Name That Process

Rick Richman
Contentions/Commentary
13 December '10

In Friday’s State Department press conference, P.J. Crowley rejected a description of the administration’s new peace process as “indirect talks.” That produced the following colloquy:

QUESTION: What’s – why are you allergic to saying, yeah, it’s going to be indirect talks. I mean, it’s obvious from what you’ve described that that’s what it is. They’re not talking to each other, you’d like them to talk to each other sometime, but now, like a tired, weary, and sad marriage counselor, you’re going to shuttle back and forth between them. (Laughter.)

MR. CROWLEY: All right, Arshad, tell us what you really think. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: What’s the problem with – I mean, what’s the problem with saying indirect talks? Why is that – why are you allergic to that phrase? … Why won’t you call them indirect talks?

MR. CROWLEY: I’m not going to put a label on them…

QUESTION: Can you call them parallel talks?

MR. CROWLEY: Samir, I’m not playing a – do we have Middle East labels for $200?

“Parallel talks” is not a bad label, since the two sets of talks — like parallel lines — are never going to meet. But that label does not quite capture the logic of the process.

(Read full "Name That Process")

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.