AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT: Jonathan Rauch is one of the few journalists who can be counted on to consistently come up with original thoughts, and today's column, where he proposes having Israel re-occupy the West Bank as an overt gesture towards peace negotiations (counterintuitive as that may seem) possibly coupled with the simultaneous evacuation of certain settlements, definitely qualifies.
Rauch's analysis of the situation is generally excellent. But it's his introduction which should be posted on the chairs of every editorialist and op-ed writer who thinks sending Anthony Zinni back to the region is part of a solution:
Amazingly, the newspapers are still full of diplomats, politicians, and editorialists insisting that the answer must be for the Bush Administration to roll up its sleeves, fully engage the Middle East crisis, and get the peace process back on track. Good idea! How about an intense, personal, eight-year effort by an American President to forge a peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians? How about frequent White House meetings with the principals, tireless hands-on diplomacy, and every imaginable kind of stroking, arm-twisting, map-drawing, cajoling, and pleading?
Oops. Already tried that. Never mind.
Here is one Middle East initiative that would really help: The next diplomat, politician, or editorial writer who declares that the Bush Administration must "fully engage to restart the peace process" should be drawn and quartered. Especially if the offender is a European who risked not one nickel of political capital in the Middle East during the 1990s. And doubly especially if the offender is an Arab who spent the 1990s ducking American pleas to push the Palestinians to make a deal, and who now blames America (America!) for the failure of Middle East peace.
Will the idea work? Probably not. Will it fail more bloodily than what has been tried up to this point? Probably not.