An impatient person observing the seemingly endless crises, conflicts and uncertainties in the Middle East during the past half-century likely would settle on a grim, absolute prognosis: hopelessness. Current disruption in Israel, centered on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s personal tragedy, might offer confirmation of that view.

Yet, there is ample reason for hope, once one clears away the clutter of warped perspectives, fear-filled minds and naysayers.

The first ones to dismiss are the extremists, including those who see divine intervention in Sharon’s demise. From Pat Robertson, who has blathered about Sharon’s due punishment for “dividing God’s land” to Jewish and Muslim radicals in Israel and surrounding countries who sound eerily similar to one another in saying their prayers have been answered, they are collectively unwelcome and unhelpful. If those critics invested as much time and energy in helping to resolve conflicts in the Middle East as they have in ugly inanities, they would help both the situation and themselves. Health turned its back on Sharon, not God.

In saying that, I am not suggesting an endorsement of his life’s work, which included many excesses. I have discussed my disagreement with Sharon’s policies and practices on numerous occasions. But I grew to appreciate in him a quality found in but a handful of his predecessors: the ability to make surprising moves that appear incongruent with past positions, to modify ideological leanings. Sharon understood that, without compromising Israel’s security, it was possible to make progress toward the resolution of perennial differences between Israelis and Arabs, from the status of Palestinians to Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip. He even went so far as to advocate and launch a new party, a “third way” of consequence in Israeli politics.

In each major case where such awareness has materialized – notably under former Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Rabin – it required a leader with demonstrable security credentials and other solid footing to pursue new directions. And each time, boldness yielded sweeping benefits.

Those filled with fear and anxiety over Sharon, while understandable, should not be allowed to dominate the agenda. No doubt, politics in Israel and the broader region will face far more complications without him. Of course, there is no clear successor. And questions multiply daily about the prospects of upcoming elections in Israel and the staying power of Sharon’s party.

But the sunset of the Sharon era does not close the door on progressive thinking. Nor will his absence at the negotiating table necessarily cause peace to remain elusive. New leaders – potentially great ones – wait in the wings, eager for Israel’s democracy to grant them an opportunity to try their hands at pressing problems.

Arab leaders also know that they cannot afford to embrace frustration and abandon optimism. The crisis of the moment will pass; the cause of peace deserves top priority. In their countries, too, new leaders – potentially great ones – stand ready to tackle the same challenges. They will have an even better chance of succeeding to the extent that their political systems open to democratic practices.

Israeli and Arab leaders need look no further than their constituents for inspiration. Majorities throughout the Middle East crave peace and stability, not war and insecurity. For too long, their lives have been defined by the abnormality of conflict. Still, they have not given up on dreams of a better, safer life.

Sharon may have frequently and famously used the tools of war to achieve his ends, but I believe his long-term legacy will reflect that – in the closing years of his career – he picked up the implements of peace with vigor and vision.