On Wednesday, David Horovitz, the liberal editor of the Times of Israel called the emerging Iran deal: “A bad deal. Far, far worse than no deal at all.” Also on Wednesday, the liberal editorial board of the New York Times called the Iran framework “a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal,” and claimed that Israel had offered “offers no workable options.” In order to arrive at that conclusion, however, the Times had to rely on a different set of facts from Horovitz–facts it invented.
Chief among these is the claim that Israel is demanding that “every vestige of Iran’s nuclear program.” That is emphatically not what Israel has demanded. In fact, in his address to Congress last month–which the Times editors evidently spent too much time protesting and too little time watching–Netanyahu suggested Israel would be willing to accept some Iranian nuclear activities in “A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally.”
The Times presents Israel’s recent list of suggested changes to the Iran deal as if they are hard-line demands, rather than attempts at a compromise that would still prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Instead of reporting the truth, the Times editors castigate Israel and condescend to explain the basics of diplomacy: “In any negotiation, there could never be a deal without compromise.” Meanwhile, the Times rules out any discussion of Iran’s broader regional role.
Horovitz is no great fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But because he is looking at the Iran deal in the cold light of fact, he sees the Obama administration’s appeasement for what it is–an “unfolding farce.”
He addresses Obama: “From here, it looks like you could have done a whole lot better. In fact, it looks like the very outcome you promised you’d avoid: A deal that lifts the economic pressure on an evil regime, and clears its route to the bomb.”