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 delaying tactic has failed in the past and failed again this time. Jews have every right to settle in the West Bank in international law and Israel has made it clear it will not agree to totally waive that right as a pre-condition to the conduct of negotiations.

Regrettably the Arabs have never stopped making such unrealistic and politically unattainable territorial demands for the last 90 years. Had they accepted proposals made by the international community 60-70 years ago, they would have had a flourishing and thriving State today in an area of former Palestine far greater than size they are now demanding.

Many similar opportunities have presented themselves since then but have been allowed to pass – by rejection or default. Some occurred before – and some after – the founding of the PLO in 1964. One was created in 2003 with the formulation of the Roadmap proposed by America, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union – the Quartet – but remains unimplemented in the smallest detail.

The PLO has actually gone backwards in political influence since the Roadmap was unveiled. It has lost political control in Gaza. It lacks the authority to enforce security and root out terrorism in the West Bank and Gaza – essential conditions for the Roadmap to have any chance of success. It is now but one of many political groups vying for power amongst the Palestinian Arabs.

Yet – ironically – it continues to receive substantial international financial assistance and diplomatic support despite continuing to make the following longstanding and non negotiable territorial – and in some cases abhorrently racist – demands that it knows can never be achieved in any negotiations:

1. That Jews be denied the right to settle in any part of the West Bank – part of the ancient biblical and internationally sanctioned Jewish homeland approved by the League of Nations and the United Nations

2. That all 450000 Jews currently living in the West Bank be uprooted from their homes and businesses located there.

3. That the West Bank become a Jew free zone.

4. That the Palestinian Arabs be granted sovereignty and statehood in all of the West Bank

5. That millions of Palestinian Arabs or their descendants be given the unconditional right to go and live in Israel.

These conditions are completely unacceptable to Israel. President Bush has made it clear he supports Israel’s position. The PLO knows this – yet it still pursues – and persists with – these impossible demands.

Two principal reasons underscore why these demands continue to be made:

1. They ensure that no resolution of the conflict will be possible thereby keeping alive the 43 year old PLO dream of driving all the Jews out of Palestine as the only solution.

This paranoia has been the stumbling block that has prevented the Arabs accepting any proposals over the past 70 years for the territorial division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. The PLO agreed to amend its Charter in 1993 to reflect it had abandoned that position – yet has failed to do so to this day.

The PLO shares common ground in pursuing this goal with Islamic Jihad whose spokesman – Abu Hamza – stated in the Washington Post on 27 December:

“We will continue to bring terror and destruction and death among the Zionists until we uproot them from our land”

Hamas – the PLO’s main political rival – has declared that any negotiations “are valueless and weightless and would not serve the national cause of our people and would undermine its higher interests.” KUNA – 27 December.

For Hamas that national cause is also the destruction of Israel.

So the tactic continues for the PLO to conduct Mickey Mouse negotiations whilst chipping away at the edges to secure some territorial or other advantage either before or during those negotiations such as freezing any building or settlement activity by Israel, trying to stop completion of the security barrier and procuring prisoner releases.

2. Continuing negotiations postpone the Arab League accepting the primary responsibility for ending the refugee status of the Palestinian Arabs living outside the boundaries of former Palestine – a status directly created by the invasion of Palestine by the armies of six Arab League members in 1948 and disgracefully and inhumanely perpetuated by the Arab League ever since.

The power inherent in the PLO being a negotiating partner is no doubt exhilarating. Travelling the world capitals and being received by Heads of State makes for the good life for those lucky enough to be part of it. But any chance of gaining statehood is an impossibility whilst these unrealistic demands continue to be made.

The PLO shows no signs of making any concessions and so is destined to continue to walk the path of statelessness – whilst the territory available for any such state is further diminished by new facts created on the ground that makes the likelihood of such a state in the future a territorial impossibility.

This position has arisen because the PLO has in reality never lost the plot – to create an Arab state in the whole of former Palestine over the ashes of Israel.

