Despite the myriad of problems in the region, the Arab summit in Qatar will involve smiles and handshakes and not much else. What's worse, few people are surprised or even complaining, writes Doaa El-Bey Karam Gabr wrote that the Doha summit was being held in an atmosphere of differences which is not better than that in which the Damascus summit was held last year. As a result, the Damascus summit took Arab work into a dark tunnel of failure and inaction for a whole year. Gabr ascribed the failure to the fact that these summits are held by rotation regardless of whether the guest state is ready to hold the summit or not. For instance, it is supposed to be held in Iraq next year, regardless of whether Baghdad can provide safety for the attending leaders. "Damascus froze the summit, Doha killed it and Baghdad will not be able to protect it. And pressing Arab issues will remain on the waiting list until the summit is held at a venue that is up to resolving them," Gabr wrote in the daily newspaper Rose El-Youssef. Gabr regarded the Doha summit as a chance to shed light on some questions including whether it wasn't better for the Palestinian factions to reconcile before heading to the summit. Does the Sudanese president have an agenda to deal with the International Criminal Court's indictment? Does he start dealing with the crisis in a more sensible way? What can the Doha summit offer to ease the worry of Gulf states regarding Iran's expanding influence when Qatar itself has strong relations with Iran at the expense of Arab interests? What is the fate of the Arab initiative -- is it still the best formula for peace, and if not what is the option? Although the summit will not provide answers to these questions, the writer has not lost complete hope in joint Arab work. But the hope lies in the hands of influential states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates even if through consultative summits. These states can work together to regain Arab unity. The official daily Al-Akhbar wrote that political analysts considered the Doha summit as the first step on the right way towards inter- Arab reconciliation after all inter-Arab differences are resolved. The newspaper's editorial hailed Arab efforts to resolve their differences and adhere to the Arab initiative because peace cannot be achieved without an Israeli withdrawal to pre 1967 borders, and the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. "The summit is held amid very difficult conditions. Thus transparency among Arab states is very important for the interest of the Arab nation and in order to support joint Arab work," the edit concluded. Jailan Gabr was less optimistic when she looked at the contradictory Qatari stand and its repercussions on the summit and the future of inter-Arab relation. She wrote that Qatari policies keep changing; at a time when Doha is inviting the Arab leaders to attend the summit, it is improving its ties with Iran and the Iranian president and keeping its contacts with Israel and with the incoming right-wing Israeli government. That contradictory stand showed that Doha has more than one agenda in pressing issues which led to the absence of strategic agreements between Qatar on the one hand and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and other Arab states on the other. "Thus Arab leaders meet around a table while there are regional differences under the table," Gabr wrote in the independent daily Al-Masry Al-Yom. She described Qatar's policies in gathering all the cards and using them against Arab states as political blackmail. While she rejected these policies, she expressed concern that Qatar's "nauseating" policies could leave Doha empty-handed. Mahmoud Shukri, an experienced Egyptian diplomat, hailed the initiative to hold a yearly summit meeting ever since 2001 because it is a chance to discuss Arab affairs, activate joint Arab work, give the Arab League political weight and improve its performance and more important periodic meetings are likely to improve Arab ties and prioritise Arab interests. Although the first three summits were a success, the summits since 2004 witnessed various failures that made most of the political analysts -- whether Arab or foreigner -- reach the conclusion that the Arab nation has fallen apart and that its presence in the arena is a mere "decoration". However, the writer pointed to two successes that the summits achieved; first, activating a mechanism for holding consultative Arab summits that usually discuss an important and pressing issue in closed sessions and do not issue a final communiqué. The writer believes that it is high time to hold a consultative summit to reach a unified Arab stand against whatever threatens Arab national security. In such a summit, Arab- Iranian relations should top the agenda. Second, holding economic and development summits that also focus on one issue and draw up mechanisms to deal with it. Shukri suggested two issues that can be discussed in these summits: a linked Arab electrical network and a roads network. "The Doha summit will manage to strike a balance between the dream and possible hope if it pushes forward the mechanisms for holding consultative summits and economic and development summits," he wrote in the official daily Al-Ahram. Salaheddin Ibrahim wrote that the Doha summit was held amid an atmosphere of conflicts and differences in spite of all the efforts and mini summits held before the summit in the hope of bridging differences. Inter-Arab differences came to the surface after the criminal Israeli aggression against Gaza last year. It was not strange, according to the writer, that the Arab states were divided after the war into two camps -- those who support Hamas for its brave resistance against the Israeli occupation and those who support the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah who believe that Hamas' acts prompted Israel to launch its aggression against Gaza and destroy its infrastructure. However, Ibrahim said inter-Arab differences are not new; they began ever since the establishment of regional communities in the 1940s. One of the most famous causes for difference came after Egypt decided to start peace negotiations with Israel in the 1970s. The Arab nation was divided into two groups; that which represented the majority was against any peace talks with Israel. These differences impeded the success of the Doha summit and are hampering efforts being exerted to resolve Palestinian differences and confront Israeli greediness especially after the formation of the new Israeli government. Thus, the writer reached the conclusion that "unless Arab states resolved their unjustified differences, they will find themselves disintegrating at a time when the whole world is heading towards unity, cooperation and agreement," Ibrahim wrote in the newspaper Al-Wafd, mouthpiece of the Wafd Party.
