Why does the NYT publish op-eds about news stories that have already been debunked?

Phillip Weiss is concerned that the New York Times is not sufficiently anti-Israel and asks:

Why does the 'Times' only let Arabs criticize Israel?

He elucidates his point:

The reader sees Bisharat and says, Well, he would feel that way, he's Arab, and it's an ancient feud. But there are many non-Arabs who would gladly lift a pen against the oppression done in our name.

I'm sorry but has he ever read Roger Cohen or Nicholas Kristof? Or the editors of the Times? Nor should he forget that one of the most prominent anti-Israel columnists over the years was Anthony Lewis.

The op-ed in question was by one George Bisharat who cited the recently debunked charges that Israeli soldiers had engaged in war crimes. (via memeorandum) They weren't just debunked, but Ethan Bronner the Israel correspondent of the Times reported on the debunking! As Noah Pollak notes:

Except that there never was any "chilling testimony" -- there were rumors circulated by an anti-IDF activist, which were breathlessly republished by Haaretz and its American counterpart, the Times. His opening claim does, however, set an appropriately mendacious tone for the rest of the piece. Bisharat says that Israel committed six separate violations of international law during Operation Cast Lead, and the first one he cites lays the foundation for the five that follow:

Pollak also effectively refutes Bisharat's other arguments.

According to Legal Insurrection, it appears that Bisharat has a habit of manufacturing history. (h/t Israel Matzav.)

But why did the NY Times run an op-ed after one of its principal points had been refuted by its own reporting? Was running an anti-Israel op-ed that important?

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.