The problems with pundits like Mr. Elliott include:
Proposing “solutions” that don’t solve the problem.
Proposing solutions that cannot be implemented.
Representing goals as solutions, with no workable proposals for reaching the goals.
Representing prerequisites for a solution as the solution.
Representing assertions as fact.
Here are some excerpts from the article that illustrate some of these points, along with my comments.
1 GET THE U.S. INVOLVED
Washington can talk to the Israelis and, occasionally, convince them that their best interests require them to talk to those whose motives and behavior they despise.
Point 1 is fatuous and the discussion is vacuous.
What if the motives and behavior between the two parties are incompatible and cannot be changed by discussion? What if substantial violence and bloodshed are a prerequisite for changing the motives and behavior? What if there is no way to change the motives and behavior, except by forcibly eliminating them?
2 DON'T FORGET THE PALESTINIANS
For the Arab states, it is axiomatic that a second key for curing the ills that have plagued the region is peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Point 2 is fatuous and the discussion is vacuous.
Peace is a goal, not a solution. Mr. Elliott has adopted the approach that the way to cure the problem is to cure the problem.
There is little disagreement among states in the region or outside it about what an ideal peace between Israel and the Palestinians would involve. Since before World War II, most reasonable observers have known that sooner or later, two states--one with a Jewish majority, one with an Arab one--would share the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.
Israel has seen suicide bombers flock to its cities from the West Bank and watched rockets sail into its towns from Gaza and Lebanon, areas from which it had withdrawn all its soldiers--in the case of Lebanon, a full six years ago. Within that context, it isn't the details of a two-state solution that matter now; it is something much more elemental. Israel needs to know that in any deal with the Palestinians, its people will be safe.
Suppose it is correct that two-states is a prerequisite, along with safety for Israel. How is it to be achieved? Mr. Elliott leaves this out.
Prerequisites for a solution are neither a solution nor the means of achieving one.
3 GUARANTEE ISRAEL'S SECURITY
THE THIRD KEY TO PEACE is to find a way to convince Israelis that they and their children can sleep easy at night.
Point 3 is fatuous and the discussion is vacuous.
This may be a prerequisite for a solution, but is not a solution. Mr. Elliott provides no basis for thinking that it is even possible.
4 STABILIZE LEBANON
the fourth key to peace is to stabilize Lebanon. In part, that means propping up the fragile government of technocrats led by Fouad Siniora and pumping donors to help Lebanon rebuild itself
But it also means ensuring that Hizballah can no longer use its strongholds in the south to threaten regional peace.
Point 4 is fatuous and the discussion is vacuous.
How? Mr. Elliott has no practical suggestions for stabilizing Lebanon or preventing Hizballah from threatening regional peace.
Mr. Elliott’s approach to the oil problem might be to find a way to burn water.
5 HANDLE IRAN
European officials talk of a "constructive dialogue" with Tehran that involves recognizing it as an important regional power while maintaining the right to sanction it if it breaks the nuclear rules. But Israel--along with many supporters in the U.S.--thinks dialogue with a nation whose leader has said that Israel "must be wiped off the map" is a waste of breath.
Point 5 is fatuous and the discussion is vacuous.
In other words, nobody can agree on how to handle Iran. Mr. Elliott’s approach is to tell us what people think, which is not a solution.
THERE IS, FINALLY, THE MATTER OF IRAQ.
Yes indeed, there is Iraq, where, clearly, everybody knows the solution. Unfortunately everybody’s solution is different from everybody else’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment