Going far away in exile

The Palestinians and Israelis agreed to end the 38-day siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, complying with Sharon's conditions.

According to this agreement, the besieged Palestinians were divided into three groups. The first group of 23 Palestinians was considered "not very dangerous" by Israel and deported to the Gaza Strip after undertaking not to carry out any, as Israel labels, "terrorist" activities. The second group comprised 84 Palestinians who were released as the Israeli army did not consider them dangerous at all.

The third group of 13 Palestinians was considered "dangerous terrorists" by Israel. This group was exiled to Cyprus, with the agreement of the Palestinian National Authority, until the EU decides which country will host them.

While six countries comprising Spain, Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy and Portugal agreed to host part of this group, the EU postponed its final decision in order to study the legality of their situation in the host countries. The following is the Arab press's discussion of the issue and its implications.

* The Church of the Nativity crisis ended with an agreement to expel to Europe 13 Palestinians of the Resistance movement and send the rest to the Gaza Strip. In principle, the idea of expelling people from their homeland is unacceptable to any human being, particularly since Israel is doing its best to bring more Jews to Palestine and establish more colonies, says Al-Bayan (UAE) in its editorial comment.

It is known that great pressure is being exerted on the Palestinian National Authority and that it is being asked to fulfil difficult requirements that amounts to "walking on the edge of the sword". However, this does not legitimise the exile of citizens from their homeland. The risk is that such exiles could be just the start, a way of Israel testing the Palestinians and Arabs' reaction to the implementation of a "transfer" of larger groups of Palestinians, adds Al-Bayan.

For this reason, the Palestinian National Authority should shut this door firmly and reject any talks regarding the exile of any Palestinian, taking into consideration that such an incident threatens their national unity, says Al-Bayan.

Also, the Arab world should not be a mere spectator, but should intervene to lift the pressure exerted on the Palestinian National Authority because the concept of exile is an insult to the Arabs. If the Arabs continue taking such an indifferent stand, the Zionists will consider this as a green light to implement their plans to transfer all the Palestinian people and exile them to the Arab countries and not Europe, concludes Al-Bayan.

* Accepting the exile of the 13 Palestinians fighters has extremely dangerous implications, at a time when the issue of the right of refugees to return according to the UN Resolution 194 is being discussed, writes Al Khaleej (UAE) in its editorial comment. This deal constitutes a clear violation of human rights and the Geneva Convention.

It also constitutes an alarming precedent that the Israeli government can use in the future to get rid of all the Palestinian resistance. Thus, this transfer could become a common policy in dealing with the Palestinians in order to expand the colonisation in the Occupied Territories, and this is something a large section of Israelis agree on, adds Al Khaleej.

Moreover, the deal is still unclear and confusing in light of the declaration of the Israeli Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres, implying that Israel will extradite the 13 Palestinians and put them on trial, and the supposed guarantees given to Israel in this regard by the U.S. State Department. If these facts are shown to be true, then we should ask ourselves again how can the Palestinian Authority accept such a deal, questions Al Khaleej.

Some could interpret the deal as the result of the imbalance of power as the Palestinian Authority was in the weaker position and could not impose its conditions on the Israelis.

But, on the other hand, the Palestinian negotiators should have refused such unfair conditions that constitute a flagrant violation of basic human rights, adds Al Khaleej.

We cannot blame the Palestinian Authority alone. All the Arab countries bear a part of the responsibility because they failed to offer the needed strategic support to the Palestinian Intifada, concludes Al Khaleej.

* If the suspects were criminals they should have been brought to justice according to the judicial procedure, writes Asharq Al-Awsat (U.K.-based) in its editorial comment. But what transpired despite the dissatisfaction of the countries concerned with the "transfer" represents a compliance with the Israeli policy. Indeed, Israel and the countries supporting its policies dealt with the Palestinians as strangers and not as real citizens, adds Asharq Al-Awsat.

On the other hand, regardless of their refusal to accept the idea of transfer because of internal and legal reasons concerning the status of the transferred Palestinians, the EU countries were placed in a bad position mainly because another party imposed this on them.

However, under the real political and security circumstances, it is evident that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has won his battle against many parties, with the Palestinian Authority on top of the list, followed by the European countries and, finally, the Christian world that Sharon humiliated by attacking its sacred place, says Asharq Al-Awsat.

The transfer seems less harmful compared with Israel's assassination policy. Nevertheless, it gives Sharon a free hand to proceed with his aggression against the Gaza Strip.

In fact, Sharon thinks he can dupe the international community by the diversion of ending the siege of the church on the one hand and pursuing his aggressions against Gaza on the other, concludes Asharq Al-Awsat.

* The deal to end the siege of the Church of the Nativity has led to many questions from a legal and humanitarian point of view, writes Badria Abdulallah Al Awadi in Al Qabas (Kuwait). Why didn't the international community react to the Israeli aggression?

In fact, the siege has shown that Israel did not show any concern for international law and the Geneva Convention regarding the protection of holy places. On the contrary, the Israeli army has transformed these places into a battlefield, says Al Awadi.

Why didn't the Arab countries offer to host the exiled Palestinians? Do they fear being accused of supporting terrorism, as stated by an Egyptian official source who explained the refusal of the Egyptian government to give political asylum to the Palestinians?

Or is it because of American pressure? Why was the Arab League absent from the negotiations in which the Americans and the British participated? These are the many questions Al Awadi asks.

The Arab policy makers should answer all these questions instead of accepting the transfer of their fellow Arabs to European countries, concludes Al Awadi.