...
Basically a controversial hard fork destroy the trust in bitcoin and then no one will be interested in it any more
...
Not necessarily true. I only see a robust and defensible system as one which uses a subordinate chains architecture (which seems to be the focus of the Blockstream work last I looked.) I would welcome a fork of the protocol and blockchain so that those of us who see this as the way forward can work on it without the bloatist baggage and the attack vectors they open up.
...
Jeff supports a hard fork with super majority, I think 2MB is the easiest to reach, or at least everyone can live with (1MB is currently the super majority)
Pfft. That would do exactly nothing toward making Bitcoin some sort of a one-size-fits-all currency (+ dice messaging, doc timestamping, etc, etc.) Need gigabyte blocks for that, and a lot of the existing corp/gov world would love it. Again, I say let them have their wish. I'm confident that ultimately the other path will bear fruit and would actually be something worthwhile.
I don't think that Garzik is an idiot so he has to see the futility. He must just be providing the rest of the mouthbreathers and handjob in some sort of a mindless go-along-to-get-along strategy to buy some time or something like that. Whatever the case he is fairly useless in my opinion.