Kuwait Times (KUWAIT): Talking to the Taliban -- Is there a dispute between the Americans and their European partners inside NATO? As for the Europeans, many have made statements within the last few days calling for peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban. Even some Americans who work with NATO are pushing for peace.

U.S. Gen John Craddock, NATO's supreme operational commander, said in London that he supported a political settlement between the two parties. "I have said over and over again this is not going to be won by military means," Craddock said.

European leaders agree. France's Foreign Minister said Paris is ready to host such peace talks if they were to take place. God bless the French for always wanting to host a peace conference.

Also, the senior British military commander in Afghanistan told the BBC that the West needs to lower expectations because there would not be a "conventional military victory" in Afghanistan. He said a deal with the Taliban is necessary.

What took NATO so long to come to this decision? It has been a long and troubled seven years since the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda began in Oct 2001.

And where is bin Laden? The target No. 1 who NATO and the U.S. went into Afghanistan to catch in the first place.

Now the situation has reached a tipping point where Karzai is told or allowed to ask the Saudi government to step in and mediate between Kabul and the Taliban.

Of course in Washington, the U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is still adamant that he's winning in Afghanistan and is even asking Eastern European nations to contribute more troops.

Frankly speaking, the best way forward is peace talks between the Taliban and Karzai. Because NATO entered a country without infrastructure and seven years on, it still has nothing. Places like Tora Bora look like landscapes from the Moon. No roads or buildings or power plants or infrastructure of any kind. Just deserted, destroyed and desolate.

Gulf Times (DOHA, QATAR): Cairo accord must become a priority -- Israeli resolve to reach a peace settlement with the Palestinians could be tested by the end of this month after it was confirmed that Fatah and Hamas factions will meet in Cairo on Oct. 25.

Hamas has been isolated since 2007 when it seized control of Gaza but there has to be an acknowledgement from both sides that peaceful co-existence is vital to the formation of a Palestinian state.

President Mahmoud Abbas used his four-day trip to New Delhi to instill some optimism that a deal could be reached and that presidential and legislative elections would be held soon after.

However, the reaction by Israel to the prospect of Hamas sharing power in the Palestinian territories is likely to be one of alarm.

Moderate Hamas leaders will need to convince the Israelis that the conciliatory tone over the Egyptian proposals and the prospect of a shared government that would include independents is genuine.

Should no agreement be negotiated the Israelis will be handed an excuse to continue to drag its heels on a comprehensive peace plan.

The misplaced optimism displayed by President George W. Bush at the Annapolis summit late last year will finally be laid bare. It should have been obvious then as it is now that peace without the support of the majority of moderate Hamas members would be unsustainable.

Al-Hayat (LONDON): Syria's Need for Arabs -- There are two widespread theories that explain the recent explosions and assassinations in Syria. The first theory links these operations to the Syrian endeavors to develop a military nuclear program. As for the second Syrian-based theory, it links these operations to takfiri groups.

Amid the mystery that engulfs the investigations and findings, and in light of Syria's reluctance to produce enough evidence to buttress either theory, analysts jump to conclusions based on sporadic incidents often linked in an arbitrary manner.

According to the first theory, the new spate begins with the Israeli air raid on the Al-Kibar site, later described by the United States as a nuclear reactor site à la North Korea, one designed for a military program.

The assassination of the high-ranking security officer, General Mohammad Suleiman, by a sniper from the sea was attributed to the brigadier's supervision of such a program. Moreover, another high-ranking officer who might have replaced Suleiman was reported to have been killed in the Damascus bombing. Meanwhile, it is in Damascus that Hezbollah's military leader, Imad Mughniyeh, was assassinated.

In all these cases, fingers of accusation are pointed at Israel, which has a direct interest in hitting any embryonic Syrian military nuclear program and liquidating one of its main opponents. The indirect Syrian-Israeli negotiations do not absolve the Hebrew State of responsibility, in case the assassinations really target an alleged military nuclear program or aim at liquidating Israeli opponents inside Syria when possible.

If the terrorist acts in Syria are linked to extremist and takfiri activities, then the issue takes on a different new dimension. If they are linked to the situation in North Lebanon, which is accused of exporting such groups to Syria, then it may take an Arab dimension.

Regardless of the Lebanese debate over Syria's intentions and its potential military return to Lebanon under the guise of fighting takfiri groups – which has been repeatedly denied by Damascus – we cannot deny the tension plaguing the Arab-Syrian relations.

Hence, such relations must be redressed, at least in the context of fighting terrorism and tracking its networks. To this end, trust must be firstly restored in the Arab fold. Then these relations, bedeviled by the exchange of accusations, must be reviewed.

In this sense, and regardless of the nature of the security threat it faces, Damascus must rectify its Arab relations and reconsider some of its stances that distanced it from Arabs. Syria must also realize that its eased international isolation can in no way substitute for its need for Arabs, especially when the challenge seems to take a violent turn.

The Egyptian Gazette (EGYPT): A Vital Sector -- It took the Minister of Agriculture more than two years to realise that Egypt's agricultural sector was facing a catastrophe. Minister of Agriculture Amin Abaza recently said in a report that Egypt imported 42 percent of its food needs. Unlike the other Arab countries that mainly depend on importing their food from abroad, Egypt enjoys the great River Nile.

That and its fertile land have helped it create a great civilization over 7,000 years old. It is a shame that we have to import so much food from abroad. It's more shameful because these imported commodities are not luxury goods but basic foodstuffs consumed by all classes of people.

The report revealed that Egypt imports 5.9 million tons of wheat, 6 million tons of edible oil and 4 million tons of cereals per annum.

The prime minister also highlighted the necessity for cultivating more land and increasing production of strategic commodities. The ministerial report is a clear confession that his ministry's policies are wrong, allowing the farmers to cultivate whatever crops seem profitable for them, regardless of the country's desperate need for strategic commodities.

Hopefully, following the bread crisis that hit the country early this year, due to the rise in wheat prices worldwide, the prime minister now realizes the importance of telling the farmers what they should grow.

Egypt could produce a lot of high-quality edible oil, if it grew more olives and maize on the reclaimed lands. The Japanese market is now being flooded with high-quality Egyptian olive oil. It's expensive but it sells very well because it's good.