Peacemakers??? Maybe...
I just wrote a CSM column today, coming out Thursday. As I worked through it, I came to this amazing conclusion. How about if a stable peace between Israelis and Palestinians ends up getting made this year between an Israeli coalition headed by Sharon and a Palestinian coalition dominated by Hamas? (And under the sponsorship of, George W. Bush?)
Okay, let's leave aside Bush for the present. Just think of the other two. Would that be a reciprocal "Nixon to China" move, or what?
(On the other hand, maybe for Mao, receiving Nixon was equally much of an ideological breakthrough? )
As I say in my column-- the best folks to make peace with are, after all, your present enemies....
Peace is not guaranteed but worth praying for.
If a Palestinian state is formed, there is no telling who will run it nor what other nations will dominate it (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel). Think of Lebanon. Creating a new state is rolling the dice all over again on Middle East history. Some people anticpate it, some are afraid of it.
It is even possible that people will one day look back at the Intifada times as "The good old days".
Interesting thought, but what are the odds that Hamas will actually lead the Palestinian coalition as opposed to being a junior partner?
Also, today's Sharm summit leaves Hamas with a very sharp choice. Now that the PA and Israel have declared a mutual cease-fire, Hamas won't be able to join the PA government unless it buys in. Once the PA parliamentary elections take place, Hamas will no longer be able to put off the decision of whether to continue with the politics of the gun.
Your analogy to Sharon, therefore, might be quite apt. Hamas will have to decide whether it's going to be the Likud of Palestine - a hard-nosed party that fights for every concession but reluctantly recognizes that peace must be made - or the Mafdal of Palestine, holding its maximalist theological position to the bitter end.