The post-Annapolis negotiations will ultimately be dubbed as “the negotiations to nowhere” resulting in the demise of the PLO as Israel’s negotiating partner. Once again the PLO will have missed the boat – probably the last boat it can ever hope to catch before it sinks into political oblivion.

One major reason has been the inability of the PLO to seriously change its mindset and specifically revoke or amend the offending provisions of the PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of Israel and that prevent the creation of this new State as envisioned by Oslo, former President Bill Clinton, President George Bush and his Quartet partners – Russia, the European Union and the United Nations.

On 9 September 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat had made that written commitment to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin as the quid pro quo for the Oslo negotiating process to commence between Israel and the PLO and for the historic handshake between them on the White House lawns just four days later.

A long and tortuous process by Israel and America then followed to ensure Arafat’s total compliance with that commitment. On 14 December 1998 President Clinton stated:

“I thank you for your rejection—fully, finally and forever—of the passages in the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel. For they were the ideological underpinnings of a struggle renounced at Oslo. By revoking them once and for all, you have sent, I say again, a powerful message not to the government, but to the people of Israel. You will touch people on the street there. You will reach their hearts there.”

Yet despite this declaration not one article of the Covenant has been revised or revoked to this very day nor has that message touched the Palestinian Arabs or reached their hearts.

The Chairman of the Palestine National Council charged with making those changes – Salim Za’anoun – stated on 3 February 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida as translated by MEMRI]

A look at just three of the thirty three Articles in the PLO Covenant shows why it is essential that every Article be reviewed and altered if any meaningful negotiations can possibly be undertaken post Annapolis.

Article 1

“Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people: it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

This article ignores any Jewish rights in Palestine. Why not amend it to read as follows:

“ Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people and of the Jewish people,and the Arab Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.”

Article 2:

“Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit”

This article absolutely prohibits President Bush’s two state solution and could be changed as follows:

“Palestine comprises the land contained within the boundaries that existed during the British Mandate from 1920-1948 and has now ceased to comprise an indivisible territorial unit. For purposes of clarification Palestine includes the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which comprised part of the British Mandate until 1946.”

Article 15:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism being a divine religion is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own: they are citizens of the states to which they belong.”

This article ignores the binding effect of international law and is racist, discriminatory and offensive in the extreme. It needs to be redrawn to perhaps read as follows:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed legal and binding. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are compatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism is both a divine religion and an independent nationality. Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they can like Palestinian Arabs be citizens of the states to which they otherwise belong”

How can successful negotiations be concluded whilst this current unclear and confusing mindset confronts the PLO and Israeli negotiators? How have these provisions been specifically rejected by the PLO ?

The PLO needs to immediately face these demons and excise them unequivocally and indisputably from its thinking if the ongoing negotiations are to have any prospect of success.

This is not a question of semantic pettiness or nit picking. It goes to the very bona fides of Israel’s negotiating partner and the sincerity and seriousness with which it intends to conduct these negotiations.

Perhaps the first indication of this troubling mindset – and the effect it can have on the negotiations – was the following remarkable statement recently made by the PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat :

“One of the more pressing problems is the Zionist regime’s insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state… Israel could call itself whatever it wanted, but the PA would never acknowledge Israel’s Jewish identity.” [ Jerusalem Post, 14 November 2007]

Sweeping this – and similar recent statements by leading Arab spokesmen – under the carpet will only guarantee the failure of future negotiations. They will be difficult and complex enough – without such institutionalised mind blocks to reconciliation and recognition that had supposedly been dead and buried with President Clinton‘s declaration on 14 December 1998.

The PLO needs to liberate itself first before it can hope to liberate any land. Failure to do so over the last 14 years has seen its continuing decline in influence. It is now time to get serious and stop playing games.

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?

Annapolis clearly confirmed that these on-going negotiations with Israel will be undertaken by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) – whose Charter specifically rejects the two state solution proposed by the President.

