You had to know this was coming.
The New York Times has a lead idiotorial (that’s an editorial with an idiotic premise) excoriating Benjamin Netanyahu and his speech, before a wildly enthusiastic joint session of congress yesterday.
Here is the first half or so of the idiotorial – in rust – with my comments in blue:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could not have hoped for a more rapturous welcome in Congress. With Republicans and most Democrats as his props, he entered the House of Representatives to thunderous applause on Tuesday, waving his hand like a conquering hero and being mobbed by fawning lawmakers as he made his way to the lectern. That’s right. That’s what happened. It means that, unlike Barack Obama, the people around him, and 50-60 left wing, mostly anti-Israel boycotters – all Democrats (whose seats were joyously taken by others), they have extremely high regard for Mr. Netanyahu and his message. To a President willing to listen and learn, this would be what Barack Obama would call a “teaching moment”. Too bad he, himself, is unteachable.
Even Washington doesn’t often see this level of exploitative political theater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended to challenge President Obama’s foreign policy. Challenging President Obama’s foreign policy makes it worse? Worse? The fact that Israel’s Prime Minister, who leads a country specifically targeted for annihilation by the people Mr. Obama’s “deal” would allow to keep its nuclear capabilities is against its being allowed to keep nuclear capabilities is a problem to you? What did you expect Netanyahu’s position to be? That it’s a great idea, and he’ll send a few Israeli physicists over to help with the project?
Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17. He offered no new insight on Iran and no new reasons to reject the agreement being negotiated with Iran by the United States and five other major powers to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. The Times’ definition of “nothing new”: Netanyahu said the same thing he has said all along: that allowing Iran nuclear capabilities is a gargantuan mistake – not only for Israel’s well-being but the Arab states around Israel (which share his concern, as shown here). In other words, the problem, to Barack Obama and the New York Times, is that Netanyahu did not change his position, and agree with a “deal” that would put Israel and its Arab neighbors in mortal danger. That is stunningly ridiculous.
His demand that Mr. Obama push for a better deal is hollow. He clearly doesn’t want negotiations and failed to suggest any reasonable alternative approach that could halt Iran’s nuclear efforts. Uh, no. That is another stunningly ridiculous claim – and a dishonest one too. He wants successful negotiations that protect his country, and laid out specifics on what the elements of such a deal would be.
Moreover, he appeared to impose new conditions, insisting that international sanctions not be lifted as long as Iran continues its aggressive behavior, including hostility toward Israel and support for Hezbollah, which has called for Israel’s destruction. Gee, what an insight. The Prime Minister of Israel insists that Iran forego aggressive behavior – which, in this case, is its call for the destruction of Israel. Who would have thought Israel could possibly take such a position. What’s wrong with those people anyway.
By the way, doesn’t imposing new conditions and insisting that international sanctions not be lifted until Iran stops overtly threatening Israel, qualify as an alternative approach – you know, the one you said did not exist in the previous paragraph?
Oh, and nice try on your clumsy attempt at disinformation – i.e. putting the threat to Israel 100% on hezbollah, not Iran (which you accuse of being nothing more than “hostile”)…as if Iran’s leaders were not the ones saying they are going to wipe Israel off the map. Another example of going beyond stunningly ridiculous to flat-out dishonest.
Mr. Netanyahu has two main objections. One is that an agreement would not force Iran to dismantle its nuclear facilities and would leave it with the ability to enrich uranium and, in time, to produce enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. Two, that a deal to severely restrict Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel for a decade or more is not long enough. He also dismisses the potential effectiveness of international inspections to deter Iran from cheating. All correct. All 100% legitimate objections. But not to the Israel-haters in DC…or their likeminded pals among the New York Times editorial staff.
Do you need anything else to understand my use of the term “idiotorial”?
If so, here’s a little more. Further on we have this textbook case of New York Times naivete:
Despite his commitment to negotiations, President Obama has repeatedly said he would never let Iran obtain a nuclear weapon and if an agreement is not honored, he would take action to back up his warning. Mr. Netanyahu obviously doesn’t trust him, which may be the most dangerous truth of this entire impasse.
It’s a problem that Netanyahu doesn’t trust Obama? No, it’s a problem that the New York Times does trust Obama – who has lied to our faces on one issue after another, continually, for 6 years.
There’s also a reference to a push-poll of just 700 respondents, who are “educated” on the issues before asking their opinion on the deal Obama is cooking up with Iran. The poll would be a joke to the New York Times if it drew a conclusion the paper’s “brain trust” disagreed with…but it is the holy grail in this idiotorial because it coincides with their views.
Remember when the New York Times was a great newspaper? You must be very old. I’m having trouble remembering when it was even a good one.
