The attack on Gaza is an optimal setting for the abrogation of peace accords with Israel
"I suggest that Egypt revoke the peace accords with Israel and that Jordan follow suit," said the columnist Jihad Al Khazen in the pan-Arab newspaper Al Hayat.
"Should they do so, they would both gain the support of their respective internal oppositions. This would give president [Mohammed] Morsi and King Abdullah additional time to solve the economic issues in their countries which are at the core of the opposition campaigns."
During the presidential elections in Egypt, the one common denominator between all candidates was animosity towards Israel and a rejection of the peace accords. This is the announced policy of the Muslim Brotherhood and all Islamic groups throughout the Arab world.
The Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan is among the most active factions of the opposition. They are in the streets and they are loud. An announcement of the revocation of the peace agreement with Israel would encourage them to change their stance.
"I incite for the annulment of both peace agreements with Israel for it is a perfectly justified stance. Israel is led by a government that slaughters children. No peace is possible with it. The Egyptian president and the Jordanian king could justify their decisions as a reaction to Israeli policies and the new assault on Gaza," the writer said.
Evidently, the peace agreements with Israel also mean US economic and military aid to Egypt and Jordan. But the US aid to Israel is much greater.
"More importantly, any aid that Egypt and Jordan are receiving could be compensated in one day by the affluent Arab countries, which are in turn facing local popular pressure," Al Khazen said. "This would allow them to direct a blow to the Iranian regime since it uses the Palestinian cause as a gateway to interfere in its neighbours' internal affairs."
The campaign to repeal the agreements must be peaceful. Egypt and Jordan would only have to say that they couldn't see an opportunity for peace with Israel's radical government. The Arabs could focus on the siege of Gaza and the displacement of the people of Jerusalem as a reason for their support for the motion against the accords.
"I am certain that the US administration would protest and object. Washington would send delegates demanding a change in the Arab stance. It may even issue threats, but I insist that this public reaction wouldn't be the truthful one.
"In fact, President Barack Obama, for personal and national reasons, would be happy to see [Israel's Benjamin] Netanyahu and his right-wing government fall to make way for a moderate government that is more prone to peace," the writer observed.
The Israeli aggression on Gaza gives the Arab countries an opportunity to abrogate the peace accords and to reconcile with their peoples, he concluded.
Egypt's revolutionaries are split over Palestine
Israel's barbaric attack on Gaza has shown, once again, a division among Egyptian revolutionaries over the Palestinian issue, wrote Tamer Wajih in the Cairo-based Al Masry Al Youm newspaper.
Some revolutionaries see that widespread support for the Palestinian resistance involves a political and tactical mistake that could eventually undermine the Egyptian revolution.
This group, rightly, opined that the Arab regimes have long capitalised on the Palestinian cause to oppress their peoples at home, by delaying domestic issues to concentrate on the Palestinians.
The other section of Egypt's revolutionary movement believes that solidarity with Gazans is a moral and political obligation for all Egyptians. This group emphasises the organic connection between the Egyptian and Palestinian revolutions. Yet, it does not offer a convincing discourse on the nature of that connection or on the crisis among those who pursue the path of resistance.
The Syrian crisis has demonstrated the extent to which the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine have been involved in backing hated regimes just because they were supportive of Arab liberation movements.
The writer asked: does backing resistance require supporting the anachronistic aspects in Hamas or the sectarian dimensions of Hizbollah? And does backing anti-colonialism endeavours obligate us to disregard atrocities of Syria's Assad or Iran's regime?
Surprises prompted bid for a ceasefire
It was a telltale sign that Israel sent messages to its friends and mediators to work towards a ceasefire on just the second day of its assault on Gaza, Fahmi Huwaidi wrote in the Qatari newspaper Al Sharq.
No body expected Israel to launch an air strike on Gaza and then rush the following day to seek a ceasefire through the Egyptian, French and - via a third party - Turkish governments. Even US president Barack Obama urged Egyptian president Mohammed Morsi to persuade Hamas of the need for a ceasefire, the writer said.
The Israeli call came as a surprise to Hamas as well. Its leaders have not forgotten that when Israel invaded Gaza in 2008, everyone turned their backs on them and on other resistance movements, even as Israel's missiles kept raining down on Gaza.
So what is different this time around that prompted Israel to seek a ceasefire? The answer is that Israel has realised the changes that have occurred - some it was uncertain about and some that completely surprised it.
Among the surprises were the stances of some Arab states, especially Egypt and Turkey; the fact that missiles hit Tel Aviv for the first time; and the fact that its "Iron Dome" shield did not prevent missiles from reaching the heart of Israel.
* Digest compiled by The Translation Desk
