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 The Qatari daily Al-Watan wrote that the Doha summit was different from any previous summit in that it is supposed to face two crucial issues: the Arab initiative and the indictment of the Sudanese president by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The summit would reiterate the Arab states' adherence to the Arab initiative especially now that a right- wing Israeli government that does not believe in the principle of land for peace is coming to power. It is also supposed to show solidarity with Sudan and to call for annulling -- not just freezing -- the ICC ruling. For these reasons the newspaper's editorial considered the Doha summit different from previous gatherings. Mamdouh Taha wrote there were numerous pressing and dangerous issues before the summit. What was absent was an in-depth reading of the lessons Arabs learnt in their relationship with each other and non-Arab parties and an accurate calculation of the gains and losses so that they can easily discover that in unity they gain and in division they lose. Also they can easily conclude that what unites the Arabs, whether they are moderate or hardliner, is far more than what unites Arab and non-Arab, and what strengthens Muslims, whether Sunni or Shia, is far more than what divides them. In the light of these discoveries, the Arabs should deal with four tracks: Arab-Arab, Arab-US, Arab- Iranian and Arab-Zionist track. They should pave the first, rebuild the second, defuse the third and block the fourth, as Taha wrote in the United Arab Emirates daily Al-Bayan. In the first group Arab states should give priory to lifting the stifling blockade on Gaza, continue freeing Iraq and support Sudan's unity by rejecting the ICC ruling. Adel Malek called the Doha summit the mother of all summits because it was being held at a time when inter- Arab differences are passing through the most sensitive phase in their modern history. On the eve of the summit, Arab leaders seemed to differ over its outcome. The Saudi monarch said the Arabs managed to bury all their differences in a big hole before the summit. But the Syrian president said inter- Arab differences cannot be resolved in one or two summits, although the Doha summit was an encouraging start. We know we cannot eliminate all differences but we must learn how to mange these differences. "The success of the summit depends on the level of trust and will of Arab leaders," Malek wrote in the London-based independent political daily Al-Hayat. Khairi Mansour warned the media about pinning too much hope on the summit because this contributes to increasing frustration among the people. Summits cannot make miracles, especially in the wake of national catastrophes. Summits did not put an end to the Israeli occupation or the blockade against Gaza. He did not agree with those who called the Doha summit a reconciliation summit "as if the participants differed on a traffic light or on who speaks first in a party or a funeral," Mansour wrote in the Jordanian political independent daily Addustour. The question is who will reconcile with whom in that intermingling jungle: the Palestinians, who have objective reasons to dissolve steel, let alone ice, between them, or Arab states that are fighting over trivial matters? Meanwhile, the Arab response to the most dangerous of challenges is minimal as the writer continued. The rise of the radical Israeli right did not instigate the least response from Arab states, as if international and regional changes were taking place outside their area of interest. The Saudi daily Al-Riyadh wrote that old inter-Arab differences control the Doha summit. These differences were built on the illusion that every state has the right to be the spokesman of the Arab nation. Although the newspaper editorial states it is impossible to predict the results of the summit, some are still optimistic that the Arab status can be improved, first by repairing the Arab League rather than blaming it and giving it the support it needs to become a parliament that gathers the whole nation; second, by sitting together and discussing the reasons for their differences. However, the edit asked whether creating problems and obstacles had become part of our culture and psychology, or whether we create differences to escape from facing our problems and resolving them together. "Generally speaking, whoever understands Arabs will realise that reconciliation is more difficult than differing," the edit concluded. Iyad Abu Shakra wrote that Arabs will not be better off after the Doha summit. He compared the Arab nation to a train incapable of moving by its own momentum because of the difficult political and economic landscape and that its railway tracks are not safe because of the Israeli aggression, Iranian penetration and US caution after the catastrophe that the past US administration caused by its dogmatism. By the same token, Doha is a station that not many Arabs trust. As a result, the Arab citizen, as the writer continued, is like a passenger in a hijacked train who does not know the identity of his kidnappers and is not brave enough to guess the fate of the train. The "honesty and openness" that the Qatari prime minister called for are needed but they are not enough in the light of serious differences among Arab states. In addition, the absence of influential Arab leaders from the summit delivers a message that it is not possible to end differences by pleasantries that are not followed by tangible action. "The breakthroughs required from the Doha summit are difficult to achieve as long as there is no agreement on the nature of the dangers that threaten the Arabs and the ways to deal with them," Abu Shakra concluded in the London-based political daily Asharq Al-Awsat. Raqqan Al-Majali satirically wrote that the Doha summit was coincidentally held on Land Day and that all the focus was on the summit while Land Day was forgotten. Land Day used to instigate demonstrations and protest marches throughout Arab capitals to record their rejection of the Balfour Declaration and usurping Palestinian lands in 1948. The writer expressed his frustration that the issue of Palestine is raised in Arab summits today among many other issues and that negotiations focus on an attempt to regain just one-fifth of Palestinian land. "Land Day should remind us of Palestine or at least shock us into seeing what is going on around us. Palestinian land is not a mere geographic patch but a symbol for continuous civilisation that others want to confiscate and wipe out, together with wiping out the Palestinian issue," Al-Majali wrote in Addustour.
