To my alarm, and possibly for the first and only time, I found myself agreeing with a comment by John Bolton, President George Bush's former and totally miscast Ambassador to the United Nations.  Speaking of the Annapolis summit, which collected together the representatives of 44 countries in Maryland, he said:-
"Normally, you have substantive actions and then you bring in the television cameras - they reversed that order."

 He then added:-
"It was wrong to make the attempt.  The US will be seen as having invested political capital and come up short."
No, it was not wrong.  The process is muddled and confused.  But I refuse to join the camp of those who are only prepared to support a summit if success is virtually guaranteed.  In international diplomacy good men and women must be prepared to take risks which could destroy their reputations, and face a barrage of cynicism and criticism, if they consider they have a sporting chance of bringing peace and ending the suffering of millions.  President Anwar Sadat of Egypt demonstrated great courage in his efforts to negotiate peace in the Middle East.  His was a good example.

 We should certainly be critical of President George Bush for not showing interest earlier in the Middle East peace process - even though pressed to do so by his admirer, former Prime Minister Tony Blair and countless others.  Before being elected for the first time to the White House, George Bush criticised the amount of time and energy President Bill Clinton had devoted to it.  Today, with a shockingly poor record at home and abroad, President Bush, pushed by Condoleezza Rice his Secretary of State, has finally got involved.

 The Secretary of State has declared:-
"No one believes that failure is an option."
This was less than honest, but we should admire her serious attempts to get President Mahmoud Abbas from secular Fatah and Prime Minster Ehud Olmert of Israel to work together.

 Mr Olmert is rightly in deep political trouble at home.  The Winograd Commission is about to attack again his incompetent handling of the conflict with Hezbollah last year.  He faces new sleaze charges.  I am amazed he is still Prime Minister.  His political opponents suggest he will be forced out from office next year, and thus would be incapable of signing a major agreement with the Palestinians by the end of 2008 - as President Bush has called for.  Meanwhile, and typically, Israel has given no hope that it is to freeze - let alone reverse - its illegal settlement programme.

 Mr Abbas is also in a seriously weak political position.  He is well aware if he does not get major concessions the plight of the Palestinians will be in free fall.  Hamas in Gaza has called him an "isolated traitor" and relations between the West Bank and Gaza are in a dreadful state.  This is a fatal flaw for the Palestinians wherever they live.

 It was good that Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, was present.  This was the first time Saudi Arabia has been at peace talks with Israel.  We were told the former had insisted it would be represented only if Mr Bush remained active in the process.  However the White House has suggested subsequently that Condoleezza Rice will do the "heavy lifting" - no surprise there.  The Saudi delegation did not shake hands with the Israeli delegation.  In both diplomacy and politics shaking hands with those whose views you strongly dislike is a normal activity; we are all humans.

 I was pleased that Syria agreed to be represented.  I am dismayed by the lack of world interest over the return of the Golan Heights from Israel.  This must happen.  No doubt Tehran was disappointed regarding Syria as a good ally against the West.  Like the Saudis the Syrians did not wish to shake hands with the Israelis.  As The Economist (1st Dec) recorded:-
"Mr Bush offered Syria no concessions, instead giving it a clear rebuke in his speech with a reference to Lebanon's need for an election "free from outside interference and intimidation."
We should all agree with him on that.

 What happens now?  Russia would like to host the next Middle East peace conference - presuming there is one - shortly.  I have always thought that as a member of the Quartet (the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia) Russia could play a useful role.

 Annapolis marked the return of Tony Blair to the international stage as the leading international envoy to the region since July.  Mainly behind the scenes he has been working diligently to build up Palestinian institutions.  The Palestinians are far from being an equal negotiating partner with the Israelis.

 We can but hope history will regard the Annapolis summit as having more pluses than minuses.