Talking to Terrorists Who Want to Moderately Kill You
In the New York Times Op-Ed section, an American history professor tells us When It Pays to Talk to Terrorists. He presents the moment after the Munic Massacre of 1972 as a missed diplomatic opportunity for Israel and America to engage with "moderates".
The whole piece is horrible. Dishonest. Ludicrous.
Paul Thomas Chamberlin makes a number of bizarre claims. First:
Most scholars of the Palestine Liberation Organization now agree that attacks like the one in Munich were designed by Yasir Arafat’s rivals to shift power away from moderates and into the hands of more radical factions.
The primary motive for the Munich attack was the same as for all Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis: kill as many Jews as possible, as spectactularly as possible. As we have seen before, the difference between so-called moderates and extremists among the Palestinian leadership has always been about the timing and tactics of Jew-killing. None are opposed to it in principle, so long as it is cloaked under the banner of "resistance".
Today, much of the international media describes Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as a moderate, yet he was the financier for the slaughter in Munich. That's moderate?
When Chamberlin uses out-of-context quotes from Arafat to burnish the career terrorist mastermind's own "moderate" credentials, the game is up. He wants to blame Americans and Israelis for Palestinians society's wholesale buy-in to terrorism.
He describes Hezbollah and Hamas as having "more limited long-term goals" -- presumably, nothing less than the destruction of the Israeli state and the mass-killing of all Jews in a newly conquered Palestine -- implying that these are the kinds of terrorist organizations America should be dealing with.
These, you see, are the moderates.
Jonathon Narvey is the Editor of The Propagandist