The day of reckoning — when President George W. Bush had to make up his mind about what to do to end the Middle East impasse — finally had come. There had been some strange false starts, such as when Bush incongruously referred to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a “man of peace”. That was corrected. Now it was time for Bush’s long-awaited speech laying out his vision for peace.

It was fairly short — but what a stunning surprise awaited everyone who had hoped for the opening of a new era in the Middle East. Everything the Israelis wanted was offered to them and everything the Palestinians wanted seemed to be put on hold.

What happened? In retrospect, some believed that during the days the speech was being postponed because of the bombings, Bush was mightily impressed with what he had just been presented as “evidence” that Palestinian President Yasser Arafat had paid $20,000 for a suicide bombing attack. This “evidence” of bad faith seemed to weigh very heavily on the American president.

Such charges, produced by Israel’s Mossad secret service agency, have been the principal background noise during each of Ariel Sharon’s six visits to the Bush White House. The report came from no American source, but only from Israel. However, after that, Bush seems to have changed the entire tenor of the speech, laying virtually all blame in the Middle East on Arafat.

So what is the world going to think? Will the original plan to give Yasser Arafat some hope for a Palestinian state proceed? Or are all bets off and will the Israel lobby remain unfettered? On the June 30 Sunday morning talk shows a clear majority of the commentators indicated that Arafat was being given unfair treatment.

Observers on both sides have been cautious. The Israeli lobby may still be waiting for another shoe to drop, with a contradictory speech to follow. Or is Bush trying to make sure that nothing serious will happen until this fall’s elections have been completed?

Then, what happens next year? Will Bush decide to do nothing again until the 2004 presidential election? Will he hope to do the right thing about the Middle East then? And if he does wait until then, will there even be a second Bush term?

For the moment, it appears that Bush will always find a reason to postpone weighing in on the crucial issues in the Middle East. The only way to break that cycle is for the Arabs to have some proactive strategies of their own. The Arab “street,” as the Americans call it, is far ahead of events. Unofficial boycotts are well under way in virtually every Arab country.

Now it is time to put some official clout into the mix. For example, European and Arab diplomats alike condemned Bush’s speech. There is an undertone of disapproval from all the European leaders who have spoken frankly, with the exception of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

What is clear is that Sharon has made it impossible for the Palestinians to rein in the suicide bombers because Arafat’s own people are not allowed to participate in stopping the slaughter. Israel has battered the Palestinian Authority’s security forces, its offices, barracks, storehouses and troops, and isolated its leader.

In short, Arafat has never had a chance to clean up his own house. Now Bush is saying that “Arafat has lost his opportunity.” That is not going to fly with any of the Arab states and, almost certainly, with none of the European community either.

What the Arabs can do at this point is to show that there are consequences if Bush continues his intransigence. It will help immensely if American contracts begin to dry up in the Middle East. The current shaky US economy would receive a serious blow.

Even more important is to make sure that the Arab League states all work together. For example, if Saudi air bases are closed, it is important that they not reopen in some other country like Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, or the UAE. That will mean that none of the Arab League countries can be played against each other. It would be astonishing if Bush and his savvy secretary of state, Colin Powell, didn’t get the message. If the Bush administration decides to sacrifice the Arabs purely for upcoming domestic political elections, obviously there could be far worse to come at the hands of the Arabs. Any US economic recovery prospects would fade. The use of the “oil weapon” seems far down the line if common sense prevails. This writer believes that it will be necessary to use some of these weapons to show the Bush administration that the Arabs can and do mean business.

In the meantime, President Arafat can do what he can and should do on his own. The Palestinian state is well under way with support and expertise from many countries. The Palestinian people are astute — they have had to be, given the unfair tactics that have been used against them.

Now, they have to work as a team and avoid divisive tactics in their own backyard. No matter how unfairly Ariel Sharon and his murderous band act, the Palestinians should stay calm and finish the job they already have begun.

Whatever dirty tricks still lie in store, it is obvious that the European Community members are increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinians and disgusted by the bullying tactics of Israel and its disgraceful American political lobby. Now the Palestinians, the Arabs, the Europeans and Americans of good will may prevail, and sooner than we think.

— Richard H. curtiss is the executive editor of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs