Do you think that any newspaper in this country would turn over its opinion pages to an op-ed exploring the wants, needs, and desires of the al Qaeda terrorist organization and give a byline to Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar?

Last week, the New York Times gave a hint as to what their response might be to such an overture when it printed an op-ed by the PR man for the terror group Hamas. This week, the paper's new public editor, Clark Hoyt, defended the decision.

I agree that Yousef’s piece should have run, even though his version of reality is at odds with the one I understand from news coverage. He wrote blandly, for example, about creating “an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences” with Israel without mentioning that Hamas is officially dedicated to raising “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine,” which would mean no more Israel.

So, does NAMBLA get some op-ed space this week?

Tigerhawk has a couple of good points regarding the Times' decision-making process.

There are plenty of "opportunities" to hear what Hamas has to say, and plenty of means by which to share Hamas' arguments with the NYT's readers. It could have easily found an academic expert -- even a moderately sympathetic one -- to write about "what Hamas has to say." Shipley's argument obviously posits a false choice. The question is, should the Times turn over some of its immensely valuable op-ed space to a spokesman for a gang of terrorists? It decided to give voice to a man waging a propaganda war on behalf of a criminal organization that is -- at best -- an enemy of our ally and an ally of our enemy.

There's the old saw about not being so open-minded that your brain falls out. The people running the Times editorial page would do well to take that to heart.