Monday, March 19, 2007


My futuristic scenario has trigerred an interesting disucssion on blog Jim Henley's blog about the global role of the U.S. and the potential for conflict with China. I also want to draw your attention to Steve Sailer's provocative analysis of Israel-Palestine on Taki's Top Drawer and my related comments. In that context, Jackson Diehl in his column in The Washington Post makes the same point I've been making for quite a while, that all the talk, and hope and expectation with regard to the revival of the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process is just a lot of B-S (check for examples this, and this, and this). Diehl concludes by arguing that:
You might think that talking about the parameters of peace can't do any harm. But history shows that it can. President Clinton's push for a peace deal at the end of his presidency raised expectations that, when dashed, helped produce the bloody Israeli-Palestinian warfare that followed. Some Israeli officials fear a repeat: When nothing comes of the Saudi initiative or Rice's political horizon, Hamas will have the justification it needs to launch the war-in-waiting in Gaza.

There's also the opportunity cost. Instead of talking about final borders and refugees, Olmert, Abbas and Rice might usefully be cutting deals that would ease conditions for average Palestinians in Gaza, release prisoners on both sides, solidify the cease-fire -- and maybe head off that war. Isn't that better than make-believe?

Indeed, I'm always fascinated by the fact that my friends in the "reality based community" when it comes to Iraq seem to be joining the "faith based community" when it comes to Israel-Palestine. They should explain why Washington would has made a mess in Iraq is going to do better in the Holy Land.