President Bush cannot be unmindful of the PLO’s pivotal role as one of the negotiating parties. He himself read out at Annapolis a joint statement prepared for the meeting which stated in the very first sentence:

“”The representatives of the government of the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, represented respectively by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas, in his capacity as chairman of the PLO executive committee and president of the Palestinian Authority, have convened in Annapolis, Maryland, under the auspices of President George W. Bush of the United States of America, and with the support of the participants of this international conference …”

If President Bush needed any more confirmation of this fact, Mahmoud Abbas gave it to him in the first sentence of his speech:

“Allow me Mr. President to thank you in my capacity as Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and on behalf of the Palestinian people, for inviting us to this international conference.”

The PLO Charter is as anti the two state solution as could possibly be articulated – stating without equivocation that :

1. Palestine with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate is an indivisible territorial unit .

2. The Arab Palestinian people reject all solutions which are substituting (sic) for the total liberation of Palestine.

3. The Partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the State of Israel are entirely illegal

4. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them are deemed null and void.

5. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history

6. Jews do not constitute a single nation with an identity of its own.

How President Bush and Condoleezza Rice believe the PLO can negotiate in good faith for a two state solution in the face of these fundamental impediments to achieving such a result is one of the great mysteries that remains unanswered after the festivities, hand shakes and toasts have been concluded and everyone has gone home.

The time line for the successful completion of these negotiations is supposed to allow President Bush to leave office in January 2009 as the President who was able to bring peace to the Middle East – certainly an effort worth the Nobel Peace Prize, the eternal gratitude of the nations and the favourable judgement of history if he could pull it off.

But it is obvious this can never happen and that his departure from office will be ignominious and humiliating – unless the PLO first amends its Charter to excise these Articles immediately. President Bush and Ms. Rice should be insisting this be done now if these on-going negotiations are to have any prospect of success.

These amendments were promised 14 years ago but they still remain unchanged as testimony to an organisation that hates Jews, despises the notion of a two state solution and fails to recognise the binding effect of international law.

Mahmoud Abbas simply has no power or authority at the present time to negotiate for a two state solution because the PLO Charter expressly precludes him from doing so.

This is not some kind of technical hair splitting argument. It goes to the entire mindset under which negotiations are to be undertaken and the ability of the negotiating parties to achieve a solution.

Mr Abbas should be required to take steps to immediately repeal these provisions of the Covenant before any further negotiations take place. This is something he can implement – and very quickly. He may not be able to procure the release of kidnapped Israeli soldiers, he may not be able to stop terrorist attacks – but he can very easily convene a meeting of the National Council of the PLO to repeal these odious provisions of the Charter.

The capacity of the PLO to deliver peace – even if the above offending and offensive articles were removed today – is also highly questionable.

Respected veteran analyst Danny Rubinstein pointed this out very clearly in an article written by him in Ha’aretz on November 16 when he stated:

“The institutions of the PLO which presumed to represent the entire Palestinian nation have in recent years become obsolete and unimportant. They do not include any representation for a national religious movement like Hamas (which holds that religion takes precedence nationality (sic), although its supporters make up about one third of the Palestinian public…for quite some time now, the PLO has ceased to be a relevant body in Palestinian politics.”

President Bush and Ms Rice must wear rose coloured glasses or have very blinkered vision if they fail to recognise or acknowledge these basic failings in the ability and strength of the PLO to deliver any successful outcome for the President’s two state vision over the next twelve months.

It is incongruous that President Bush and Ms. Rice continue to dine and dialogue with this elderly bespectacled white- haired PLO Chairman in a Saville Row suit who purports to negotiate a two state solution for an organization which forbids it eventuating and which expressly states that its objective is to drive the Jews into the sea and out of a Palestine that belongs only to the Palestinian Arab people.

Allowing negotiations to continue on such a brittle base is a guaranteed recipe for disaster.

The President’s two state vision has never got off the ground since 2003 precisely because Abbas has never been required to have the PLO Charter amended to allow meaningful negotiations to be undertaken. It appears that President Bush and Ms Rice have learned nothing from that unmitigated disaster.

President Bush and Ms Rice will only have themselves to blame at the end of the day when these current negotiations also inevitably collapse.