Yes, on Planet Khalidi, even Jimmy Carter could be seen as being overtly hostile to the Palestinians. ~Philip Klein

This prompts the obvious question: what reason would anyone have to assume that the Carter administration would not be perceived as hostile to the Palestinians (and to the PLO itself) by what Klein himself identifies as the Palestinian “hardliners” whose views Khalidi was describing?  These days it is fashionable to loathe Carter for his statements and actions concerning Israel and Palestine in recent years, but it seems to me that this has blurred the memory of what his administration actually did (or rather didn’t do) with regard to Israel and the Palestinians in the late ’70s.  From a Palestinian “hardliner” perspective (which does not appear to be Khalidi’s perspective, but one that he was referring to), and it seems to me also as a matter of objective fact, the Carter administration was hostile to the PLO and the Reagan administration proved to be even more so.           

Here’s what I don’t quite understand.  For the sake of argument, let’s grant that everything this article says about Khalidi is true–this article is supposed to be the damning indictment not just of Khalidi, but somehow also of Obama?  Because Obama said he hoped that there should be more dialogue and conversation around the world?  Perhaps even a reasoned discussion concerning Israel and Palestine?  We certainly can’t have that (apparently, we really can’t).  Quick, get a rope! 

Would a scholar with a similar relationship to, say, the ANC be considered such a political untouchable that it is impermissble to have befriended him ten or twenty years after his involvement with the group?  If Khalidi taught here at Chicago and lived in the neighborhood, was Obama supposed to snub the man and have nothing to do with him?  Would that make him sufficiently zealous for the cause?  In any case, how is it politically significant or indicative of any views he held five years ago or today if Obama offered up some kind words for an academic colleague’s conversational and debate skills on the occasion of his colleague’s departure?  Apparently Khalidi showed Obama what his blind spots and biases were, which doesn’t mean that Obama changed any of his views since then, but it might suggest that Obama sees some value in questioning and testing his own assumptions.  That suggests a less rigid, ideological cast of mind, and if that is true the people who will find him most unsettling are ideologues who never question their assumptions.        

Update: Via Andrew, Ron Kampeas notes some basic errors in the effort to tie Khalidi to the PLO:

The problem with the “spokesman” claim is that you can actually prove it’s not true. In saner times, “prove it’s not true” would be a phrase frowned on in an innocent until proven guilty culture. Khalidi’s denial would be enough in the face of a lack of evidence as to same. Those promoting the claim cite a single 1982 article by Tom Friedman; Khalidi says Friedman got it wrong, and that the term “PLO spokesman” was used promiscuously in 1982 Beirut.

More important is this point:

So here’s the thing: What everyone acknowledges is that Khalidi was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1991 Madrid talks. That delegation – to a person – could not have had any formal affiliation with the PLO.

Kampeas has more here.

P.S.  It should have to go without saying that Khalidi has done nothing wrong, and associating with him should not be treated as if it were something that needed to be justified.  Khalidi’s ethnicity and political views are the only reasons why anyone is trying to make this into an issue.  Obama’s critics on this point seem unable to conceive of the possibility of someone having a friend who is Palestinian while at the same time holding conventionally “pro-Israel” views.