Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Do you believe that the death of Yasser Arafat could lead to a settlement of the Palestinian problem?

Raghida Dergham: It isn't about the death of Yasser Arafat as much as it is a new era, the post-Arafat era which coincides with a second term for George W. Bush and a very difficult situation that has proved that military/security solutions have failed. Yes, there is a opportunity for all. Above all, for the U.S. policy to reinstate the two-state solution.
We have a vision. We have a road map. We have a plan and the opportunity now is to take serious action to clarify once and for all who is committed to the two-state solution and who's not.

The opportunity calls on the Palestinians to take action, the Israelis to take action, the Americans, the Europeans and the Arab governments. This is a new era. It has to be a new policy of fairness and pressure on both sides -- not only on one.

Arlington, Va.: What is your understanding of Arafat's cause of death? Several papers, including the New York Times, have suggested his symptoms are characteristic of AIDS. Is there any truth to these rumors?

Raghida Dergham: Rumors in the Arab world have Mr. Arafat dying of poison. As long as these are rumors I don't want to engage in discussing them.

washingtonpost.com: What do you think Prime Minister Blair and President Bush will be discussing today at their joint press conference in relation to the Middle East?

Raghida Dergham: We know that Prime Minister Blair had put the challenge or resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict as an urgent matter on top of the agenda. We know that the Europeans want an American engagement. If what we hear about an American policy that would invite more European participation is true, that is definitely to be welcomed. However, the Europeans will want the U.S. to be the active partner because only the U.S. can pressure Israel which is an important ingredient should there be hope for a negotiated settlement.

To welcome a European conference on the Arab-Israel conflict is not enough. What is needed is concrete measures that would prove seriousness in implementing the road map to a two-state solution, reciprocal acts by Palestinians and Israelis -- not a pre-conditional approach. I mean by that that the Bush administration needs to tell Israel to stop building settlements and expanding them, stop confiscating Palestinian land to build the wall of separation, allow Palestinian elections by lifting blockades, releasing prisoners.

Now that Arafat is gone the pretext that there is no partner for negotiations is no longer available for Ariel Sharon.

Monterey, Calif.: My sense is that the Bush administration has such a bias in favor of Israel and against so-called "terrorists" (which in their charming view includes Palestinians) -- that there is little hope of finding and sustaining enough "clean" diplomatic energy to make an agreement happen. I sure hope I'm wrong.
What do you think?

Raghida Dergham: I think, unfortunately, that the Bush administration has locked the U.S. policy in reducing, de facto, the Palestinian-Israeli political dispute to a matter of terrorism. This is one of the main reasons why the American policy is hated by Arabs and Muslims. Arab and Muslim moderates who condemn terrorism against civilians including Palestinian are undermined by such an American policy. President Bush needs to de-couple the U.S. and Israel when speaking of the war on terror. Yes, there has been Palestinian terrorism, but no, the Palestinian-Israeli dispute is a political and an argument over land. It is not to be a mere issue of terror, unless this administration releases its policy from this equation. I'm afraid it's going to always fail in convincing Arabs and Muslims of its good intentions.

Winning the war on terrorism will definitely require gettin the Palestinian-Israeli dispute off the table through a fair, negotiated settlement.

Washington, D.C.: My understanding is that Arafat is assumed to have siphoned off large amounts of foreign monies sent to aid the Palestinians. Now that he is dead, is it likely that more aid will reach ordinary Palestinians and improve their plight?

Raghida Dergham: Arafat had been accused of being a corrruptor rather than corrupt. There has been a very serious investigation and a cleaning up of the Arafat-style finance by minister Fayyad who is highly respected by the Palestinians as well as by President Bush. I would wait for his word on the real story of the money trail. But I would not say that Arafat spent for personal pleasure the money that was destined for his people. The reason why he wanted to micromanage the money aspect is because he didn't want to share power, i.e., he wanted to be in control. He also didn't trust the Israeli occupiers' plans for him, particularly that they were threatening him with another exile.

Arlington, Va.: Within the Arabic world, is there widespread recognition of Arafat's terrorist actions to bring attention to the cause of a Palestinian homeland?

Raghida Dergham: Yes, Arabs are aware that there was a chapter of what the West calls terrorism in Yasser Arafat's life but they're also just as aware that there were chapters of terrorism in the life of Ariel Sharon, particularly when he oversaw the massacre of Palestinian women and children in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps.

washingtonpost.com: President Bush and Tony Blair are having their press conference as we speak. What are they saying about the Middle East?

Raghida Dergham: Both the president and the prime minister empahasized that there is a new opportunity toward progress and committed to backing free Palestinian elections. Both recommitted to the two-state solution.

President Bush made clear that he is staying the course in his approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He refused to call on Israeli to free settlements and focused instead on the need for the Palestinians to prove commitment to democracy. This is not going to be welcomed by those who are anticipating a new signal from the president of the U.S. Surely he will be admired for repeating his commitment to the emergence of a Palestinian state; however, democracy and freedom are not the magical words for ending occupation.

I want to add that it would be a grave mistake if President Bush handcuffs the prevailing opportunity by putting preconditions on Palestinians such as "prove you're worthy of democracy and then we'll help you."
The bottom line is that we have a commitment from Bush and Blair for backing Palestinian elections, sketching a strategy once the elections are over, toward a viable Palestinian state. This is the good news. The bad news is that
there is a sense of precondition imposed on the Palestinians solely, with no hint that pressure will be put on Israel.

They're talking about the possibility of an international conference and that's fine but nothing will replace the need for an adjusted American policy so that it will not be perceived as an unqualified endorsement of Ariel Sharon's policies no matter what the cost. President Bush speaks of freedom but freedom in the minds of Palestinians under occupation is exactly freedom from occupation.

Washington, DC: "I mean by that that the Bush administration needs to tell Israel to stop building settlements and expanding them, stop confiscating Palestinian land to build the wall of separation, allow Palestinian elections by lifting blockades, releasing prisoners"
Yes, it does seem like you and fellow ardent supporters of the Palestinian cause see this issue as something that should be resolved "fairly" and without pointing the finger to "one side." (So long as it's the other side, right?)

Raghida Dergham: I have repeatedly said and I say again, U.S. pressure is needed on both the Israelis and Palestinians. Absolving Israel from accountability is a major handicap for American policy. Assigning blame exclusively to Palestinians is a major mistake. Only the Bush administration sided with the Sharon government in using Arafat as a pretext to avoid negotiations. The rest of the world didn't buy the gimmick. Only Washington did.

Now there is an opportunity for a new era for American policy towards the region -- a policy that is fair to both peoples and which will put American national interests as the top priority. That means we need to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by pressuring both so that terrorists do not use that issue as a pretext to get us and so that we can mobilize Arabs and Muslims as our allies in the fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and its likes.