Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The War of the New York Times Against Benjamin Netanyahu

The War of the New York Times Against Benjamin Netanyahu

Mideast Media Sampler 10/15/2013 The New York Times ramps up its campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Last week in an article On Iran Talks, Congress Could Play ‘Bad Cop’, the New York Times quoted an “expert” named Cliff Kupchan:

It is a role that Congress shares with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who warned the United Nations that Mr. Rouhani was a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” and urged the United States to ignore his conciliatory words and redouble the pressure on Iran.

“Netanyahu’s speech was widely ridiculed in this town,” Mr. Kupchan said, “but it largely reflects the views of many members of Congress.”

New York Times

I’m sure that in some Washington circles – those who believe words and meaningless agreements are more important than actions – Netanyahu’s speech was ridiculed. But I’m not convinced that it was widely ridiculed.

That comment was followed up by a fuller attack on Netanyahu, Netanyahu Takes a Lonely Stance Denouncing Iran.

With a series of major speeches — three more are scheduled next week — and an energetic media blitz, Mr. Netanyahu, 63, has embarked on the public-diplomacy campaign of his career, trying to prevent what he worries will be “a bad deal” with Iran. Insisting on a complete halt to uranium enrichment and no easing of the economic sanctions he helped galvanize the world to impose on Iran, Mr. Netanyahu appears out of step with a growing Western consensus toward reaching a diplomatic deal that would require compromise.

But such isolation is hardly new to a man with few personal friends and little faith in allies, who shuns guests for Sabbath meals, who never misses a chance to declare Israel’s intention to defend itself, by itself.

“Netanyahu is most comfortable predicting disaster, scaring people into doing something,” said Mitchell Barak, a Jerusalem political consultant who worked for him in the early 1990s and has watched him closely since. “The problem is now he’s lost momentum. His message is clear, his message is the same, the situation is the same, but everyone else’s perspective has changed. It’s like you’re the only one in a dark room with a flashlight.”

I don’t remember this Mitchell Barak, but he sounds like a one time supporter who soured on his former employer. In other words, he’s not exactly a disinterested observer.

Still how “out of step,” is Netanyahu?

PM Benjamin Netanyahu

Significantly, in his speech before the UN’s General Assembly two weeks ago, said:

Like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rouhani’s words. But we must focus on Iran’s actions.
And it’s the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction between Rouhani’s words and Iran’s actions that is so startling. Rouhani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy. Iranian democracy, he said.
But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.

Rouhani spoke of “the human tragedy in Syria.” Yet Iran directly participates in Assad’s murder and massacre of tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Syria, and that regime is propping up a Syrian regime that just used chemical weapons against its own people.

Rouhani condemned the “violent scourge of terrorism.” Yet in the last three years alone Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 cities on five continents.

Rouhani denounces “attempts to change the regional balance through proxies.” Yet Iran is actively destabilizing Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, and many other Middle Eastern countries.

Rouhani promises “constructive engagement with other countries.” Yet two years ago, Iranian agents tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador in Washington, DC.

And just three weeks ago, an Iranian agent was arrested trying to collect information for possible attacks against the American Embassy in Tel Aviv. Some constructive engagement!

Yet everything that Netanyahu said in those paragraphs – about Iran’s involvement in Syria, its sponsorship of terrorism, its destabilization efforts in the Middle East, the attempt on the Saudi ambassador and spying on the American embassy have all been reported by the New York Times. Does the New York Times believe that all it has reported on Iran’s state sponsored terrorism is false or, at least, inconsequential?

The real question is not why Netanyahu is “out of step,” but why people read a few moderate tweets and assume that they mean more than very aggressive and hostile actions?

Besides, Netanyahu is not as alone as the New York Times alleges. On Sunday, the Washington Post – representing a more grounded liberal consensus in Washington than the New York Times – ran an editorial, Iran’s commitment to disarmament must be tested before sanctions are lifted.

