More fun with Matt

I'm just gonna keep haranguing Yglesias, because it seems to get me links. And that's what this blog needs, is links.

Here's the new Israel/Palestine peace plan--published in TNR, that Matt takes exception to:

Priority number one should be a comprehensive ceasefire between Israelis and Palestinians (as opposed to complete resolution of the conflict). This is one area in which even Hamas is likely to share an interest with Israel, in no small part because it could use the respite. Even though this would involve negotiation between Olmert and Abbas (and Abbas would have to ensure that Hamas implements its terms), an effort that forged specific understandings--the Palestinian Authority would halt attacks against Israelis and stop weapons-smugglers; Israel would make no further incursions or arrests--might work.

But a ceasefire is a diplomatic means, not an end in itself. A second priority should be to foster a dialogue between Israelis, Palestinians, and the larger Arab world about the responsibilities of a Palestinian state once it is finally created. How will it interact with Israel and the outside world? The dialogue could hammer out specifics about how normalized Israel-Palestine relations could evolve in stages--and not exist merely at the end of the rainbow.

A third priority--and ultimately the one that will determine the legacy of the Bush administration's statecraft in the Middle East--should be to ensure that Fatah gains strength against Hamas. Fatah must clean up its act, and the Unites States should help. Make no mistake about it, if Hamas wins the next elections in two years (for president and legislative council), the conflict will be transformed from a national conflict into a religious conflict. If that happens, we'll be out of the peace-making business for a long time, and Islamists will be able to dominate the most evocative issue in the region.

And here is the outcome Matt predicts. Call it the six reasons Matt thinks the idea is stupid:

1. Olmert and Abbas make a cease-fire agreement.
2. Someone from Hamas violates the cease-fire agreement.
3. Israel re-occupies the territories.
4. This discredits Abbas an ineffective in improving the condition of Palestinians.
5. Hamas wins the election.
6. Dennis Ross proclaims that conflict has been "transformed between a national conflict into a religious conflict" and America must get "out of the peace-making business for a long time.

Well, allow me to confess ignorance. I can't say that I have any idea where a proper reconciliation proposal should START let alone that I have the means to evaluate this one. But I've gotta say: Compared to a lot of the tripe out there--perhaps especially in the pages of TNR--Ross's plan doesn't seem so bad.

Granted. It seems like people always suggest a dialogue between the Israelis, Palestinians, and other neighbors about the role of a future Palestinian state in the Arab world, but that these dialogues fall apart over Israeli unwillingness to talk about ITS OWN ROLE in the Arab world. And it seems like it might be impossible for Israel to agree to a ceasefire that allows for the fact that Hamas doesn't march in step with Fatah.

Those are the types of problems I see here. But while I can absolutely imagine things proceeding as Matt predicts, I can also see how Ross's  idea might contain a few crucial elements of an actually good plan. So, how would any of you structure one?