Yet this would be a lame excuse for them forgetting about – or seeking to minimise – the existence and crucial importance of the letters exchanged between President Bush and Israel’s then Prime Minister – Ariel Sharon – on 14 April 2004 and a subsequent letter sent by Sharon’s Chief of Staff – Dov Weinglass – to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on 18 April 2004.

This correspondence resulted in courageous and highly dangerous decisions being taken by Israel to kick start President Bush’s stalled 2003 Road Map – envisioned by him as the key to resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict by 2005.

The President’s letter provided the catalyst – and the political justification – for Israel unilaterally evacuating the entire Jewish population of 8000 from Gaza and withdrawing Israel’s army totally from there without any preconditions or undertakings from Gaza’s highly hostile Arab population..

The Presidential letter also set out the framework that President Bush would support as Israel attempted to progress the Road Map that would create a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan.

President Bush’s letter clearly – and unambiguously – stated that;

1. The borders of the new Arab State would not encompass the entire West Bank despite successive Arab leaders having demanded this outcome for the previous 37 years,

2. Jewish towns and villages in the West Bank would be incorporated into the borders of Israel

3. The Arabs would have to forego their demand to be given the right to emigrate to Israel and

4. Israel’s existence as a Jewish State would be assured

Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz joined a group of Israeli journalists who met with President Bush in the Oval Office last week prior to the President’s visit to Israel to take part in its 60th Anniversary celebrations. In his editorial – published on 14 May – Mr Horovitz revealed the extent of the American loss of memory concerning the President’s 2004 letter in the following terms:

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, however, has been known to minimize the significance of this four-year-old letter. Just last week, for instance, she told reporters that the 2004 letter “talked about realities at that time. And there are realities for both sides….

Bush’s National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley has also given briefings to the effect that Israel has tried to overstate the importance of a rather vague letter, which was issued at a time when Sharon was seeking to bolster support for the pullout from Gaza.

And in answering my question, Bush did not at first even realize that I was referring to the 2004 letter. Hadley, who was also in the Oval Office, had to prompt him. “Okay, the letters,” the president then said, remembering.”

This is not simply memory loss but something far worse and more sinister.

In their apparent desperation to do any deal before losing the reins of power in eight months time, the President and his Secretary of State are treading on extremely dangerous ground in giving out signals that they are possibly prepared to renege on their solemn undertakings to Israel.

Israel has already paid a high price in relying on the President’s letter.

Gaza has been turned into a de facto terrorist Palestinian State. Israel has had to sustain a never ending barrage of rockets and mortars fired indiscriminately into Israeli population centres from Gaza by a bewildering variety of terrorist groups and sub-groups who would have had no chance of becoming so firmly entrenched in Gaza if the Israeli Army had remained there.

The latest shelling of a shopping mall in Ashkelon using an Iranian Katyusha rocket fired from Gaza signifies a highly dangerous escalation of the conflict. It also indicates the ease with which such sophisticated weaponry can be smuggled into Gaza through the Philadelphi corridor under the noses of the Egyptians despite Condoleezza Rice’s assurances to the Israelis that this would not occur.

Israel needs to make it perfectly clear to President Bush and his Secretary of State that any attempt to resile from the President’s letter will lead to the immediate termination of all further negotiations – that the President then will have no one but himself to blame for bringing his own vision to an ignominious end.

Israel’s Prime Minister – Ehud Olmert – has not forgotten – or overlooked – the critical significance of the President’s letter in any ongoing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

President Bush and Ms Rice were quick to claim credit at the international conference held in Annapolis last November for a breakthrough in the resumption of those negotiations that would see the three clearly defined stages of the Road Map now being dealt with simultaneously rather than stage by stage.

Maybe the President and Madam Secretary were so overcome by their apparent success that they failed to hear – or perhaps hoped everyone might overlook – what Prime Minister Olmert told the gathered world leaders about the course of those future negotiations:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

Jews have accumulated many memories – both pleasant and unpleasant – since losing their State, being expelled from there 2000 years ago and being dispersed to all corners of the globe. The Jews steeled themselves to ensure they never forgot who they were, where they came from and to where they would one day return.

