wherever it likes. Doaa El-Bey studies the impact of Nasrallah's misadventure in Egypt

---

The discovery of a Hizbullah member in Egypt shed light on the sovereignty of Arab states and Iranian influence in the region. The policies of the new radical Israeli government was no less important as writers focussed on the fate of the Arab peace initiative.

Abdullah Iskandar wrote that the criminal aspect of detaining Hizbullah member Sami Shehab in Egypt did not detract attention from the various concepts that Hizbullah is trying to root in Arab states.

Although the relationship is strained between Hizbullah and Egypt as a result of the strained ties between Cairo and Tehran, Shehab's detention shed light on a new reality. First, Nasrallah's confession that Shehab is a member of Hizbullah in charge of a mission inside Egyptian territory showed that the party gave itself the right to be active in states other than Lebanon. The fact that the mission aimed to help the Palestinians and their resistance in Gaza, according to the writer, should not hide the fact that it was carried out inside Egypt. "The fact that Hizbullah considers that other states can be an arena for its political and military activities, regardless of the reasons, means that the party does not respect the national sovereignty of Arab countries or acknowledge their right to practice that sovereignty and apply their laws on their lands," Iskandar wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat.

The confession goes contrary to the party's claim that it does not want to involve itself in conflicts with other states especially after its previous calls on the Egyptian people to rebel against their regime to protest against its policy towards the Israeli blockade against Gaza. The incident also indicates that the party could repeat the same thing in other Arab states should it believe that its conflict with Israel or the US requires it to do so.

Iskandar thus presented two major political issues: sovereignty of the states, and imposing one's point of view in a state regardless of the stand of that state. That is, taking an ideological stand and imposing on other parties to espouse it.

Maamoun Fendi wrote that Nasrallah's confession is an unprecedented direct intervention in Egyptian affairs that showed that Hizbullah's main aim is to destabilise Egypt. The cell captured in Egypt is just the tip of the iceberg of the well financed party. But the dichotomy that the writer pointed to is the absence of a suitable response to Nasrallah's act from any Arab government. He questioned why not a single Egyptian official came out with a clear response to Nasrallah's statement or why the Cairo bureau of Hizbullah's satellite channel was not closed. The answer is the penetration of the Iranian lobby in Egyptian society which drew red lines for the Egyptian government to stop it from criticising the party or its policies. "Nasrallah said capturing the Hizbullah cell in Egypt would benefit Israel, whereas in reality, destabilising Egypt would benefit Iran and Israel," Fendi wrote in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat. "Thus the problem is not in Nasrallah's plans, but in the absence of a suitable official Egyptian response."

Fendi warned that unless Egypt confronts Iran's dangerous advances into Egyptian society, Cairo will pay a dear price. He demanded a firm official stand from Hizbullah that should include dissolving Iranian networks inside Egypt including the Iranian lobby that have impacted the media and members of parliament.

The writer concluded by stating that what Hizbullah did was a mere test; if it passed without a suitable response, more such incidents will follow.

The coming of Binyamin Netanyahu prompted Rashid Hassan to ask what the Arabs in general and the Palestinian Authority in particular would do if Netanyahu rejected the Arab initiative. And what if the US refrained from putting pressure on Tel Aviv to withdraw from the occupied territories and establish a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as the capital.

Hassan expected that Netanyahu will reject both the Arab initiative and the establishment of a Palestinian state, circumventing them both in favour of "economic peace" rather than "land for peace". He said Netanyahu refrained from mentioning the two-state solution in his speech before the Knesset. His Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rejected the Annapolis and Oslo agreements which envision two states. Thirdly the new Israeli coalition is formed of radical right-wing parties that espouse the four no's: no to the establishment of a Palestinian state, no to halting settlement building, no to the return of Palestinian refugees, and no to the division of Jerusalem.

Hassan added that the new Israeli government, formed of terrorists, killers, war criminals and thieves, does not believe in peace. On the contrary, it has called for tightening the blockade against Gaza and refraining from providing Gazans with food. In addition, Lieberman called for striking the Strip with an atomic bomb during the recent Israeli aggression against Gaza.

Although the Israeli rejection of peace is clear and the Arabs put all their eggs in the US basket, they are still capable of standing up to the Israeli madness if they recruit all their abilities, as the writer summed up in the Jordanian independent political daily Addustour.

Hani Habib looked at the fate of the Arab peace initiative under the new US administration and Israeli government. In the Palestinian independent political daily Al-Ayyam, Habib hailed the Palestine Liberation Organisation for publishing the Arab initiative in Hebrew in the Israeli media five months ago. Only a few analysts recognised the importance of publishing the document at that time when Barack Obama became president. It contributed to spreading its message at the popular Israeli level and facilitated US attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Some Arab states have threatened to withdraw the initiative. However, during the Doha summit last month, Arab states decided to keep the Arab initiative on the table, but added it could be taken away if necessary.

The US envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell will visit the region next week, perhaps to remind the Israeli government that any previous Israeli leadership that opposed US policies fell before the end of its term, including Netanyahu's former government. Mitchell's position is supported by the popular belief that the present government will not last long because of its policies, especially those of Lieberman's, which does away with Annapolis and previous Israeli commitments.

Mitchell is also expected to espouse the Arab initiative as one of the main tools to draw up future US policy for peace in the region. Mitchell's aides have already started marketing it in the Israeli street vis-à- vis Netanyahu and Lieberman's radical policies.

Habib expected that the Israeli government would try to take a few steps to satisfy the US administration and avoid confrontation with it. These steps could include more openness with Syria and easing the daily life of Palestinians. Meanwhile, it would use inter- Palestinian and Arab divisions to control the US stand.

Thus in light of a US-Palestinian agreement that Israel should halt further building of settlements and stick to previous agreements, the writer called on the US administration to put more pressure on Israel because it is the party that did not meet its commitments. He also called on the Palestinians to take a firm stand in order for the negotiations to succeed.