Arab Perspective: Al Qaida tries to cash in on Hamas' weakness

Ayman Al Zawahiri's message concentrated on two points: ideology and politics. "Firstly, there will always be a disagreement between Hamas and Al Qaida on ideology but with the second point, a closer look reveals that the difference between the two is not that great." These are the introductory words of Yassir Al Zaatira of Addustour (Jordan) who cautions, "Hamas doesn't belong to the same school of thought as Al Zawahiri." In terms of jihad and resistance, this writer says Hamas entered the elections to protect its resistance programme from the path of the "road map".

"There is no dispute between Hamas and Al Zawahiri when it comes to what the Zionist project represents: a Western project to oppose the Muslim 'Ummah'."

Al Zaatira says Hamas has insisted they will not recognise Israel before certain conditions are met. What is more, their talk of a 10-year truce is nothing but a political tactic. "Hamas recognises that this truce is not realistically possible" but it is nevertheless a way of "keeping the ball on the other side of the court".

An editorial in the London-based Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper says Al Zawahiri touched a sensitive nerve when he asked Hamas to continue combat operations against Israel and not to sit down with members of Fatah who, according to Al Qaida's second man, "sold Palestine" to the Jews.

In terms of Hamas' response, it has been mixed, says the editorial. While Dr Al Zahar (chief Hamas legislator) said his party was a "middle" party, Mohammad Nazal, the party's media spokesman, said, "Al Zawahiri has a right to express his opinions and Hamas respects all opinions".

What is clear according to Al Quds Al Arabi is that Al Qaida is trying to extend its reach into Palestine and recruit people who are opposed to political solutions. The editorial concludes, "This tape represents a new headache for Hamas; something they can do without. But he who enters the political game must always expect surprises; some good such as the Moscow visit and some embarrassing such as this tape."

Lebanon

"National dialogue" talks in Lebanon, which were set to be finalised this week they are now adjourned until next week have been a talking point in the Arabic press.

Bassam Dhao of Al Watan newspaper (Qatar) says, "It seems clear that the necessary period required to move from worry to reassurance is going on very slowly."

Dhao says this is not a "Lebanese dialogue" but a "dialogue in Lebanon" because of a very strong foreign diplomatic presence (whether American or French; in the summit or via communicating with participants).

This means that the dialogue is taking place with "complicated international and regional calculations" in sight.

As a result, important questions are being raised: what does the future of Lebanon hold and what should the Middle East region expect, now that US plans have not gone as planned (especially with the occupation of Iraq)?

Dhao concludes this summit might produce unimportant results or what he calls "non-losing" results which do not guarantee a successful future for the Lebanese situation.

Al Khaleej newspaper (UAE) asks, "Can the US side with Lebanon and Israel at the same time?" Or can they "side with Lebanon at the expense of Israel?" Also, "Can the neoconservatives [or Likudists because of their support for Israel] redirect their aggression from the Middle East to Israel/Palestine whereby they apply pressure on Israel to end its terrorism and occupation?"

The paper says various Lebanese sects are worried that their country might fall in the Washington trap and end up suffering more than previously. After all, Washington left Israel to attack and occupy Lebanon for more than two decades and it still protects the occupation of one part of Lebanon.

Bearing that in mind, Washington cannot suddenly change into being a protector of Lebanese freedom, democracy and independence because they will always ensure safety for Israel first, which comes across as contradictory.

Sulaiman Taqi Al Deen of Al Safeer newspaper (Lebanon) also focuses on international interference in Lebanon.

He writes, "It is very important for the US to preserve their achievements so far in Lebanon and to strengthen their gains [which are of a moral nature] that came from lifting Syrian influence out of Lebanon and insisting on democracy," while ensuring Lebanon would not play an important role when it comes to Iran.

This is because at the moment, Iran is gaining strength from within the area and this has captured the attention of the US.