Talk has receded of a visit that had been expected of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to the Egyptian city of Sharm El-Sheikh to pass on good wishes to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on the success of the surgery he had undergone in Germany to have his gallbladder removed. Arab media outlets had expected the visit to take place immediately upon Mubarak's recovery, some even specifying the date. However, the days have passed and Mubarak has met with a number of Arab leaders, but not with the Syrian President. People are wondering what happened, especially as Egyptian-Syrian relations, which had been tepid for a while, have witnessed important developments since the Arab Summit which was held in the last week of the month of March, when information was leaked about a number of leaders, among them Bashar Al-Assad, having the intention to travel from the Libyan city of Sirt directly to Sharm El-Sheikh to meet with Mubarak. However, the Egyptian administration made it clear that the President needed a few days of rest after the surgery. This was followed by the famous statement made by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit during his visit to the Lebanese capital Beirut, in which he asserted Egypt's support of Syria if an Israeli offensive were to befall it. The Egyptian minister went on in his statement to describe Israel as “the enemy”, which led to him coming under fire from the Israeli media machine. On the same day, Aboul-Gheit asserted that the Syrian President was always welcome in Egypt and at any time, and everyone expected Assad's visit to Sharm El-Sheikh to promptly take place. Then came the verdicts in the case of the Hezbollah cell, and some considered that they might affect the issue of overcoming the Egyptian-Syrian crisis on the background of the special relationship between Hezbollah and Damascus. But those who had followed the case ever since it was exposed last year were certain that strengthened sentences would be issued against the suspects, who had admitted the facts of the case and had not denied them. In fact, Muntasir Al-Zayyat, the Lebanese suspect's lawyer, expressed during the investigations his amazement at his client's insistence on revealing all the details of the organization, in addition to Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah certifying that the cell was affiliated to the party regardless of the justifications he put forth as the operation's objective. The verdicts were therefore expected, and were unlikely to be a cause of influence on the visit that did not take place taking place. What is certain is that something happened to hinder or delay Assad's visit, and hopefully not to cause it to be cancelled. Regardless of the details of the dispute between the two countries, it had been an opportunity to overcome such a dispute in a manner that would not make it look as if one side had presented the other side with concessions. Most likely, and in light of the climate that has prevailed in the two countries over the past weeks, some talk has taken place at certain levels between the two countries to arrange the visit, but it seems that the manner in which it was agreed to hold it will be a reason for hindering it. On the whole, the situation of the Arabs remains as it is, going from bad to worse, until problems in inter-Arab relations are resolved, problem that make a visit of protocol of one Arab head of state to another country a problem in itself, while the visits of Arab heads of state to non-Arab countries and vice-versa take place without all of this uproar or racket, and what is important about such visits is always what is being discussed or reached. In the Arab world on the other hand, merely holding an Arab Summit has become event worth praise. Similarly, if a visit that did not take place by the head of state of one Arab country to another Arab country has become a controversial issue, then what would have happened if it had actually taken place?
