Those who hoped that the meeting between George W. Bush and Tony Blair in Washington would produce a new US envoy for the region or a diplomatic conference to be held in January might express disappointment in the outcome of those talks yesterday. It would be unwise, however, to rush to that judgment. The blueprint that has emerged has the immense value of being practical. It provides a base upon which a realistic settlement could be constructed on a credible timetable. It also rightly moves policy on from the rhetoric of a “two state” solution encompassing Israel and the Palestinians to the better objective of “two democratic states” coexisting.

That objective will require intense American support for Palestine, when it is deserved. Mr Bush made it clear that the United States was prepared to assist with the physical, political and economic reconstruction of the West Bank and Gaza Strip with an intensity that has not been seen before. The President did not pull his punches in referring to the urgent need to stamp out endemic corruption in the Palestinian Authority. That challenge will be very substantial indeed.

Yet it is right to focus here at this point. The Palestinian population has seen little reward from the outside aid offered in the past decade and scepticism about the integrity of its leadership is widespread. This sentiment has helped groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to take root and these bodies have exploited their position to launch attacks on Israel. Successive Israeli prime ministers have, entirely understandably, responded by sealing their borders and in so doing undermined the Palestinian economy. This has been a vicious circle which rendered progress impossible. Democracy and prosperity are essential to rebuilding confidence in the region.

The post-Arafat leadership in the Palestinian Authority should quietly welcome this initiative. Mahmoud Abbas, the former Palestinian Prime Minister and now the new head of the PLO, spent months attempting to convince Yassir Arafat of the need for sweeping reforms within the authority. He quit in frustration when nothing happened. Ahmed Qureia, his successor and the current Prime Minister, also pressed Mr Arafat for change but made little progress. If, as Mr Bush and Mr Blair asserted, the international community can be mobilised behind these men, they might yet be able to build representative political institutions and marginalise the extremists.

If that were to occur, the impact on the broader peace process would be substantial. Ariel Sharon’s decision to proceed with his Gaza disengagement plan has horrified many in his party but caused moderate and centre-left opinion in Israel, somewhat to its own surprise, to rally to him. Mr Sharon has made it clear that he does not view either Mr Abbas or Mr Qureia with the suspicion he felt for Mr Arafat. It would be naive to assume that he would hand over the entire West Bank just because respectable figures held office in the Palestinian Authority. But it would make dialogue much easier.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush have amended the implausible calendar of the original (often overhyped) “road map” and made democracy central to the new cartography. This is a sound strategy and one which would not have been feasible while Mr Arafat was alive. In measured terms, they have defined a fresh opportunity. Others should be prepared to seize the moment.