The illness and potential death of Yasir Arafat is extremely significant today for reasons beyond what the talking heads are babbling on about w/r to who will inherit the reigns of "power" over the Palestinian "governement". The Palestinian constitution has a clear successor marked but again, this is not the point. Arafat's death will truly herald the end of an era of Arab nationalism because Arafat's brand of nationalism is a secular. The PLO/PLA was rooted in the nationalist anti-colonial liberation struggles that began in the 60's which was rooted in socialist (sometimes Stalinist as in the case of Hussein and Assad) ideology (commonly called "Arab Socialism") rather than religious ideology. This was a nationalism was plenty flawed as any nationalism can be, but it was secular, and as seen in Egypt was successful.

Though one could say that Qaddafi in Libya and Mubarek in Egypt are inheritors of the Pan-Arabist dream, Qaddafi appears much more concerned with consolidating more around Pan-Africanism right now and Mubarek has his hands full keeping ahold of his "Presidente for life" (something Musharraf would love to consolidate - another "good friend" of the U.S.). Mubarek inherited his mantle from Sadat who inhereted his from Nasser.

The PA (Palestinian Authority) has been effectively neutered and has no real police control in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza (the first thing the Israelis did in 2000 at the outbreak of the current Intifada was to destroy and dismantle most of the Palestinian police force). The PA has been diplomatically isolated by the U.S. and Israel the primary state actors in the area. And consequently though older Palestinians still may view the PLO->PA-leadership as a symbol of Palestinian Liberation some view them as "outsiders" and call those who were in exile in the '80's "Tunisians" and the group on the ground doing the most both in terms of resistance and action in the community has been Hamas.

The death of Arafat will form a large power vaccum for and lead to a struggle (hopefully of words) over who has the "mandate" of the Palestinian people. I fear that unfortunately, those who will step into the breach will be the Islamic Fundamentalists (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.) who articulate their brand of nationalism and in much more absolute terms (anti-Jewish as opposed to anti-Zionist and religious rather than colonialist). This bodes very poorly for any sort of solution. I do not know much about Hamas or what its view of a "resolution to the conflict" would be. If Hamas comes to the fore as an organization that "leads" the Palestinian struggle, they will have to articulate some sort of view that then can be negotiated. Israel's responsibility in encouraging the development of Hamas in the Occupied Territories and Hizbullah in South Lebanon in the 1980's (as the U.S. encouraged the Mujahedeen -> Taliban/Al Qaeda to combat the "evil" of the Soviet Empire) is well documented, and this will come back to haunt them tremendously. Not negotiating with Arafat has served Sharon well up until now, but who is his negotiating partner if Arafat dies? Do the secularists maintain any sort of legitimacy or has the fight degenerated to the point that the Islamisists now hold the keys to power? Apparently one of the few people who is a secularist and has some popular support among the Palestinians is Marwan Barghouti who is rotting in an Israeli jail.

There have already been power struggles within Palestine and within the PA for reform and inclusion. Should those power struggles heat up again who knows what will happen.