Bruce J. Richman wrote:

While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times than
a more dovish leader.

Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
responsability ?
Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
from McKelvy... :-(