That's not really the point I was making at all. Far from "being used as justification", I was suggesting that they are a genuine causal factor in "Israel's heavy-handedness". And that while that does not justify the heavy-handedness, it needs to be understood, accepted and factored into our thinking about this subject.

I think "world-destroying" might be overstating things, but otherwise spot on. That's what makes this situation so intractable. On the one hand I have major qualms about the very nature of the State of Israel. On the other hand, assuming we want to rule out "almighty bloodbath" as an outcome, then recognising Israel's right to exist is clearly an essential part of any solution.

So I'm not recommending or suggesting the destruction of the State of Israel (except in the more abstract sense that I'd like to see us evolve towards a world where religious or racially defined nation states no longer exist).

In fact, somewhat unfashionably, I think the first major step on the way to a lasting peace in the Middle East needs to be taken by the Palestinian and wider Islamic world rather than by Israel.

I think all the major Islamic (and Islamist!) organisations and nations need to issue statements recognising the State of Israel based upon the 1967 borders and offering an unconditional guarantee that all hostilities will cease should Israel accept those borders.

Only at that point can meaningful progress be made. Most of the concessions, in practical terms, will have to be made by the Israelis -- ending the occupation of the West Bank, lifting the siege of the Gaza strip, rolling back the settlements, etc. But none of that can happen until Israel's existence isn't being threatened.

If you take the diagnosis of paranoia seriously, then it follows that you'll never make progress dealing with the problem until the sufferer is in a non-threatening environment. And until the voices calling for the destruction of Israel are quelled it's unrealistic, sadly, to expect rational or "proportionate" policy to emerge from Israel.

Quelling those voices is difficult though. AFter all, they have something of a vested interest in steering Israel towards irrational and counter-productive policies. They find the "almighty bloodbath" outcome less objectionable than most of us (though I suspect they overestimate their chances of being perpetrators rather than victims in that bloodbath).

So what chance is there that Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria and the rest of them all make absolute cast-iron guarantees that they will accept the State of Israel within the (kind of) UN-mandated 1967 borders?