Little Hawk writes: "As for Israel, Israel is totally able to defend itself. That has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt. They are not the victim in the Middle East, they are the one holding a whip and a club in their hands. They have at least a couple of hundred nuclear weapons, and they also have conventional military superiority over all their neighbours in that region."

I used to think something like that years ago. I'm not sure today. If there won't be any agreement, in the long term I think Israel's existence can't be taken for granted. If there'll ever be an agreement, Israel will have to retreat from a number of its colonies and to reintroduce the land for peace bargain. Difficult, but not impossible. I wonder whether Israel's counterpart would accept the two states solution in the right terms T. L. Friedman described it in an article on The New York Times some years ago (that I've lost and would like to find out), when he wrote something like that: one state each, not one and a half. It means, not Israel plus the colonies, nor Palestina plus the Palestinian refugees in Israel instead in the Palestinian state. Another possible solution, in my opinion, is that the Arab state be formed by the new Palestinian part (West Bank, Gaza etc) united with Jordan: it could be interesting for both Jordan and the Palestinians. Anyway, these are only opinions and wishes. The question is whether the land for peace bargain and the mutual recognition will ever be possible.