In a surprising editorial, the Los Angeles Times, usually in lockstep with Obama Administration policy, writes that whatever the circumstances were that preceded Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress Tuesday, members of Congress should not boycott the speech, but listen to what Netanyahu has to say.
Noting that some Democrats, loyal to Obama, plan to boycott the speech, the Times writes, “We understand their irritation, but Netanyahu deserves a respectful hearing even if the auspices of his appearance are exasperating. Like other nations in the region, Israel has understandable concerns about a nuclear-armed Iran.”
The Times then segues to the supposed worry that Israel has that once Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia would want nuclear weapons, too. The Times slyly rips Israel in the following sentence, writing, “Unsurprisingly, Israel prefers the status quo, in which it has a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region.” Of course, the need for Israel to maintain its implied nuclear edge arises from the fact that its army is vastly outnumbered by armies hostile to it.
The Times placates critics of the op-ed by adding, “But hearing out Netanyahu doesn’t mean taking everything he says at face value or abdicating to Israel this country’s decision about whether it’s possible to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran without making a fateful decision to use military force.”
The Times correctly states that Netanyahu, on one side, and Obama and his compatriots from the P5+1 nations, on the other, differ on crucial elements of a deal with Iran, stating, “Israel believes Iran must be prevented from enriching uranium at all; the P5+1 seem willing to allow Iran to engage in limited enrichment for peaceful purposes. Another difference involves whether and when an agreement would “sunset.” Israeli officials are reportedly alarmed by reports that an agreement might expire after only 10 years.”