The editors of the Washington Post published an editorial Friday that roundly condemned President Barack Obama for the “barnyard epithet directed at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu” and called on the administration to “reset relations” with the Israeli leader.
The “crudeness” of the “chickens***” insult by a “senior administration official” quoted by the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg “raised the question of why the Israeli leader provokes such passionate animus from an administration that coolly shrugs off insults from the likes of Vladimir Putin,” the editorial stated.
It noted the Obama administration’s obvious frustration at not being able to convince the Netanyahu government to stop Israel from building for Jews in areas claimed by the Palestinian Authority.
“Some analysts conjecture that dissing Mr. Netanyahu may be part of the administration’s groundwork for the deal it hopes to strike with Iran on its nuclear program this month,” the editorial board road. “The Israeli leader is almost certain to oppose any accord, just as he denounced the interim arrangement struck last year; he can be expected to lobby Israel’s allies in Congress to oppose any lifting of sanctions.
“The ‘chickens—‘ label applied to Mr. Netanyahu, who served as an elite paratrooper, was linked to an assessment that, out of caution, he missed Israel’s opportunity to carry out a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Presumably Mr. Obama welcomed that prudence. But the administration, said the speculators, wanted to signal to both Tehran and Jerusalem that it would not be hesitant to do battle with Mr. Netanyahu over an Iran deal.
“That seems to give the White House too much credit for calculation. In reality, the attack reflects an unreasonable and disproportionate reaction to Mr. Netanyahu’s resistance to U.S. nostrums on matters of crucial importance to his country — as well as rank unprofessionalism by one or more of the president’s senior aides…
“Given the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East and the very real threat that it will spread and escalate, Mr. Obama would be wise to initiate a reset with Mr. Netanyahu.”
If the feedback to the editorial is any guide, most readers are not at all sympathetic to Israel. Most of the comments made Israel out to be an ingrate that does not says “thanks” for American assistance by taking orders from Washington.
The Washington Post as recently as four years ago was usually on the side of the Obama administration and routinely criticized Israel for not abandoning Jews in Judea and Samaria.
The Palestinian Authority’s constant incitement against Israel, its refusal to conduct real negotiations and instead insist on “all or nothing,” plus Hamas rocket and missile attacks, the complicity of Iran, the frightening appeal of radical Islam and President Barack Obama’s fiasco in Syria – all of these factors have helped turned the newspaper against Obama.
Notably, The New York Times editors did not deem it important to comment on the “barnyard epithet” unless it does so on Sunday.
So far, the newspaper continues to report and opine “all the news that fits” its agenda.
