On Sept. 4, The New York Times publishes an op-ed, “When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists,” in which Paul Thomas Chamberlin, history prof at U of Kentucky, says we should talk to Hamas.
By failing to strengthen moderates within the P.L.O. and effectively locking the Palestinians out of the Arab-Israeli peace process, American officials sidelined potential peacemakers and pushed Palestinian national ambitions to the back burner….
… Washington shouldn’t rule out alternatives [to force] when dealing with groups that may have more limited long-term goals, like Hezbollah and Hamas.
As Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams and Menachem Begin have shown, yesterday’s “terrorists” have a tendency to turn into tomorrow’s peacemakers.
Sept. 4, Scott Roth links the piece on twitter:
20 bucks says Abe Foxman will get a letter to the editor published re this oped. I’m often right about this.
Sept. 5, lengthy letter by Kenneth Jacobson, deputy director of the ADL, is published by Times. It begins:
History tells us the very opposite message that Paul Thomas Chamberlin conveys about talking with terrorists.
Sept 5, Scott Roth:
Well okay, I guess Abe Foxman is on vacation because his deputy gets a letter printed re yesterday’s oped. I win $10.
” New York Times publishes smart op-ed, “When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists,”
What do you think Hamas is in Qatar for? What do you think was really behind Haniyeh’s open letter to the crowd at Charlotte? Hamas and the US have been talking for a long time.
“As Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams and Menachem Begin have shown, yesterday’s “terrorists” have a tendency to turn into tomorrow’s peacemakers.”
Yeah but not Israel,s former Terrorist Leaders.
Nothing peaceful about them or their successors.
That,s all very fine Mr Jacobson, But Israel is still committing State terrorism and land theft.
Besides, Israel needs Hamas.
No room for Peace in the Zionist Psyche.
When interviewing “experts” re: controversial foreign policy issues such as the israeli occupation of Palestine, MSM makes sure that a pro-justice spokesperson is always balanced by an apologist for Israel. No balancing act is required, however, when the interviewee happens to be an apologist for the Zionist entity. Upon returning from West Beirut, post-’82 U.S.-backed Israeli invasion of Lebanon, I experienced this unidirectional balancing act. While inviting me to appear on a local tv station, the station’s programmer informed me that my appearance was contingent upon his finding someone from the Israeli camp to respond to whatever I might say on the subject. Was/Is this official msm policy written in stone? Probably not. More likely experience has taught programmers that whenever someone presents the view on the P/I conflict from the Palestinian side, it’s best that there be program “balance”. Best, that is, if the programmer is to keep his/her job.
Foxman was probably in Canada.