The call by President George Bush for a new and different Palestinian leadership has instantly boosted the standing of Mr Yasser Arafat, writes Michael Jansen
President George Bush did not use his long-anticipated address on the Middle East to launch an initiative defining the parameters of a political settlement, fixing a timetable for implementation of a step-by-step plan and detailing Washington's role in achieving peace.
Instead, on Monday he placed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict squarely within the ambit of his "war on terror". Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims cannot accept this move.
They make a firm distinction between terrorism, which they oppose, and Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. While condemning Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians, Arab leaders believe that these are a consequence of the Israeli occupation and Israel's military campaigns in the West Bank and Gaza.
The most recent opinion poll revealed that 66 per cent of Palestinians said they became more supportive of bombers after Israel's April offensive.
Mr Bush's speech is seen by the Arabs as a victory for the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr Ariel Sharon, who since September 11th has pressed the US administration to classify the Palestinian Intifada, or rising, as "terrorism".
Mr Sharon is not viewed as a potential negotiating partner, but rather as an old warrior who seeks to impose his will on the Palestinians and the Arabs by force of arms. This means that Israelis and Palestinians belonging to their respective "peace camps" have been left out in the cold while the hard men on the two sides battle it out in the cities and towns of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel proper.
The call for "regime change" is the key aspect of Mr Bush's strategy for waging anti-terror war on the Palestinian front.
But by conditioning progress towards Palestinian statehood on a "new and different Palestinian leadership", Mr Bush instantly boosted the standing of the Palestinian President, Mr Arafat. By joining Mr Sharon's campaign to remove the Palestinian leader, Mr Bush made it impossible for the Palestinians to oust Mr Arafat democratically.
Speaking by telephone from his home in curfewed Ramallah, the Palestinian Minister of Labour, Dr Ghassan Khatib, stated flatly: "Nobody can replace Arafat".
Indeed, before Mr Bush delivered his speech, 47.5 per cent of Palestinians said they would choose Mr Arafat in the election provisionally scheduled for January 2003.
Palestinians are enraged by Mr Bush's attempt to dictate the outcome of this election. "We will not accept a pro-Israeli collaborator," said Dr Mahdi Abdel Hadi, who heads a Palestinian think tank in Jerusalem. "Arafat is not a dictator like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic," he asserted.
In spite of all Mr Arafat's failings and faults, he is still "Mr Palestine", the man who has transformed the Palestinians from a forgotten people to a nation deserving of self-determination and a candidate for statehood.
Futhermore, he is the only political figure with the popular standing to deliver the concessions needed to achieve a final settlement.
The Palestinians, who overwhelmingly support radical reform of their National Authority, would almost certainly agree to the creation of a parliamentary system of government on the Irish model, where the president has a largely ceremonial role.
If this could be accomplished before elections are held, Mr Arafat could continue as President while a newly appointed prime minister and a newly elected parliament would share power.
However, free and fair parliamentary elections could be risky.
Although Mr Arafat's secular Fateh movement commands the support of 27.3 per cent of Palestinians, the Islamist Hamas is backed by 22.6 per cent.
Therefore, a new Palestinian legislature could be split between two parties which have very different world views and attitudes towards Israel.
Both the Palestinians and the Arabs dismiss Mr Bush's proposal for the creation of a "provisional state". There is no such entity in international politics.
While there are provisional governments and provisional presidents, there have never been any provisional states. A provisional Palestinian state would not possess the legal attributes of a state: a defined territory, borders, a capital city and armed forces to defend its citizens whose status would remain pending.
Mr Bush's call to Arab governments to commit to the "war on terror" and gradually normalise relations with Israel will fall on deaf ears until they see that the final settlement involves Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied in 1967.
Although he said that this was the US objective he did not say how it could be achieved.
Following the 1993 Oslo accord, Arab states which established relations with Israel were disappointed when the expected Palestinian state failed to emerge. They are wary of being burnt a second time.
Mr Bush dealt with Israel's role almost as an afterthought. He spoke of Israel only towards the end of his address. He did not demand that Israel promptly cease fire and withdraw its forces from Palestinian areas.
Until this happens, young Palestinians will continue to stage the murderous attacks on Israelis which drive the cycle of violence. Instead of tackling the conflict, Mr Bush said he would ask his Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, to focus on "Palestinian reform and institution-building".
While Mr Bush called on Israel to "take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state", he did not put forward a clear plan of action for Israel to follow or synchronise Israeli moves with those to be taken by the Palestinians.
By failing to adopt the detailed plan for the repartition of Palestine put forward by his predecessor, Mr Bush also nullified the progress achieved during negotiations at the Egyptian resort at Taba in January 2001 when the two sides came closer to a final settlement than ever before.
Consequently, many Palestinians and Israelis fear that military operations, the occupation, Israeli settlement construction and Palestinian bombings will continue.