BOB GARFIELD: From WNYC in New York this is NPR's On the Media. Brooke Gladstone is on vacation. I'm Bob Garfield. With the Bush administration's declaration of victory in Iraq, the unveiling of the much-hyped "road map for peace" between Israel and the Palestinians and the announced withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia, it was a busy week in the re-drawing of the political map of the Middle East. Peter Valenti, a contributing editor for World Press Review, has been reading the Arab language papers and is here to fill us in on how the Arab press is reacting to the week's events. Peter, welcome to On the Media.

PETER VALENTI: Thanks for having me.

BOB GARFIELD: I want to talk to you for a moment at Qatar. That kingdom has been a very delicate dance with the United States in the last year or so and has gone to some lengths to not be seen not only as a member of the coalition by certainly not as a collaborator with United States interests in the Middle East, and now, after what Saudi Arabia has endured for hosting U.S. troops will itself be the host to U.S. armed forces to be based now in Qatar. Whatever has the local press had to say about that development?

PETER VALENTI: Well that's interesting. We know the U.S. troops are pulling out, and obviously the English press here in the United States is covering it, whereas in Qatar, we're hard-pressed to find anything. The press focus and the government's focus has been on a new constitution which has just been voted for ratification. Qatar will now become a constitutional monarchy in effect, and there's a lot of celebratory articles coming out about this, but really no talk on the troops, and this has been the situation all throughout the war. We know Centcom has been based in Qatar. Other Arab writers and people in and around the Arab world know that Qatar was being used for the war effort, but we really didn't hear much coming out of the Qatar government. In the press we find op-eds and continually writers expressing anti-war position, talking about the hegemony of the United States in the region -- so on the one hand we know they're there, but in terms of what Qatar's official response is, it really hasn't been forthcoming, and the press has, whether intentionally or not, followed in this. On the Saudi side we have to say pretty much the same thing. For example the April 30th Asharq Al-Sawat -- major Saudi paper -- bare bones coverage of the U.S. troops leaving. We had a very brief comment from Prince Sultan who is the defense minister who basically said there's no longer a necessity for U.S. troops. That was his quote, and that was basically the end of the coverage. We do get some sentiments coming from London-based Arabic papers who see that this withdrawal of U.S. troops is a mixed bag. For example, we have the head editorial for Al-Quds Al-Arabi on the 30th which asked is this troop withdrawal the first accomplishment or first success of Osama bin Laden? And what this means is, inside of Saudi Arabia, even for people who may have been in support of the idea of the troops eventually leaving, they see this as sending a very powerful message in that Osama bin Laden's list of goals was, one, of course to cause the collapse of the Saudi government; two, to get rid of U.S. forces. He has met one of his goals! U.S. forces have left. So now this may encourage Al Qaeda in that they met one of their goals.

BOB GARFIELD: In effect, caving in to terrorism.

PETER VALENTI:Yes. Obviously for those in the Saudi government or for those who are pro-U.S., they're very upset about the U.S. government leaving. We do have cynical opinion, once again mainly coming out of Arabic papers in London such as Al-Quds Al-Arabi where op-eds say well, the-- Saudi Arabia could still use the troops and the Persian Gulf could still use them because many countries including Saudi Arabia are a little nervous about Iran. But the United States has really found a new location - Qatar, of course, as we know; but secondly, Iraq. We don't know how long they're going to be there. Arab writers suggest, yeah! - could go as long as 5, 10 years!

BOB GARFIELD:The much-anticipated road map for peace between Israel and Palestine was unveiled this week. It spelled out the next two phases in the Bush administration's plan to establish a Palestinian state. What's the reaction so far to the road map?

PETER VALENTI: Arab opinion is pretty much across the board. You can detect a cautious optimism with a healthy streak of cynicism, but obviously there are some people who are very negative or see it as basically working for Israeli security interests. Jordan's Al Ra'i, an op-ed on April 30th, the title said it all: Sharon will bring about the failure of Abu Mazen's government. The premise that Abu Mazen -- the nickname of Mahmoud Abbas -- will be held accountable and that Sharon expects a hundred percent effort from Abu Mazen to stave off suicide attacks and so forth means that he'll never succeed, so the road map is doomed to failure. The writer goes on to say that Abu Mazen will be held accountable for suicide bombers to rock throwers -- there's no way he can meet the litmus test. Positive reactions we have seen. A good example of this coming out of Al-Quds again a few days ago, was that the road map is indeed a serious development - it's very important -it's the first time in history these major international powers have committed themselves to the formation of Palestinian state, and they will be intrinsically involved in the process. This is a historic day. We also see an interesting editorial that came out of Asharq Al-Sawat, a Saudi newspaper, on April 22nd echoing this sentiment. The fears of these people who are saying positive statements about the road map is that as much as the road map may be a serious or good document, will President Bush have the will power to see it through.

BOB GARFIELD: All right. Peter, thank you very much.

PETER VALENTI: Thank you.

BOB GARFIELD: Peter Valenti is a contributing editor for the World Press Review.