"It is obvious that the current international economic situation has required countries, including the UAE, to take special measures, such as undertaking management and financial revisions as well as identifying errors made by individuals and institutions, wrote Maysa Ghadeer in an opinion article for the UAE daily Al Bayan. "This is why it is crucial that senior staff and employees remain at their posts to refer to them when examining cases until all the thorny issues under review are settled."
Many senior managers seem to have ignored this fact as they presented their resignation from their posts without convincing reasons. Many went to join other institutions either inside or outside the UAE. "This indeed raises the question: why have they resigned to work for another organisation at this particular time? Is such a decision legitimate while most companies and institutions are under a process of reform to meet the conditions imposed by the world economic crisis?
"We are not against the right of individuals to resign whenever they wish as long as they adhere to their contract with their employers. A resignation is not only a signed paper; it is a document that demonstrates the personal attitude of its signers. That is why it needs to be carefully studied and the outgoing employees' records should be thoroughly checked that they are clear."
"The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Nethanyahu is trying to act as the true representative of his country's foreign policy by avoiding value judgements and exaggerated timelines for resuming negotiations, yet while doing this, he further satisfies the expansionist interests of right-wing political forces," stated the lead article of the Palestinian newspaper Al Quds. Mr Nethanyahu is in fact driving a misleading public relations campaign through which he would like to show to the world that he is actively working on reviving direct talks with the Palestinians - but on his own prohibitive terms.
On the extreme side of the Israeli foreign policy outlook stands Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, who has always demonstrated an anti-peace attitude. In his latest public statement, he said that peace with Palestinian would never happen, even after twenty years. He also accused the Palestinians of being too demanding. Staying loyal to the right-wing guidelines, Mr Nethanyahu is trying at present to diplomatically mitigate Mr Liberman's and his counterparts inside Israel. But a closer look at the two men's strategies, one can notice that they complement each other "as both in fact reject establishing a fully independent Palestinian state and thus reinforce occupation."
That the US president Barack Obama suddenly interrupted his speech Hawaii about the foiled attempt to down the American jet over Detroit to strongly criticise the Iranian regime was an unwise decision, noted Satea Nourredine in an opinion piece for the Lebanese daily Al Safeer. The tone and content of his criticisms were a reminder of those of his predecessor, George W Bush, and they also contradicted the foreign policy that Mr Obama chose for himself once he arrived in power. In those days, he said that the US needed to end the "gratuitous hostility" with Iran and opened a new chapter with Tehran, believed to be a focal point for stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr Obama's reaction could possibly stall an internal debate on ways to deal with Tehran, which reached its climax when John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, revealed he was thinking of visiting Iran early next year to inaugurate the first direct bilateral talks of its kind since the Iranian Islamic revolution. The change in the US approach unarguably represents the first step towards turning the page on the Iranian nuclear programme and focusing instead on the political system in Iran. If Mr Obama ever decides to withdraw his recognition of the ruling regime and undermine its legitimacy, he may possibly lose this battle and cause the efforts of the green reformists to bring change from inside Iran to backfire.
The news that Lebanese anti-aircraft guns confronted four Israeli Phantom warplanes when they were flying over southern Lebanese airspace was special, since Lebanese borders are frequently violated by the Israelis in defiance of international resolutions that give Lebanon every right to defend its territories, wrote Subbi Zuaitar in an opinion piece for the Saudi newspaper Al Watan.
"In the past, Lebanon used to ignore Israeli incursions into its territories because its army was equipped not with sophisticated weaponry. The decision not to arm the Lebanese army was not an internal decision but an international one brought forth by Israel and implemented by states manufacturing armaments, mainly the US and some European countries. The latest move by the Lebanese army to counter the Israeli violation was an indication of a change taking place beyond Lebanon in the major capitals of the world. The unprecedented visits of the Lebanese president Michel Suleiman to the US and of the prime minister Rafiq al Hariri to Egypt in addition to the role of various Europeans in helping to position Israel as the party that is obstructing the peace process in the region.
Indeed, the decision to address aggression in the air sent a clear message to Israel. Digest compiled by Mostapha Elmouloudi firstname.lastname@example.org