A year ago, Iran’s growing stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent appeared to be the most dangerous piece of its nuclear infrastructure, because that material could be quickly converted to bomb-grade. The enrichment takes place in an underground facility that has little plausible use other than for weapons production. A freeze or shutdown of that plant and the securing of the material already produced, if accepted by Tehran even six months ago, would have eased the threat that Iran could race to produce a bomb sometime soon.

Since then, however, Iran has begun installing a new generation of centrifuges at its largest enrichment plant, in Natanz. Because they can process uranium far more quickly, these new machines create a threat of an Iranian nuclear breakout beyond that posed by the 20 percent stockpile. Meanwhile, a new reactor based on heavy-water technology, in Arak, is due for completion next year and would allow Iran to produce plutonium that could be used in bombs.

Any accord with Iran, even an interim arrangement, must take these new facts into account. No sanctions relief should be granted unless Iran takes steps that decisively push back its potential time frame for producing the core of a nuclear warhead. That means that the advanced centrifuges and the Arak reactor must now be part of any deal.

This might as well have been taken from Netanyahu’s speech. It’s clear that the editors of the Washington Post don’t accept the premise of the New York Times that the goal of negotiations with Iran is not simply to reach an agreement, but rather to reverse Iran’s progress towards the creation of nuclear weapons. It also shows that Prime Minister Netanyahu is neither as ridiculed nor as isolated as the New York Times would like to pretend.

[Photo: State Department Photo / Wiki Commons]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


More evidence of a world gone stark raving mad.

The New York Times is a little biased. For example they have no problem with Obama’s Muslim brotherhood appointee to Homeland Security either. Sure, Netanyahu just wants to scare people and the Iranians only want nuclear electric power, What possible interest would they have in weapons of mass destruction and nuclear blackmail. Relax, the NYT says everything will be OK because Rouhani has a friendly smile.

The NY Times was always anti-Zionist, anti the establishment of Israel, always afraid the Sulzberger’s would be accused of dual loyalties. They still haven’t given up on the hope Israel will disappear, though the Jewish part of the Sulzberger’s have long since gone extinct.

That, in a nutshell, is behind the Time’s ongoing assault against Jews and Israel.” It is, to quote Lady Macbeth, to “”out, out, damn spot” of Jewish family genealogy.

One quibble: the New York Times is not Liberal. The New York Times viewpoint is to Liberalism what revisionist historians are to history. That is, they take a set of facts, or rumor, or cocktail party banter, and hammer it into a mosaic of their own making, in order to come up with something “fresh.”

Israel, like The Great Society and Affirmative Action, was once a Liberal cause célèbre. In my opinion, each of them was a great idea, with some serious glitches in the execution and significant perverse results.

That said, although I have always doubted the wisdom of re-establishing Israel in the Middle East, I admire the implementation. The Israelis bought their land and established their country under the existing framework of international law, and they have established something vanishingly rare in the Middle East: the rule of law, fairly applied to all of its people. Regardless of all the discussion about ancient claims, they have acted fairly under the laws of the present day.

However, there is another nation known as the Promised Land, with good reason. It is a country that has taken the essence of Judaism to its heart. It is us.

Here’s a little exposure of the hypocrisy of the leftist (like the NYT author and the UN) and their stance against Israel:

The same people who call Israel and the Tea Party terrorists celebrate and approve of Islam and Bill Ayers.

I will never forgive Robert Redford for playing in the movie glorifying and defending Ayers, Dorn and the rest of their co-conspirators.

Disagreement with Viet Nam war and US Policy does not excuse murder. Their whole group has turned out to be hard-core communists, like much of the Hollywood elite.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | October 15, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    There is no sane, cogent excuse for defending Islam in the face of the works of Islamists and the hateful, violent, racist, misogynist words of Islam’s core texts and the Constitutions of Islamic countries and the rabid rantings of its religious teachers.

What guts this guy has.
What corruption the NY Times has.