Strength comes from remembering – not forgetting.

President Bush and his Secretary of State would do well to remember – and heed – this lesson as the State of Israel remembers the 60th Anniversary of its reconstitution on and in its ancient biblical homeland.

Gov. Palin parachuted headfirst into very rocky terrain when endorsing President Bush’s proposal that would see a new Arab state created between Israel and Jordan – declaring unequivocally:

“A two-state solution is the solution.”

 Further endorsing President Bush’s stance of actively engaging with the disputants Gov. Palin asserted:

“And Secretary Rice, having recently met with leaders on one side or the other there also, still in these waning days of the Bush administration, trying to forge that peace. And that needs to be done, and that will be top-of-an-agenda item also under a McCain-Palin administration.”

What Gov. Palin seems to have ignored is the fact that Secretary Rice has been trying to forge that peace for the last six years – yet has not even managed to see it get to first base. American power and influence has once again been exposed as a toothless tiger when it comes to resolving the issue of Palestine.

The timetables meticulously laid out in President Bush’s original 2003 proposal have not been met. Frantic efforts by Secretary Rice to advance the negotiations since the conference held in Annapolis almost a year ago – supposedly aimed at reaching an agreement before President Bush vacates the Presidency next January – have gone nowhere.

The negotiations have stalled on the two following fundamental demands made by the Palestinian Authority that Israel cannot possibly accept and on which the Palestinian Authority refuses to budge:

Gov. Palin – no doubt – was anxious to avoid acknowledging what has been one of President Bush‘s worst policy failures – pursuing his personal vision to establish a second Arab State in Palestine in addition to Jordan which occupies 77% of the territory comprised in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.

However Gov. Palin’s claim that it would be a “top-of-an-agenda-item under a McCain- Palin administration” indicates that they will continue to actively pursue this failed policy when it has no chance at all of ever being implemented unless the Palestinian Authority relents on the above demands. Since both these demands have been consistently pressed for the last 40 years by the Arab world without change or modification it is difficult to see how President Bush’s two-state solution can ever be achieved.

15 years spent by Israel in unsuccessfully trying to achieve just this very objective with the Palestinian Authority since 1993 only reinforces this conclusion.

How much longer then will John McCain invest his – and America’s – time, prestige and effort in pursuing President Bush’s failed policy? Hopefully he will let the voters know in the next scheduled Presidential debate. The question needs to be asked and answered.

The argument that he must keep on trying is pointless. This only perpetuates the killing and traumatisation of both Arabs and Jews without any prospect of ever ending or even defusing the conflict.

Senator Biden was far more circumspect in refusing to endorse the Roadmap in the strident terms adopted by Gov. Palin – stating that an Obama administration would employ:

 “thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understand that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation and stand with them, not insist on policies like this administration has.”

 Significantly these comments indicate that :

There is no doubt these negotiations will inevitably end in impasse. The sooner they are terminated and a new direction adopted, the sooner some real and tangible progress will be possible.

It certainly would be embarrassing for both John McCain and Barack Obama if either Israel or the Palestinian Authority was to announce the termination of the current negotiations during the last stages of this Presidential contest. Both contestants would then have to state their positions on the future direction of relations between Israel, the Palestinian Authority and their Arab neighbours – Jordan and Egypt.

At the moment Messrs. Mc Cain and Obama can both plead that this is a purely hypothetical question that is both irrelevant and unnecessary for them to answer. Their Vice Presidential running mates have served them well in the statements each made during their debate.

Forcing the issue now would certainly set the remaining Presidential debates – and the elections – well and truly alight. However given the nuances of the Middle East and the apparent agreement to negotiate at least until President Bush leaves office – any such precipitate action by either side is unlikely to occur.

Inevitably therefore the current game will continue to be played out until President Bush is replaced – when his vision can then be finally abandoned by either side walking off the field because of the atrocious conditions. America by then will have voted in a new President with no idea of what he would then do.

The operation of America’s democratic process is indeed a wondrous sight to behold.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer, a Foundation Member of the International Analyst Network and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International — an organization calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine.

