3 Things You Need to Willfully Overlook Before Reading This New York Times Op-Ed
September 4, 2012 9:50 by Pesach Benson
History professor Paul Thomas Chamberlin makes the case for talking to terrorists using President Nixon’s decision not to deal with the PLO as a case study.
He writes in a New York Times op-ed:
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. The decision to label all armed Palestinian groups “terrorists” postponed negotiations with the P.L.O. by 15 critical years, during which time the Lebanese civil war and the intifada helped spawn more militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. By the time relations were finally established in the late 1980s, Hamas’s star was already rising.
This historical revisionism requires you to willfully overlook three points:
- The “moderate” PLO openly called for Israel’s destruction during the 70s.
- The “moderate” PLO only got a seat at the table by paying lip service to renouncing violence in the 90s.
- Once in power, the “moderate” PLO fueled a violent intifada.
Yet Chamberlin concludes:
The lesson of America’s reaction to Munich is that the blanket charge of terrorism, coupled with absolute nonrecognition, is too unwieldy a tool for dealing with multiple complex political organizations. For violent groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad, which have unshakable commitments to destroying Israel or re-establishing the Islamic Caliphate, a forceful approach may be appropriate. But Washington shouldn’t rule out alternatives when dealing with groups that may have more limited long-term goals, like Hezbollah and Hamas.
The only difference between the long-term goals of the Chamberlin’s “violent groups” and “moderate groups” is what happens on the day after Israel’s destruction.
The Middle East Sampler 9/4/2012: New York Times Doesn’t Get Gaza | Blogs about Israel aggregation
3:57 pm
Sep 04, 2012
[...] of news items about the moment of silence, but nothing in the opinion section.) Pesach Benson neatly takes the op-ed apart. Rate this:Share this:MoreLike this:LikeBe the first to like [...]
Agree or Disagree:
2 
0
NEC
2:46 pm
Sep 05, 2012
Chamberlain or Chamberlin, seems their moral profile is simmilar-
Agree or Disagree:
3 
0
New York Times: Drei Aspekte dieses Gastbeitrages sollte man nicht übersehen « Medien BackSpin
9:13 pm
Sep 05, 2012
[...] HonestReporting Media BackSpin, 5. September 2012 [...]
Agree or Disagree:
0 
1
JT
12:12 am
Sep 06, 2012
The mistake we make in reading pieces like this New York Times essay is imagining that the authors truly expect their policies to lead to peace. They are not interested in peace, they are looking for a peace process and signing ceremonies. Once the paper is in hand, success is declared and the chapter closed. Consequences are somehow disconnected. For an example, see the 2006 Lebanon cease-fire. none of the provisions have really been carried out – other than Israel ceased firing. Success was declared. How many of the provisions of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty has Egypt fulfilled? Israel evacuated the territory and success was declared.
Agree or Disagree:
1 
0