It’s hard to take Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon too seriously when he talks about peace, if you base your judgment on his past.

He is one of the most ruthless, violent and cruel leaders Israel has had since Menachem Begin.

But then, everyone on both sides of the conflict, Palestinian and Israeli leaders, have hands soaked in each other’s blood.

So why should Sharon be any different than any of the past leaders?

The answer could be that the political changes in Israel over the past few months have been substantial to say the least, and Sharon’s own actions suggest he may be different than any other past Israeli leader.

It was Sharon who unilaterally withdrew Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, setting the stage for Palestinian control of the formerly occupied coastal land. He dismantled nearly two dozen Gaza settlements that consisted of the most extreme Israeli settlers, and four small settlements in the northern West Bank.

It was unheard of and it caused a political schism in Israeli politics.

Not surprisingly, Sharon’s moves caused a political battle in his own political party, the Likud and last week he quit the party and declared his intentions to form a new “centrist political party.”

The break is significant in that the Likud has consistently opposed using “land-for-peace” as the foundation of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. It has pushed for the expansion of Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian lands and even has opposed what the rest of the world has accepted as the inevitability of a Palestinian state.

Across the political aisle, the Labor Party which has long spearheaded peace negotiations with the Palestinians has also dramatically changed. Shimon Peres, the partner of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, has been ousted by the party in favor of a new leader, Amir Peretz.

Can Sharon bring a change to the dynamics of the Palestine-Israel stalemate?

Sharon says he plans to draw the final borders of Israel, and thereby define a Palestinian state. It might be the only sane course of action.

Palestinians have always been defined by Israel’s actions and their own inability to act themselves. Palestinians know how to oppose but can’t seem to build a consensus on supporting a plan for final peace.

Despite Israel’s political earthquakes, Sharon will need to find the courage to do even more. It’s not so much about making more concessions to the Palestinians as it is to present the concessions he is willing to make in the context of a national respect.

Palestinians might have lived with the peace plan offered by Sharon’s Labor Party predecessor, Ehud Barak, had there been more time and a better attitude. President Clinton was both the best friend and worst enemy of Palestinian-Israeli peace placing his own personal legacy above the reality of the conflict. Clinton was months away from ending his term in office and he placed an unachievable deadline on the peace plan that in the end destroyed it.

Sharon says he will build a peace based upon the subsequent “road map for peace” that was negotiated with Israel and Palestinians by the Bush administration. The road map has been derailed for most of its existence by the pendulous relations between Palestinians and Israelis marked mainly by waves of horrific violence, suicide bombings, targeted killings and land confiscation.

The road map appeals to Sharon because it gives him a lot of flexibility on what he must do to achieve peace, especially with respect to land. It fails to address the most serious issues, like the challenge of the Palestinian Right of Return. Most Palestinians psychologically are not ready to embrace a plan that compromises that right through compensation rather than return, even though that option is the only one that is realistic.

Can Sharon support giving a Palestinian state a real presence in East Jerusalem, rather than the “public relations plan” offered by Barak that put Palestinian government outside of the city?

Is Sharon really ready to tackle the Israeli equivalent of the “Right of Return,” by dismantling settlements in the West Bank?

But the real challenge is whether or not Sharon has the fortitude for peace that will allow him to confront terrorism while not permitting terrorism to derail peace?

Extremists on both sides, Palestinian and Israeli, know they can stop peace simply by committing an outrageous act of violence. Nearly every time Palestinians and Israelis seemed ready to cross a new peace milestone, the extremists have struck with suicide bombings, killings, assassinations and protests.

These violent extremists have managed to hold the peace process hostage. Every act of violence has been followed by the achievement of their goal, a suspension of the peace talks and an escalation in retaliation.

Palestinians and Israelis are once again at the dark unknowing valley of peace. Do they have the courage to proceed and embrace a peace that is genuinely fair and just, or will they surrender to the extremist and terrorist threats and turn away.

The new Ariel Sharon may have the courage to compromise with the Palestinians if he is willing to compromise with himself in order to save the future for both peoples.

Only time and elections will tell if he is up to the challenge.

— Ray Hanania is former president of the Palestinian American Congress, an award winning syndicated columnist and author. He can be reached at www.hanania.com