Previous articles written by him can be found at http://www.jordanispalestine.blogspot.com

This call to remove every Jew living in the West Bank – 500000 men, women and children – was accepted in total silence by the United Nations. No urgent meeting of the General Assembly or any of its Human Rights Committees was called to condemn this racial vilification of Jews by a former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and its chief negotiator with Israel.

One remembers how fervently world leaders correctly argued that you couldn’t blame all Moslems for the terrorist actions of those few who hijack Islam and commit horrible atrocities worldwide in the name of Allah.

No similar statements were heard from those same leaders this week condemning Mr Queri for calling for the removal of those 500000 Jews because of the misguided actions of a few.

Collective punishment – not to be tolerated for Gazan Arabs – was perfectly acceptable when it involved West Bank Jews.

Indeed the UN Security Council met just three days after Mr. Qurei’s outrageous statement –yet raised not one word of protest or censure at his highly offensive and hate-ridden remarks.

Instead it passed Resolution 1850 (2008) by 14 votes to 0 – with Libya abstaining – declaring “its support for the negotiations initiated at Annapolis on 27 November 2007 and its commitment to the irreversibility of the bilateral negotiations“ and called “on both parties to fulfil their obligations under the Performance-Based Roadmap, as stated in their Annapolis Joint Understanding and refrain from any steps that could undermine confidence or prejudice the outcome of negotiations.”

One could not imagine a more destructive statement designed to undermine confidence or to prejudice the outcome of the Annapolis negotiations than that delivered by Mr. Qurei.

His demand defiantly flies in the face of the written commitment given by President Bush to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 14 April 2004 – forming an integral part of the Roadmap negotiating process under the auspices of the Quartet – America, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

In that letter President Bush stated:

“As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. “

In declaring its support for the Annapolis negotiations the Security Council conveniently ignored the basis on which those negotiations were undertaken by Israel as expressed in these clear and unambiguous terms by its Prime Minister – Ehud Olmert – at the opening of the Annapolis conference:

“The negotiations will be based on previous agreements between us, U.N. Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the road map and the April 14, 2004 letter of President Bush to the Prime Minister of Israel.”

All the international players sitting in the Security Council – including outgoing US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – were surely aware that Mr Qurei’s statement sounded the death knell for the Annapolis negotiations and signalled the end of any hope for a successful outcome of those negotiations.

Yet instead of condemning Mr Qurei’s statement – or demanding its retraction – Ms. Rice had the effrontery to tell the Security Council that Israeli and Palestinian negotiators:

“had made the choice to defeat an ideology of hatred with one of hope”

The only conclusion that one can draw from the Security Council’s extraordinary conduct in totally ignoring Mr Qurei’s statement is its unwillingness to face up to the fact that Annapolis is finished, President Bush’s dream has turned into a nightmare and the Quartet’s strategy in backing President Bush’s Roadmap has exposed it as totally impotent in having any influence to determine the allocation of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jews and Arabs.

The Security Council by its silence has offered encouragement to those Jew haters like Mr Qurei who for the last 130 years have opposed Jews having any right to live in their biblical homeland – the West Bank – or indeed within any part of the 23% of Palestine designated by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the United Nations Charter as the site for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

In doing nothing to disavow the Arabs from pursuing their long standing enmity and racial hatred of the Jews, the Security Council has ignored a whole body of international law on the issue and given comfort to the long held Arab view that everything done since the creation of the Mandate in 1920 is deemed null and void.

“Jews out” is indeed a call that is still alive and kicking in the Middle East.

This racist fantasyland has been given a considerable boost by the Security Council’s flirtation with – and failure to unequivocally repudiate – Mr Qurei’s remarks when endorsing Resolution 1850. United Nations efforts to eliminate all forms of racism worldwide have been seriously compromised.

RIP President Bush’s Performance –Based Roadmap. RIP Annapolis. RIP the United Nations.

His closest confidante – the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice – suggested as much when she made this blunt observation after her visit to the Middle East this past week:

“I spent a lot of time on security issues, not on-the-ground today security issues, but how would you envision the security of two states living side by side, because they’re going to have to come up with a security concept between them. It’s one of the problems that we’re dealing with, frankly, in the Israeli population. And I heard it not just from the Israeli officials but from a broad range of Israelis. They had the withdrawal from Lebanon and it brought instability in Lebanon. They had the withdrawal from the Gaza, and look what happened in Gaza.

