It's been a long time since I read an op-ed as superfluous as Bret Stephens's in the Wall Street Journal. Sugary excerpt:
Which brings me back to the settlements. There may well be good reasons for Israel to dismantle many of them, assuming that such an act is met with reciprocal and credible Palestinian commitments to suppress terrorism and religious incitement, and accept Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state. But to imagine that the settlements account for even a fraction of the rage that has inhabited the radical Muslim mind since the days of Qutb is fantasy: The settlements are merely the latest politically convenient cover behind which lies a universe of hatred. If the administration's aim is to appease our enemies, it will get more mileage out of banning Lady Gaga than by applying the screws on Israel. It should go without saying that it ought to do neither.
Stephens shows that some people who have nothing to say shouldn't try to write about important and serious subjects when they aren't able to make valid points without using faulty, but flashy reasoning and without highlighting properly the context. Stephens's op-ed is ridiculous because he trivialized an important subject to hide the fact that he has nothing to say, that he has no arguments, but just a few die-hard convictions. It's a pity, because better arguments can be used to support his position.