An interesting letter from todays NYTimes:

[kentuck]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/opinion/l28hamas.html

<snip>
I once asked Israel's founder and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, why he never appointed Ariel Sharon army chief of staff, and he replied that the general in a top command would "ruin" Israel.

Years later, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin told me that he sat down to talk peace with Yasir Arafat because he was the only Palestinian with the prestige to sign a final accord, and that without peace Hamas could someday threaten to take over leadership of the Palestinian area.

Both Israeli leaders were right, as attested by Hamas's victory in the Palestinian election. Mr. Sharon triggered the second bloody intifada with his provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and his refusal to talk with Mr. Arafat. These decisions sparked an escalation of extremist recruitment, much as did President Bush's reckless invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Sharon, toward the end of his rule, began to see that perpetual war and occupation are not in Israel's best interest, but history will not look kindly on the disastrous consequences of his, and his companion's, "tough guy" policies for their respective countries and the world.

[acmejack]

1. Generally tough guys do best in the movies

Just a personal observation.

[boobooday]

2. As Ahnold quickly found out!

Too bad Bush doesn't have the sense to understand this simple concept.

[applegrove]

3. Leadership takes a host of tools. Not just brute force. If only sharon

could talk - I mean really - I only he could still talk he might have something to say to is neocons pals.