If, in fact, they’re going to be asked to withdraw from the West Bank at some point, what does that mean for the security of Israel? That’s a fair question. It really is. And so one of the things that I take back is that we are going to need to spend a lot of time thinking about how this state, if we are fortunate enough to be able to bring it into being, how it is going to relate to the security of its neighbor and vice versa.”

This marks the first time that the Secretary of State has so forcefully come to grips with the security guarantees that Israel needs to receive before the President’s two state vision can ever get off the ground.

It would be inconceivable that she would make these momentous comments without first having discussed them with the President.

Ms. Rice would be well aware that when President Bush first spoke of his two state vision on 24 June 2002, he laid down two preconditions necessary for its achievement:

1.The Palestinian people must elect new leaders not compromised by terror

2.These new leaders must build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty.

These conditions remain substantially unfulfilled more than 5 years later – and present indications are they are going to be a long time coming – if ever at all.

It was his recognition of this reality that inspired President Bush to call his planned international meeting in Annapolis next month – which he designed essentially to try and advance the fulfilment of these fundamental preconditions. His concern was well founded.

Both persons currently claiming to lead the Palestinian Arabs – Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Abbas – are compromised by terror.

Haniyeh heads Hamas – a movement that openly calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas – one of Yasser Arafat’s closest advisors – is now the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation which is no less vehement than Hamas in its desire to wipe Israel off the map. They only differ in the strategy they wish to employ to achieve their common aim.

A practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty are mere mirages on an invisible horizon.

The Arabs have totally rejected President Bush’s agenda insisting that their attendance at Annapolis be conditioned on substantive agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority being reached before the meeting even begins concerning the core issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders

Significantly Ms Rice has rebuffed the Arabs attempted hijack of the President’s agenda stating:

“So I know we get very focused on, you know, what will be said about borders, what will be said about Jerusalem, what will be said about the refugees. In fact, a lot has been said over a long period of time about those issues and more will have to be said. But I’m also quite convinced that one of the really crucial pieces that has to be filled in are these concepts of how the states will relate to each other in practical terms concerning security and in practical terms concerning economic issues”

Perhaps the penny is slowly dropping and the realisation is dawning that the Arabs are totally disinterested in Israel’s security concerns and in meeting the very conditions laid down by President Bush as essential if his two state vision is going to be achieved.

The abandonment of the President’s vision does not necessarily mean that the conflict in the West Bank need continue unabated until a democratic nirvana is achieved there under a leader not compromised by terror.

The Arabs have already publicly signalled they would be prepared to consider Israel swapping some of its vacant land in return for keeping those parts of the West Bank populated by 450000 Jews.

Satisfying Israel’s security needs in the context of a territorial resolution that does not involve all of the West Bank remaining under Arab control can be achieved very quickly if Israel and Jordan divide the West Bank between them.

Jordan’s peace treaty with Israel already contains the following guarantees concerning Israel’s security that have stood the test of time for the last 12 years and remained rock solid through several crises:

“1. They recognise and will respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

2. They recognise and will respect each other’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries;

3. They will develop good neighbourly relations of co-operation between them to ensure lasting security, will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other and will settle all disputes between them by peaceful means;”

Negotiations between Jordan and Israel within the framework of this existing peace treaty offer the hope of a better life and prosperity for the Arab residents of the West Bank, will free them from Israeli occupation and achieve a measure of peace stability and security in the region not enjoyed for 60 years.

Such negotiations will not resolve the issue of refugees. No plan can ever hope to do so whilst the Arabs insist on millions of refugees and their descendants becoming citizens of Israel.

Stay with the vision or accept the reality? President Bush at last appears to be succumbing to the reality.

The spread of this Jewish-rejectionist disease has now permeated the highest places of political and intellectual thought amongst the Palestinian Arabs.

Such statements sound the death knell for the continuation of the post -Annapolis negotiations unless they are withdrawn and repudiated as soon as possible. The deafening silence that has followed His Beatitude’s comments indicates this is unlikely to occur.

