The Minister of National Infrastructures Uzi Landau is not known as an imaginative person. He is a boring man whose world view is identical to that of his father, an Irgun member and close friend of Menachem Begin. He never learned anything and never forgot anything. The famous saying of Yitzhak Shamir, “the Jews are the same Jews, the Arabs are the same Arabs and the sea is the same sea” serves as Landau’s guiding light. Although he is 67 years old, Landau is a politician of the first half of the 20th century, and as such he understands nothing about political correctness and his language is racist, not only toward Arabs. Concerning the contention that his bodyguards were involved in the murder of the Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, the Minister said “what we see is not just a developed Middle Eastern imagination, but a wild one also.” As is known, while westerners such as Landau are rational, people of the East possess wild imaginations. To agree with Landau, imagination is not his strong suit and his head does not work overtime. This is not true for the “Minister Responsible for Minority Affairs,” Avishai Braverman. Braverman is a professor, and even the former President of Ben Gurion University of the Negev. “Israel must on the one hand act according to the rule ‘kill or be killed’ while on the other, it must act bravely to reach a peace of two states for two people.” Braverman, it appears, suffers from a dual personality, a sort of “Dr. Landau and Mr. Avnery,”—at night he awakens to kill Palestinian leaders and the next morning calls for talks with them; at night he approves, as a member of the government, the establishment of new settlements, and in the morning babbles on about “two states for two peoples.” Uzi Landau is not considered a “sane Zionist,” but a dazed radical. Avishai Braverman, on the other hand, is a moderate and considered man. Fact—he is for two states for two peoples. So a majority of the commentators and writers believe, at least. And once again they are wrong: one needs a (western) wild imagination, and a certain amount of insanity, to believe that a Palestinian leader can remain a leader in the eyes of his people if he enters into negotiations for the establishment of a “Palestinian state” on the few areas of the West Bank free of settlements that the Netanyahu-Barak-Braverman government is quickly establishing. Even an unrepentant optimist such as Barak Obama was forced, at this stage, to give up his vision of two states, and what remains is the “two state plan” of George W. Bush—i.e., a project empty of content and perspective. The American President understood that a precondition not only for peace but for the very renewal of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations is a cessation of the settlement policy, and when he perceived that there is no Israeli intention to agree to his request, he turned his back on the vision of peace as he presented it in his Cairo speech. Obama’s vision is not characterized by a wild imagination, but a simple understanding of simple truths: either peace or settlements. One who attempts to combine the two suffers from a wild (western) imagination. Even if he is a respectable professor.