NY Times tries to find a thread of peace in the Middle East:

What has happened… is that the use of the term “terrorist” has become a simplistic point, counterpoint offensive of its own, reflecting the growing influence of radicalism on both sides. It is often used to cloud issues, to avoid having to talk and to try to appear to take the moral high ground, they said.

The article is about how moral high ground is relative without looking into what that means. Some notes on moral relativism. The belief that:

as a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be.

And…

The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons.

Basically, this sounds like a version of the clash of civilizations mentality. The second quote also sort of negates that the whole fight for individual rights in the US is universal as human around the world. Also, it goes against the assumption that terrorism has anything universal to say about religion.

Pluralism would involve negotiating a higher moral reality, rather than a common ground that is based on religious difference (italics mine):

Isaiah Berlin (1998) argued that, though some moral values are universal, there are also many objective values that conflict and are not commensurable with one another. He called his position pluralism and rejected the label ‘relativism’.

How do we translate what Obama’s election said to the world in language that others can understand? In Russia, we can be silly again, as Hillary found out but there’s no room to playing off an absent Muslim father-figures in the Middle East like Al-Queda did when they went there. Better be social, present, and humble in the region. Better to try new things, confuse others, than stay confused ourselves.

Zakaria wants to deal with the conflict and learn to live with radical Islam. It’s a new approach. In terms of diplomacy, I’m not convinced one approach is enough.