His Beatitude’s outburst could also herald an early release from obligations to pay $7.4 billion to the Palestinian Authority pledged by donor countries at their recent meeting in Paris -even before they have had the opportunity to get out their cheque books to make a down payment.

So far President Bush has remained surprisingly silent on His Beatitude’s comments. Israel too seems tongue tied at what to do about His Beatitude’s sudden rush of blood. His Beatitude has managed to totally undermine what was being sold as a successful outcome of the meetings in Annapolis and Paris – intensive negotiations on core issues between Israel and the PLO over the next twelve months ending in the creation of a new Arab State between Israel and Jordan as envisioned in President Bush‘s Road Map.

Israel needs to invoke and demand that President Bush now honour his written commitment to Israel on 23 May 2003 in the face of this unequivocal Palestinian rejection of Israel’s Jewishness.

When President Bush released his Road Map on 30 April 2003, Israel provided the President with 14 reservations it had before it could accept the plan as a basis for negotiation..

Reservation 6 made by Israel to President Bush stated:

“In connection to both the introductory statements and the final settlement,declared references must be made to Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and to the waiver of any right of return for Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel.”

On 23 May 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice made the following statement from the White House:

“The roadmap was presented to the Government of Israel with a request from the President that it respond with contributions to this document to advance true peace. The United States Government received a response from the Government of Israel, explaining its significant concerns about the roadmap.

The United States shares the view of the Government of Israel that these are real concerns, and will address them fully and seriously in the implementation of the roadmap to fulfil the President’s vision of June 24, 2002.”

On 25 May 2003, the Israeli Cabinet met and by a majority resolved:

“Based on the 23 May 2003 statement of the United States Government, in which the United States committed to fully and seriously address Israel’s comments to the Roadmap during the implementation phase, the Prime Minister announced on 23 May 2003 that Israel has agreed to accept the steps set out in the Roadmap.

The Government of Israel affirms the Prime Minister’s announcement, and resolves that all of Israel’s comments, as addressed in the Administration’s statement, will be implemented in full during the implementation phase of the Roadmap.”

Nothing could be clearer or more unambiguous. Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State is a fundamental condition in any negotiations being undertaken by Israel with the PLO under the Road Map – and President Bush has accepted Israel‘s position on this issue.

President Bush must demand that Mahmoud Abbas affirm in writing that Israel will be recognised as the Jewish State in the post-Annapolis negotiations. This is the only way President Bush can “fully and seriously address” this “real concern” now that it has been thrust into the spotlight by the remarks of Abbas, Erekat and His Beatitude. Sweeping these comments under the carpet is not an option.

President Bush and his partners – the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – need to end the humiliation they have all undergone for the last four years in their efforts to get the Road Map up and running – let alone implemented in even the smallest detail.

Their failure has been due in no small measure to the PLO’s original sin – its failure to amend the provisions of the PLO Charter and remove all offending and racist clauses that do not recognise the right of Israel to exist as the Jewish State. The mind set calling for the destruction of the Jewish State has never been really faced and exorcised – even by such an eminent person as His Beatitude.

President Bush must urgently flush out the bona fides and sincerity of the PLO to negotiate with Israel in realising the President’s vision. There is no point in allowing the negotiations to continue if these intemperate and highly offensive remarks are not unconditionally repudiated.

Better for President Bush to call it a day now rather than proceeding aimlessly along a path that you know with absolute certainty can only end up in failure because the PLO will never make the unconditional commitment to recognise Israel as the Jewish State. The President can only end up a certain loser.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice aptly summed up the situation at her December 21 press conference:

“there are a lot easier ways to build a legacy than to try to solve the Palestinian-Israeli issue.”

President Bush will soon be visiting the Holyland. Perhaps that is the time for him to declare that Israel is the Jewish State and anyone negotiating with Israel on his Road Map must accept that fundamental fact.

They say the Lord moves in strange ways. Has He sent a faux man of God to help a devout Christian finally understand and realise the futility and hopelessness of his well intended but totally misconceived vision to bring peace to the Jews and Arabs?