ADVERTISEMENTS

It is worth pointing out that WT's post about Khalidi, and the accusation in general, works by making a statement that is literally true but that implies something scary and sensational.  Also WT's post says nothing about what Mr. Khalidi actually believes or says.  That, I submit, is because such a nuanced discussion is above the level at which these kinds of arguments take place.   And it's a pretty damning omission when the whole basis for the scary and sensational implication is Mr. Khalidi's purported radical beliefs.

The Washington Post's has a balanced editorial that gives this the small consideration it deserves.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.