To the disappointment of the PLO leaders the "connection" never developed to a full-fledged unconditional mutual recognition by Washington, let alone to normal diplomatic relations between equals.
Of course breaking this futile connection would be good news for the PLO's protagonist, Israel, which sought its best to prevent this connection while it was still a burgeoning bud, but failed and would for sure be overjoyed to see its U.S. strategic ally push back the PLO to its pre-1987 label of a "terrorist" organization, unless this connection remains reining in the PLO as a hostage to the waiting for the American Godot.
Ironically however severing this futile connection would also be good news to the majority of the Palestinian people who have lost faith in their leadership's betting on the "good will" and the "good offices" of the successive U.S. administrations, which an ever growing number of them has come to identify not only as the military, financial, diplomatic and the super power patron of the Israeli occupying power, but as the partner to the Israeli occupation.
And it was natural reaction as well as legitimate endeavor for them to begin looking for alternatives, both to their leadership and to the U.S. connection after more than half a century of yelling their injustice to the deaf ears of the U.S.-led western allies of their Israeli tormentor.
The Hamas' landslide victory in the January 25 legislative elections could only be seen within this context, as a deafening NO to the status quo and an outcry for political change internally and externally. It was the first explicitly outspoken proof and rebellious rejection of the futile PLO-U.S. connection.
"The change of US policy in the Middle East that took place on April 14th (2004) following the meeting between (U.S.) President Bush and (Israeli) Prime Minister (Ariel) Sharon has the potential to destroy the whole foundation of the Middle East peace process."
Abed Rabbo, a close confident and adviser to both Arafat and Abbas, was referring to the "letter of guarantees" Bush wrote to Sharon, in which he "adopted fundamental Israeli demands that undermine international law, prejudice permanent status issues and potentially pre-empt a negotiated settlement," and which gives "a boost to the expansionist policy" of Israel and "deal a mortal blow to the Quartet Roadmap.
Abed Rabbo's warning, which in fact was representative of the PLO leadership, fell on deaf U.S. ears. The Palestinians condemned Bush's April 14 letter as the "Second Balfor Declaration," which has proved ever since to be an Israeli-U.S. strategy and the basis of Israel's current unilateral approach to dictate by force a solution to the Palestinians.
This approach is dooming the PLO leadership, the PLO-U.S. connection, whatever left of the so-called peace process and the Oslo accords.
The Palestinian civilians under occupation are now paying the price of this approach with their blood, crushed by the overpowering Israeli war machine.
Obstructing an Arab-drafted resolution for the past two weeks because "we don't see at this point any utility in council action at all," U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton told U.N. Security Council "that a prerequisite for ending this conflict is that the governments of Syria and Iran end their role ..."
Bolton's "prerequisite" offers a justification for the Bush Administration to delay indefinitely any resumption of America's once-powerful role in Middle East peacemaking.