Now, on the Palestinians vis-a-vis the peace process... Up until the early 1990s, there had hardly been a "softie" in the Palestinian side who would aspire to make peace with Israel. Hardline rhetorics and actions -- that of total destruction of Israel -- was almost a norm in the Palestinian society. I vaguely recall there was a Palestinian man who advocated "Gandhi style" peaceful resistance to Israelis in the early 80s (something Mohammad...I foget his first name), but he too was wuickly put into strict house arrest by the Israelis. Such was the fear among the Israelis too at the time -- they imagined a non-radical Palestinian would eventually actually achieve what they feared the most, a Palestinian state. Arafat, who had just emerged as a radical hardliner from the Intifada of the 80s, was still trusted well by his people. This may be why he was quite successful in reaching agreements with the israelis in 1993, the Oslo Accords. Later, with the rise of Hammas, however, Arafat and his Fatah party begun to be seen as "softies". Again, as I said earlier, the "softies" in the eyes of their respective people have a hard time making peace overtures to enemies. Hence, I think, Arafat too found it harder and harder to realize peace with Israel in the latter stages of his rule. This is reflected on the failure of the Camp David (2000), where he almost made a meaningful peace with with Ehud Barak, but failed in the end. Barak also represented a "soft" Labour in Israel, added recipe for failure. On the US... I think the question of hardline vs. liberal does not play as important a role from the US perspective vis-a-vis peace between Israelis and the Palestinians as it does from an Israeli or Palestinian perspectives. Afterall, a Reppublican George Bush senior and a Democrat Bill Clinton both were able to achieve important landmarks in the peace process. We can also see that the previous attempts by US leadership to engage in meaningful peace in the region has been by-and-large bipartisan. The willingness to adopt liberal principles is always a key ingredient that we cannot downplay, but more than the "hardness" or the "softness" of the US presidency over the issue, what is required here is the willingness and the ability to withstand the pressure from the Jewish lobby. For this, we need a bold person with a great vision. Keeping US political games in view, such boldness in US presidency normally comes in the second term. George Bush senior was brave enough to try it out in his very first term, though. Fionally, in a nutshell, the following is what I consider crucial in the process, and the opportunity thereof, of making lasting peace possible between the Israelis and the Palestinians: 1. Hardline Israeli leader in power, preferably that of Likud, but with such a good heart, or enormously frustrated with the war, that s/he would be willing to adopt some liberal principles regarding the Palestinians, and be willing to shove them down the throats of his fellow hardliners. 2. Hardline Palestinian leadership with similar ability and willingness. 3. A US leadership, liberal or not, but willing to adopt, again, the liberal principles, that is willing to withstand the pressure from the Jewish lobby. 4. All of the above being all else (foreign influence) equal. Europeans are bound to agree to any deals that promises peace. Saudis, Egyptians and the Jordanians are likely to accept the offers if made by the US. One might have to work a little more on the Iranian and the Syrian fronts, but the task would not be as enormous if 1, 2, and 3 are in place. Disclaimer: Everything I have written above are my personal observations. Being relatively novice on the issue, however, I may have been wrong on many fronts.