It's Time for the Epstein Story to Be Buried
A New Poll Shows Old Media Resistance, and Nicolle Wallace Decides Which Country...
Is Free Speech Really the Highest Value?
Dan Patrick Was Right — Carrie Prejean Boller Had to Go
The Antisemitism Broken Record
Before Protesting ICE, Learn How Government Works
Republican Congress Looks Like a Democrat Majority on TV News
Immigration Is Shaking Up Political Parties in Britain, Europe and the US
Representing the United States on the World Stage Is a Privilege, Not a...
Older Generations Teach the Lost Art of Romance
Solving the Just About Unsolvable Russo-Ukrainian War
20 Alleged 'Free Money' Gang Members Indicted in Houston on RICO, Murder, and...
'Green New Scam' Over: Trump Eliminates 2009 EPA Rule That Fueled Unpopular EV...
Tim Walz Wants Taxpayers to Give $10M in Forgivable Loans to Riot-Torn Businesses
The SAVE Act Fight Ends When It Lands on Trump's Desk for Signature
Tipsheet

Israeli Ambassador to US Fact Checks Unflattering NYT Editorial About Netanyahu

Israeli Ambassador to US Fact Checks Unflattering NYT Editorial About Netanyahu

Ron Dermer, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., gets right to the point in his new editorial published in The New York Times on Wednesday. The newspaper, he said, was flat out wrong in its assessment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s White House “Visit That Wasn’t,” referring to rumors that the leader was set to meet with President Obama earlier this month.

Advertisement

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t “cancel” his meeting with President Obama as your editorial and a news article suggested, because no meeting was set.  

While Israel did suggest that a visit could happen, never did they say it was a sure thing, Dermer corrected the editors. Citing how it was too deep into a presidential election year, the prime minister decided a visit may prove to be too distracting.

In his op-ed, Dermer also expresses frustration over the newspaper’s accusing Netanyahu of dismissing any kind of agreement that would settle hostilities between Israel and Palestinians. Netanyahu’s requests for negotiation, Dermer noted, have been “spurned” by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The New York Times has not exactly been a friendly source for the prime minister. The outlet has often reported on Netanyahu’s rash criticism of the White House’s nuclear deal with Iran and were happy to note his supposed eagerness to pivot to new topics once the administration ignored him and signed it anyway. Editors have also raised eyebrows at the prime minister’s “right-wing” cabinet.

Advertisement

Should Netanyahu have paid President Obama a visit, who knows how The New York Times would have spun it. When he came to Washington a few years ago to meet with the president, it didn’t take a political analyst to conclude that the two world leaders did not get along. Recently, Obama claimed that Netanyahu’s “lecturing” style prevented the two from achieving any real progress on Middle East affairs. Whose side do you think The New York Times would have taken?

In the same editorial, Dermer questions The New York Time’s sincerity in wanting to protect Israel from being de-legitimized by terrorists.

A bold letter to the editor, indeed.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement