Jack Strocchi has engaged in some justified gloating at my expense in relation to the Israel-Palestine peace talks where progress has been much better than I expected, though success is still far from being assured.
Sharon’s concession that the Israeli occupation is untenable, and apparent acceptance of a contiguous Palestinian state means that there is now no logical alternative to a deal similar to the Clinton plan of a few years ago. Although Sharon would undoubtedly like to keep substantial parts of the West Bank, the logic of the process will push it towards a limited exchange of territory. But Sharon is still hedging, and may be hoping to wait out the notoriously short US attention span. Still, Bush, prodded by Blair, has gone a lot further than I thought he would, and has dragged Sharon with him.
Having made this concession, I’ll point out that, as I predicted, the Bush Administration is making just as much of a mess of the occupation of Iraq as it did in the case of Afghanistan, and for the same basic reason. They have been prepared to spend billions of dollars and lots of attention on war, but almost nothing on peace.
In an odd sense, the postwar mess in Iraq has been good for the Israel-Palestine peace process. It’s clear now that if the peace process fails, the chances of a successful outcome in Iraq would be greatly reduced by resurgent anti-US feeling throughout the region. That along with the failure to find WMDs and the gradual realisation that Iraqi casualties were much higher than first claimed, would discredit the case for war, although this would probably take the form of gradually disillusionment (as with Gulf War I) rather than a sharp swing in public opinion. So Bush has a lot riding on this, and Blair even more so.
John Quiggin 
What “justified”? What “progress”? All there is is a round of diplomacy.
All this optimism is terribly dangerous, not just counting chickens before they are hatched but going out on a limb on their (false) security. It’s as fatuous as all those journalists who were taken aback at how unenthused Northern Irish of various flavours were over the last much touted piece of paper.
All you can ever say of this sort of thing is it’s a start – but in the case of Israel/Palestine I won’t believe in a solution until I see someone squaring the circle of the parties’ genuinely irreconcilable needs.
Now if they only offered me the job…
Nah, I agree with John – on the face of it things have gone far better than expected. Unlike on most ME issues, Jack Strocchi appears to have made the right call here. Its the only justification for the Iraq war that events have vindicated (the others were and are complete rubbish).
Of course it could still all end in tears like previous attempts. People might be just playing games (Sharon is a lying bastard. And the Palestinians can be a devious lot too). But so far so good.
And John’s made an intriguing point – Bush is trapped by his own rhetoric. That’s why he’s had to give a roadmap that upsets the Israelis more than the Palestinians (directly contrary to my predictions).
derrider derrider bags my ME prediction record.
(warning – looming intellectual gloat)
Unlike on most ME issues, Jack Strocchi appears to have made the right call here.
Before the war I predicted the following, on my blog and Pr Q commentary box (archival records for which appear to be lost but he will confirm):
– the war’s occurrence (over UNSC opposition)
– it’s rough timing: 2003 for the 2004 election
– outcome: rapid US victory
– phoniness of WMD rationale: inspections charade
– true strategic rationale: Saudi/Iraqi swap
– balance of power: promise for ME peace
– duration: Rumsfeld 6 days-6 weeks estimate.
I was a somewhat off with my estimate of Iraqi casualties from the war woud be, as I thought civilian casualties would be “low four digit levels” and military casualties would be ~ 10,000. (ten to one ratio)
As it is the numbers appear to be twice that.
Still these estimates were much closer to the truth than those given by the anti-war hysterics.
I held my nerve in public blogging over the early course of the war, only succumbing to war-nerve hysteria by the end of week two, after a steady diet of gloom & doom from the BBC, ABC & Pr Q’s blog.
I would be interested to see if any other blogger/commentators has a comparable record of confirmed quantitatively measurable, empirically testable hypotheses.
Certainly derrider derrider did not.
Have a look at my publications page. I used the example of the high risk of ocean racing disasters BEFORE the one we had later that year. Only, being cautious, I put risk (“it’s dangerous”) not prediction (“it will happen”). In the same way, I still hold that the whole Iraq venture was a large and unnecessary risk, and that getting away with such things in no way discredits that position – and I did not go as far as predictions, only pointed out risk.
Getting back on topic, I see no inconsistency between my “it’s a start” and DD’s “on the face of it things have gone far better than expected”. Our positions differ on the accounting question of when to recognise the gains, not of whether its worth giving peace a chance. Me, I think it can’t make things worse so it’s worth trying. DD and JQ, if I am judging them correctly, think it is a positive help and that we know that for a fact at this point.
Cynically, I do not feel that it helps that Sharon understands that occupation is not indefinitely sustainable, especially not if co-existence is also not indefinitely sustainable. Remember, that understanding is also the driving impulse behind the “population transfer” agenda. I suspect he is leading up to manufacturing a rationale for that, or at least treating it as a Plan B that he realistically expects to have to use and with no compunctions about collateral casualties.
Now that recent events should have given people hindsight, do they see where I was coming from in not being optimistic and not recognising the sale in the accounts just yet?