In retelling the still-unfolding story of President Obama addressing the world on the Middle East and the Israeli Prime Minister’s response, the New York Times proclaims that “President Obama struck back at PM Netanyahu.” This language struck insinuates that a battle took place.
The Times quotes Daniel Levy, whom they describe as, “a former Israeli peace negotiator and a fellow at the New America Foundation, a nonpartisan research group.” He is also a Labor Party antagonist of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“For many commentators, elites, and others in Israel, the particulars of the Obama speech will be considered an admonition to Netanyahu and evidence of Netanyahu’s failed policy and diplomacy,” Levy wrote on his blog.
Meanwhile, the Times went on to quote an administration official who said, “That was Bibi over the top. That’s not how you address the president of the United States.”
As if referring to the Prime Minister by his nickname is somehow appropriate! Arguably, Netanyahu’s response to the President’s remarks is understandable. Even the Times notes, “But the 1967 border issue has always been privately understood, not spoken publicly, and certainly not publicly endorsed by a sitting American president.”
The Times failed to present a counter-perspective from a Republican or someone more right-leaning in general, of which there are plenty: U.S. Reps. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mike Rogers, as well as Sen. Mitch McConnell all offered differing perspectives.
This article ends with a quote from the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat:
“I am waiting to hear from Prime Minister Netanyahu. Does he accept the doctrine of two states on the 1967 line with agreed swaps or not? Before we hear that acceptance, we are just grinding water.”