WASHINGTON, 6 November 2004 — The end of Yasser Arafat’s reign as Palestinian leader could nudge US officials back into a greater role in the Middle East peace process they accused him of poisoning, analysts said yesterday.

As Arafat lay comatose in a hospital outside Paris, political circles buzzed with speculation on what his death would mean for US involvement in the thorny conflict that rarely came up in the presidential campaign here.

President George W. Bush, buoyed by his solid re-election victory, expressed hope yesterday of making “good progress” in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian feud in his second term, but broke no new ground.

The president, who refused to deal with Arafat, responded to erroneous reports of his death with a “God bless his soul” and a pledge to “continue to work for a free Palestinian state that is at peace with Israel.”

“I think it’s very important for our friends the Israelis to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border,” Bush told a news conference.

“It’s very important for the Palestinians to have a peaceful, hopeful future.” US officials have avoided direct comment on Arafat’s deteriorating health or its meaning for the peace process. But the State Department acknowledged intensification of discreet contacts with Palestinian leaders.

With emotions high in the Arab world, Washington was clearly careful to avoid being accused of interference in any jockeying within the Palestinian leadership to replace the 75-year-old Arafat.

The United States has kept a low profile in the peace process since the “road map” for peace it sponsored last year was left in tatters by recurring cycles of Israeli-Palestinian violence. But several American analysts suggested yesterday that Arafat’s absence from the Palestinian hierarchy could push Washington into a more active role in peace efforts.

Mark Ensalaco, director of international studies at the midwestern University of Dayton said it may not herald an immediate breakthrough but could provide a spark to revive the process.

“The United States and Israel do not believe he is a reliable partner, so without Arafat in the equation, there is an opportunity for a dialogue,” Ensalaco said.

Scott Lasensky, of the US Institute of Peace, predicted that pressure would mount from US allies in Europe and the Arab world for Washington to put itself back on the line.

“The question will be an obvious one,” Lasensky said. “’You wanted to see Arafat out of the equation, now he is. What are you prepared to do now?’ I think it makes it a lot harder for the United States to remain on the sidelines.” But Lasensky and other Middle East experts said it would take more than Arafat’s replacement to bring the United States back into the process where it was once considered the only honest broker possible for both sides.

The United States and Israel both accused Arafat of failing to curb, or even encouraging, attacks by Palestinian militants in Israel while he maintained strict control over Palestinian security services.

Judith Kipper, of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the key in a post-Arafat era would be whether the eventual successors seriously pursued long-demanded reforms within the Palestinian camp.