MEDIA REACTION: ARAB SUMMIT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ABU DHABI 000403

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA/ARP; NEA/PPD; NEA/RA; INR/R/MR; PA; INR/NESA; INR/B;
RRU-NEA
IIP/G/NEA-SA
WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE; NSC
SECDEF FOR OASD/PA
USCINCCENT FOR POLAD
LONDON FOR SREEBNY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OIIP KMDR TC
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: ARAB SUMMIT


1. SUMMARY:

Columnists in U.A.E. Arabic dailies generally considered the Arab
Summit as a success because the Arab leaders managed to meet despite
recommendations to boycott it. This was explicitly highlighted by
one columnist in Al-Khaleej who deemed the summit was a major step
forward. In a more sarcastic piece, a Lebanese writer in Al-Khaleej
wondered why the American agenda was absent during the summit and
found the summit to be a success in that it did not fulfill
Washington's hopes for its failure. Also, in Al-Khaleej, a
columnist shed light on the fact that Americans historically wanted
to prevent Arab, and stated the American slogan for Arab nations is
"partition is the solution."

One columnist in "Al-Bayan" bashed American officials for promoting
the boycott of the Arab summit to some Arab leaders while at the
same time having their American armies kill Iraqis, Afghanis and
Palestinians.

On the issue of the U.A.E. occupied islands, a U.A.E. columnist in
Al-Ittihad noted that Qadhafi's speech did not appeal to the Arab
audience. Qadhafi was perceived as clearly flirting with Iran when
he implied that 80% of the Gulf state's inhabitants whom have
Iranian roots.

Interestingly, a Qatari writer in Al-Bayan downplayed the use of
Arab summits, reasoning that they were not able to solve even the
smallest Arab problem. He ridiculed a Syrian Mufti who issued a
fatwa stating that every Arab leader is obliged to attend the
Damascus summit lest the leader be sinful. End Summary.



2. Under the headline "What comes after the summit?" columnist,
Jaafar Mohammed Ahmed, wrote 04/01 in "Al-Khaleej" (circulation
90,000):

"Some observers focused on the positive elements of the Arab summit
while others focused on the negative ones. However, the fact that
the summit was convened at the scheduled time and place is a success
in itself. Summit participants agreed that Arab multilateral
relations were not strong and are passing through a difficult
period. We hope the Damascus summit will be a major step forward in
activating its resolutions, working toward overcoming internal Arab
disputes and deterring foreign interventions that aim at
intensifying Arab problems."



3. Under the headline "Who was the biggest absentee in Damascus
summit?," Lebanese writer, Saad Mehio, wrote 03/26 in "Al-Khaleej":

"Did we notice something that did not happen in the Damascus summit?
The American agenda was absent, in contrast to previous Arab
summits. Palestine became the summit's main issue instead of Iran,
the Arab peace initiative with Israel is no longer proposed without
conditions, and the summit succeeded in preventing the Lebanese
crisis from blowing up the summit, as Washington hoped and aspired
for."



4. Under the headline "Why isolate Syria?", a columnist, Ahmed
Omarabi wrote 03/31 in Dubai-based Arabic daily "Al-Bayan"
(circulation 85,000):

"Why does America want to regionally isolate Syria and politically
besiege it? Answer: Syria is Iran's ally and Iran is the biggest
supporter of the Lebanese armed resistance [Hizballah], providing it
with money and weapons, and Hezbollah threatens Israel's security."

"How do we perceive the alliance of an Arab country [possibly Saudi
Arabia] with America and Israel against this Lebanese armed
resistance [Hizballah], taking a hostile position against Iran that
supports this resistance and then expanding on this and going
against Syria for its alliance with Iran in support of the Lebanese
resistance?"
"Arab countries should support resistance against Israeli
occupation, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, or at least take a neutral
position. But to form an alliance with America - the greatest

ABU DHABI 00000403 002 OF 003


strategic partner of Israel - against Arab resistance is something
unacceptable."



5. Under the headline "Americans and the Arab Summit's agenda", Dr.
Mohammed Al-Saeed Idris, wrote 03/26 in "Al-Khaleej":

"Americans have worked since WWII to prevent unity in the Arab
nation. They seek to abort the Arab League. Perhaps the American
refusal to sign a collective free trade agreement with the GCC is an
evidence of this."
"The American slogan for Arab nations is "partition is the
solution"; [it is] like the English one, "divide and conquer". The
United States is the basic force behind the Lebanese crisis, [but]
America wants us to think that Syria is the main hurdle in Lebanon.
Likewise, regarding Iraq, where [they claim] Iran should be
considered the main problem. What America really wants is for Arabs
to ignore the American occupation of Iraq and the American scheme in
Lebanon."



6. Under the headline "Arab nationalism in Washington's range",
Bassil Abu Hamda, wrote 03/31 in Dubai-based Arabic daily
"Al-Bayan":

"Are not some American officials, like Dick Cheney and others,
ashamed of inciting several Arab countries to boycott a summit whose
only weapon was words, dialogue and understanding, while American
armies are pouring rockets and missiles down on innocent citizens in
Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and other parts of the world?"



7. A last-page column in Al-Ittihad 3/31 entitled "Al-Qadhafi's
political flirting" by UAE columnist Nasir Al-Dhahiri read:

"Arab audiences trust Qadhafi's wide knowledge and awareness of
Arabs' situation, but this audience lately did not like what he
suggested in his speech: resolving the UAE islands issue through an
international court, because it is not in the Arabs' interest to be
Iran's enemies just for some islands [claimed by] some Gulf
countries, 80% of whose inhabitants have Iranian roots!"

"Neither side can take this initiative seriously. We do not know
what is misleading research centers or even pro-Iranian
organizations Qadhafi relied on for his assumption that 80% of Gulf
inhabitants have Iranian origins."

"What political flirting is Qadhafi doing with Iran at the expense
of a national issue [UAE's islands]?"



8. Under the headline "Issuing Fatwas to serve Damascus summit...
Why?", atari writer, Dr. Abdul Hamid Al-Ansari, wrote in his op-ed
in "Al-Bayan":

"General Syrian Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun issued a fatwa stating
that every Arab leader is obliged to attend the Damascus summit
unless has a medical excuse, or he will be sinful; no leader should
send someone to represent him."

"Why do we need such weird fatwas and threatening religious
statements? Why do we embarrass our leaders with such religious
fatwas? Do such fatwas further Arab interests or Arab solidarity?
Don't these fatwas offend the religion itself and the status of
religious fatwas in the eyes of the Islamic audience? Don't these
fatwas offend the status of the Sheikhs and the Islamic scholars
[who issue them] especially after hearing that these scholars issue
their fatwas according to political instructions they receive from
the government? Using religion to serve politics is a dangerous
thing."

"These sheikhs propelled our youth to go to Iraq and fight the
American occupier. These youth were later killed in Iraq and today
these Sheikhs exempt themselves from their fatwas. These Sheikhs
are the greatest sinners. This case resembles the religious
situation that spread in Europe during the medieval ages under the
hegemony of the church and its control in the lives of the
Europeans."

ABU DHABI 00000403 003 OF 003



"The Damascus Summit does not need statements or fatwas condemning
leaders; it is just an Arab summit like other previous summits that
were not able to solve the smallest Arab problem. The problem is
not in the summit; it is in the flawed Arab political body, with the
exception of the Gulf, the only healthy part of the body."





QUINN