He said the documents for signature couldn’t be finalized in time, suggesting the differences are very deep. It could also signify that insufficient time was given for the conference which again lends credibility to the accusation that it was nothing more than a glorified photo-opportunity.
Kayhan made a pointed statement in their editorial, "The truth is, the first formal direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians in seven years took place between leaders who both represent less than 30 percent of their respective populations."
They didn’t point out, through politeness perhaps, that the negotiations were being hosted by a leader with an even sorrier approval rating.
This theme was echoed in a front page leader in Iran Daily which said, "Bush hopes for a foreign policy success to polish his legacy, but the unpopular war in Iraq , the main factor in his low public approval ratings, could limit his room to manoeuvre."
The paper added, "Olmert's public standing is also low, partly due to last year's Lebanon war and rightist coalition partners have warned against concessions. Abbas lost control of Gaza to Hamas in June and only holds sway in the West Bank ."
The popular daily, noting the obvious absence of Hamas from the proceedings, said inviting Abbas was a blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Palestinians, and an obvious attempt to prop up the faltering Abbas regime.
The paper said the conference achieved nothing more than to "widen the broad schism between the rival Fatah and Hamas."
Tehran Times, in a below-the-fold wire service piece, reported that Arab commentators had dismissed the process as a U.S. media event, an attempt by Bush to rescue his image after failures in Iraq and Afghanistan . The article said Abbas will return to Palestine without anything. Well, except for a few vague promises and a few extra snaps for his photo album.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
