YASSIR ARAFAT’s removal from the Middle East political landscape could plunge his weakened nation into further crisis but may also have opened the way for the first real peace effort in the region for years.

Millions of Palestinians scattered across the Middle East feared that their dream of statehood had died with the passing of the man who embodied that struggle for four decades.

None of the half dozen figures being considered for the leadership can possibly hope to replace his international standing nor his unique ability to represent the interests of a people living either as refugees in exile or on land controlled by Israel.

Some feared that the voice that united the Palestinian people had been silenced for ever and that the looming leadership contest could trigger a battle among Palestinians, who are still reeling from four years of bloody conflict with Israel. There was also hope last night that a figure who obstructed peace efforts, ran a corrupt and incompetent administration and led his people into a disastrous uprising had finally gone.

Mr Arafat was also regarded as an anachronism, a guerrilla leader who refused to put down his gun and preferred struggle to nation building. His many critics saw him as an obstacle to any hopes of a lasting peace agreement in the Middle East and a figure who could, and did, prevent others from trying to find a settlement to the 50-year conflict with Israel.

Certainly his opponents, particularly Israel and America, viewed the veteran guerrilla leader as a deeply unreliable partner. He was accused of derailing Bill Clinton’s attempts at Camp David in 2000 to reach an historic land-for-peace deal and instead of turning to violence. President Bush and Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, refused to negotiate with him, insisting that he could not be trusted to keep his side of any bargain, particularly preventing attacks by suicide bombers against Israeli civilians. For them any of the leaders now in the frame to replace Mr Arafat can only be a huge improvement and may allow serious dialogue to reopen for the first time in five years.

The timing of Mr Arafat’s demise is critical. Just hours before before news of his deteriorating health yesterday, Tony Blair told The Times that Britain would make the search for peace in the Middle East a foreign policy priority and would be pressing the new Bush Administration to do the same.

Senior Administration officials said that they had already planned to launch a new initiative. They had planned to bypass Mr Arafat altogether, now they will be looking to deal with his replacement. There are real hopes that in the next two months the Palestinians will have an elected leader capable of negotiating directly with Israel and talking face to face with Mr Bush.

The focus of this diplomatic effort will be the Gaza Strip, which Mr Sharon plans to evacuate unilaterally next year. His decision, which involves dismantling Jewish settlements and removing 8,000 settlers, was taken precisely because he insisted Israel had no one on the Palestinian side it could trust to respect an agreement.

Now there is a chance that before the withdrawal begins the Israelis will have an interlocutor on the Palestinian side. Instead of a military pull-out there is a possibility of a negotiated handover to an elected Palestinian authority.

American and British officials insist that they are willing to commit money and diplomatic heavy-lifting to ensure that the transfer of power is a success and that the Palestinians are able to create a functioning government.

This rosy scenario, however, could be undermined in the months ahead. Mr Arafat may have been an obstacle, in Israeli and American eyes, but he was still one of the only constant features on the Palestinian horizon. Without him there are dangers of a brutal succession battle.

There could be fewer constraints on militant groups, like Hamas. Arab states may feel that they have a freer to manipulate the Palestinian cause to their ends. Israel may sense that it can have its way more easily without the presence of its formidable adversary.

Nadim Shehadi, a Middle East expert at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said that Mr Arafat was irreplaceable because he was the father of the Palestinian national movement but that his passing did not mean the Palestinians were doomed.

“After the deaths of each of the old Arab leaders people predicted doomsday scenarios — for Jordan after King Hussein, Morocco after King Hassan and Syria after Hafez al-Assad,” he said.

“But normal life has continued. We will see the same thing after Arafat. I don’t think the place will descend into civil war. The Palestinians will still be there,” he said.

But in Gaza last night Palestinians were less confident.

“It will be a catastrophe. If Abu Ammar (Arafat) dies, I am afraid the Palestinian cause will die too,” said Hassan Ali, 18.

Explore World News

• World Agenda

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• Fish and chip shops ‘selling cobbler as cod’
• T in the Park festival at Kinross
• Body Watch