Editorial: Palestine's momentous opportunity

Autocrats rarely groom successors. Their overriding ambition is to maintain a total grip on power to the very end. True to form, Yasser Arafat leaves a gaping hole in Palestine. The scene is set for factions within the Palestine Liberation Organisation and militant groups outside it to fight for political supremacy. Even greater chaos could be about to be visited on a people already locked in a four-year uprising against Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. Conversely, however, this could be the very opportunity for Palestinians to end the cycle of violence, and to fashion a unified approach that will lead to statehood.

Thus far, the omens are relatively auspicious. Two of the more militant Palestinian factions have called for a "collective leadership", including Islamist groups, to fill the vacuum. One, Hamas, has gone so far as to describe this structure as a "must" if the Palestinian cause is to be strengthened. The acid test for such a leadership would come when it debates the path forward.

One road would see an escalation of the debilitating terrorism against Israel. But such an approach would only deepen the apparent insolubility of the present conflict. The other, more profitable path would involve a renunciation of terrorism, and the dedicated pursuit of long-demanded reforms within the Palestinian camp. If a president and legislative council were legitimately elected, and corruption rooted out, the Palestinians would present a far more propitious face to the world.

The advantages of this approach would be manifold. Renouncing terrorism would force Israel to moderate its military tactics. Violence would dissipate. The shedding of blood will always raise temperatures; without it there is a greater chance of rational discourse. It may even be that Israel could be persuaded to accelerate, and broaden, its planned "disengagement" next year from conflict with the Palestinians in Gaza.

Equally, a more considered approach would leave little ground for the continued shunning of Palestine by the United States. Capturing the White House's attention will not be easy; President George W. Bush will be occupied, if not preoccupied, with extracting his country from Iraq during the first stages of his second term in office, and must also pay attention to Iran and North Korea. But the departure of Arafat makes it much harder for the US to stay detached.

The Bush Administration has effectively sat on the sidelines since the "road map" for peace that it sponsored last year collapsed amid recurring cycles of Israeli-Palestinian violence. It suited its purposes, and those of Israel, to blame this on Arafat's failure to curb - or even his encouragement of - attacks by Palestinian militants. The heady days of a decade earlier when Arafat signed interim peace accords with Israel and shared a Nobel Peace prize were long gone. While he may have won internal power struggles against reform-minded prime ministers appointed under pressure from Washington, Palestine was no longer considered a reliable partner in any peace process.

That reasoning must now be modified. The White House will, of course, hardly feel disposed to come off the fence if the Palestinians split into warring factions, and anarchy ensues. And if a militant group like Hamas eventually grabs the upper hand. An escalation in terrorism would, obviously, be the worst outcome for Palestinian aspirations, for the region, and for the world. But a more moderate, legitimately elected, Palestinian leadership would unquestionably place considerable pressure on the US to take a more active role in Middle East peace efforts.

Frustration has been a byword for Palestinians since Yasser Arafat first came to embody their struggle for statehood. Now, they have the opportunity to chart a more productive course. The ball is in their hands. They must not drop it.