Tuesday’s New York Times editorial about Netanyahu’s “pushback” on Iran at the United Nations General Assembly doesn’t say much, except for implying that diplomacy is preferable to military force when it comes to Iran’s nuclear program. But what is noteworthy (and irksome) is the way in which the editorial board of the paper refers to the Israeli prime minister:
Mr. Netanyahu has legitimate reasons to be wary of any Iranian overtures, as do the United States and the four other major powers involved in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. But it could be disastrous if Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters in Congress were so blinded by distrust of Iran that they exaggerate the threat, block President Obama from taking advantage of new diplomatic openings and sabotage the best chance to establish a new relationship since the 1979 Iranian revolution sent American-Iranian relations into the deep freeze. (Emphasis mine)
“Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters in Congress?” Could you imagine any other world leader being written about in such a way? The wording makes it sound like Netanyahu is an American citizen and a member of the government – perhaps the senator of the 51st state? His name could very well be substituted in the sentence by any American politician, for example: “John McCain and his supporters,” “Eric Holder and his supporters,” or “Lindsey Graham and his supporters.” They all could have made just as much sense.
And why is it that the New York Times simply accepts that Netanyahu and his friends in Congress have the power to “block President Obama from taking advantage of new diplomatic openings?” Why not make the editorial about how ridiculous it is that Netanyahu could have such sway over American foreign policy?
Perhaps there is a possibility that in between the lines of this bland editorial lies a cryptic attempt to take a jab at AIPAC and its supporters in Congress who are trying to get the U.S. to apply military force in Iran?
Maybe “AIPAC” should have been substituted for “Mr. Netanyahu” in the editorial. Too bad the Times doesn’t have the guts to go through with that.
Read more:
‘The New York Times’ investigates a Palestinian hobby
‘NY Times’ publishes defense of racial segregation in Israel