Do any of these summits really sole or accomplish anything? As long as the key players show up for the meeting then they can accomplish just as much as bringing an entourage and taking the risk that someone might get offended or worse yet assassinated. I think the point is simply that the ones not going see no point in it so why waste the time and effort. The stubbornness on all sides it what creates the greatest divide in the countries. Leaders are suppose to lead by example. Apparently these folks don't want to set a good example just more of the same. In order to accomplish change you have to have compromise and agreement. If you even refuse to meet that is not likely to happen. Anytime you rely on one individual to speak for your entire country and bring back what that person gleaned for the meeting you are faced with all kinds of inherent problems. Who says that who was sent to negotiate really has that countries best interest at heart and is not on some self serving mission to prohibit cooperation between the nations? It has happened before. Meetings like this one should be aired on every media outlet and be perfectly transparent so that each country's citizens can observe what is being said and what is being done. Treating a country's people as if they were mushrooms by keeping them in the dark and feeding them manure is a thing of the past. With the internet and media coverage the people will not nor should they tolerate anything less.

29th March , Arab Unity and respect for the Arab nation were the overriding themes of the Arab League summit in Riyadh. Saudi diplomacy represents an important break with US policy in the region, designed as it is to pit "soft moderate" Arabs against "terrorist" Arabs. The Bush administration views Arabism as fascism, conjoint with Islamism in its evilness. Saudi Arabia has rejected the Bush notion that Islamo-fascism is the root of Middle Easter problems.other than this there are two immediately pressing issues that require joint action and strong leadership. The first is the bleeding wound that is Iraq - with all its regional ramifications, including the exploitation of that conflict by Iran to extend its growing influence in parts of the Arab world, a development perceived as a threat to the national security of some Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf.

The second is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, especially in its regional dimension. There is a growing belief that without a solution to this conflict, and by leaving the Palestinians to the mercy of the Israelis and thus continued suffering and injustice, the regional picture is complicated and regimes with an interest in regional stability and deradicalisation are endangered.

sudheer

It's true that for Lebanese seeing Syria out was a kind of Good Riddance. Still the current Lebanese conflict is far from being fueled by Syria. The problem is that the US and Saudi Arabia are not getting it that Syria doesn't have the influence in Lebanon as before. That the opposition in Lebanon are powerful and work independently from foreign intervention unlike this unconstitutional government in Lebanon that is but a Saudi Arabian and US puppet.