Choking on hatred of conservatives so emotionally that they barely can speak, Jewish and gentile American liberals, spewing obscene, seldom-heard language, this week branded the just-re-elected Prime Minister of Israel into the most despised leader in the world.
Over in Koreatown at the (largely anti-) Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, the typically raging leftist editor, steamed by Bibi Netanyahu’s strong victory, emerged from a figurative mosque this afternoon and announced a bizarre plan:
With men in white coats on standby, the dim journalist repeated what he had written in his weekly essay — the ideal panacea for the Jewish state would be for Jews and his new BFFs, Arabs who hate Jews, to lead a coalition government in Jerusalem.
I suggested he send a significant donation to terrorist training schools to keep them solvent while he is visiting himself at the funny farm.
The dim editor, not known for lofty ethics, distorted Mr. Netanyahu’s pre-election message.
He either lied to his readers about what Mr. Netanyahu said or he performed his job so sloppily as to warrant firing.
Standards on the left, however, are sub-modest. He is a cinch to stay.
Fellow left-wing liar Harold Meyerson, the voluble, reliably confused former editor of the L.A. Weekly, like the failing editor trashed Mr. Netanyahu in terms that would be shocking to those unaccustomed to the daily crudity and cravenness on the left. Red-faced with fury that the left had been exposed and lost again, Mr. Meyerson said that Mr. Netanyahu was more of a racist than George Wallace. When leftists talk race, you know they are running out of ammunition.
Here is what Mr. Netanyahu actually said about a Palestinian state and about Arabs, according to a New York Daily News editorial:
If the circumstances ever proved right, there is no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians. Reports that he ruled out a two-state solution are pure bunk.
On the eve of his stunning election victory, Netanyahu offered a reality-based assessment of the perils that he — or another Israeli leader — would face in working out terms for a Palestinian state under present conditions.
Here is what he said in an interview with an Israeli news site, his key word being today:
“I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islam against the state of Israel. There is a real threat here that a left-wing government will join the international community and follow its orders.”
Today, when ISIS has taken territory in neighboring Syria.
Today, when Iran, whose regime swears to destroy Israel, has surrounded the Jewish state with “goons in Gaza,” “lackeys in Lebanon” and “revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights,” as Netanyahu told Congress.
Today, when Iran is securing military dominance in Iraq as it holds sway over Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Today, when President Obama is nearing an Iranian nuclear deal that could put Israel at fundamental risk of destruction, much to the advantage of its regional, Islamist enemies.
Israel would necessarily have to surrender territory to the Palestinians under any two-state pact. Netanyahu’s indisputable point was that doing so, as the facts on the ground now exist, would better position hostile forces to launch assaults. He was sober in also concluding that those facts are unlikely to change while he is prime minister.
Israeli voters in substantial numbers rallied behind Netanyahu because they trust him to maintain Israel’s security. Critically, they view him as strong enough to stand up both to the mullahs of Iran and — terrible statement to write — to the President of the United States.
In that sense, the vote for Netanyahu was a deserved rebuke for Obama by a nation that has long since dismissed his declaration of having Israel’s back as so much glib and deceptive rhetoric.
The President’s response to Netanyahu’s victory, as conveyed by White House spokesman Josh Earnest, was a petty statement that Netanyahu had been “divisive” in warning of a high turnout by Arab-Israeli voters, a bloc generally unfavorable to him.
In pique and desperation to find ground to attack, Obama’s messenger went so far as to say that Netanyahu’s tactic “undermines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together.”
