Sunday, May 27th | 13 Sivan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

March 4, 2015 5:53 pm

Major Jewish Group Slams ‘Despicable’ New York Times Claim That Netanyahu Speech Asks Democrats to Choose Between Obama and Israel

avatar by Shiryn Solny

Email a copy of "Major Jewish Group Slams ‘Despicable’ New York Times Claim That Netanyahu Speech Asks Democrats to Choose Between Obama and Israel" to a friend

The New York Times claimed that after Netanyahu's speech, Democrats will now have to choose between Obama and "their loyalty to the Jewish state." Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Major Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center expressed disgust at The New York Times on Wednesday for claiming that the debate over Iran’s nuclear program boils down to a question of loyalty to either President Obama or Israel.

“It’s despicable. On every level it’s an insidious editorial comment and beyond that, it’s also 1,000 percent wrong,” Associate Dean Rabbi Abraham Cooper told The Algemeiner a day after Netanyahu addressed Congress on the Iranian nuclear threat. “It’s not just Israel that is in the cross-hairs of a nuclearized Iran.”

“For anymore – before, during or after this speech – to reduce this to some personal grudge match between [the] Israeli Prime Minister and President Obama is just doing everybody a disservice and is not dealing with the facts,” he added. “It is just a political mindset that wants to narrow the field of discussion.”

The New York Times article alleged that for Democrats, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech on Tuesday “sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state.”

The Times claimed: “Mr. Netanyahu’s hotly disputed address constituted a remarkable moment in Washington: a foreign leader taking the podium before members of the House and Senate to argue against the policies of the sitting American president. In doing so, the Israeli leader was essentially urging lawmakers to trust him — not Mr. Obama — when it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”

Cooper, who called the speech “a historic moment,” defended Netanyahu’s talk and sought to clarify what the prime minister had said at the podium. Quoting the Israeli leader, Cooper affirmed that Israel is not against a deal with Iran, but that the Jewish state and its neighbors instead want a deal they can “literally live with.”

“He’s talking about an existential threat to his people and some of the Democrats that I heard, they think that this is a spectator sport. Outrageous,” Cooper told The Algemeiner. “It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It’s life or death.”

Cooper offered “personal testimony” as to why he believes the Times claim to be “fundamentally wrong.” He said his organization has held numerous meeting with Arab leaders, including those in the Gulf states, who expressed deep concern regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. He noted regarding the countries he was referring to that “you won’t find too many Zionists hiding out over there.”

“One particular official, I wont say in which country, but someone who calls the shots, pointed out the window of his office and said ‘Look over right next to the water there’s a small island.’ He said ‘the Iranians already stole that and beyond that is Iran.’ And he said ‘If we have a nuclear Iran, our entire world is going to change.'”

“As the prime minister said in his speech, and I was there, there is no question that when they go nuclear, the entire neighborhood is going to nuclearize,” Cooper continued. “Now we’re talking also of having a nuclearized neighborhood. The Saudis for sure are gonna pick one up and the other countries as well. Making the region, going from a source of deep concern and some instability, to literally a flashpoint. God forbid who knows what could happen.”

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Hello ppl my name is Abraham A Cooper Jr I’m 34 years of age in have been wronged bye people in this world in also family since I was my dad’s beneficiary I was never told about his accesses that would’ve belonged to me in for me to take care of in now that I have found out it seems like the people who are the ones who did it are trying to kill my in making my life hard to find out more information about this topic and just seems like it would have been better if I knew my dad’s side of my life I’m trying to take care of it but I need to talk to someone about a lawsuit so if three is someone who can help me with that please call me 1 863 381 8772

  • elie smith

    the thought of choosing between your own president and a foreign leader no matter to which country he belonged and for whatever reason or excuse is flat out Treason.

    • B. Ploxay


  • Gene

    Nothing new for the New York Times. They have always slanted and distorted the news against Jewish issues and Israel. This goes back to the early 1930’s at least and all
    during the pre and post Holocaust days. The lead on the editorial in question was dispicable.

  • Yale

    I was against Netanyahu’s speech to Congress because I suspected Obama would use it to throw a red herring into discussions of his conduct of the negotiations with Iran. That we are even discussing “protocol” and “partisanship” deriving from Netanyahu’s decision, is clear evidence of how effectively Obama has turned a policy disaster in political gain. It is Obama who is challenging Democrats, and Americans in general, to choose between him and whatever policies he chooses to promulgate, and Netanyahu and thoughtful reflection on the merits of what Obama is doing.

    It is no coincidence that Obama’s iconic poster comes straight from “1984”; he uses the NYT as his Department of Truth.

  • CSM-101

    Choose between Obama or Israel…..Choose Israel…duh!

  • Gothamite

    The New York Times is devolving into a scandal-mongering tabloid-like rag. The editorial staff must consist of closet anti-Semites, Israel haters and apologists for Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS.

    • B. Ploxay

      What are you talking about. The NYT is already compromised. Several of its writers have children in the IDF. Israeli’s complaining about The NYT is like a child complaining on his birthday that his chocolate cake isn’t sweet enough.

      Ridiculous. The American people have had it with the entangling alliance. It is time for our countries to go their separate ways. From now on, any politician who shows more loyalty to a foreign power than to his own country can consider their career over.

  • victoria brandeis








  • Reform School

    For decades until his death 20-odd years ago, respected journalist William M. Gaines criticized the New York Times as the old rag where “All the News that Fits we Print.”

  • If the American Public and the Senate has to make that decision, then it should be an easy one, as after all not everyone but Obama can be wrong! It does not take a genies to see the truth that Iran is trying to hide, The regional Arabs are against the deal, Israel is against the deal, the American public is against the deal and the Senate majority is against the deal. The only one that can not or does not want to see the truth is Obama. The choice is easy NO DEAL!

  • Pierre Elie Mamou

    it’s so simple, nothing to add to Rav Cooper comment: “It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It’s life or death.”

  • The website does not display comments when viewing on an iPad

  • Why is it that the world’s media will usually take a condescending attitude and try not to ‘offend’ Arabs and thereby make it sound like they agree with them. Westerners do not get offended when they are criticized but Muslims turn to violence when they are criticized, not just radicals but all Muslims. If this continues the time will come when guns will come out on all sides.

  • Efram

    Well, as the New York Times is essentially The Guardian West, with beliefs in The Protocols Of the Elders Of Zion, I no longer expect anything remotely related to journalism there. In fact, to expect that neo-Nazi rag to tell the truth at any time about any subject is like expecting Khameni to join forces with Israel.

  • Laura Burkhart

    Our world is changing so rapidly. I fear that anyone (democrats, journalists, or Presidents), that are not clear about militant Islam and it’s dangers, nuclear capability being the final greatest danger a risk none of us can afford. The amazing tennis match over Netanyahu’s speech before and after, is a smoke screen for Political propoganda, rather than grave dangers we face. Israel just happens to be nearer the danger. But, the USA may see the war head long before Israel.

  • Ivan Gur-Arie

    Perhaps the Publisher and editor of the NYTimes should read what was said in Saudi Arabia, a favorite of the NY TIMES. Bibi is right to have made the speech.”President Obama listen to Netanyahu on Iran.” “I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more that the foolish behavior of one of the worst American Presidents”

    To have made this statement is tantamount to an allegation of dual loyalty of American Jews. We willl not go in lockstep to that idiot in the White House.

  • Max Cohen

    The argument advanced by the New York Times, that Congress must choose between loyalty to Israel (read Netanyahu) or loyalty to Obama (President of the United States), makes no sense unless it is first fitted into the context of the chief delusion of Leftist ideology. Accordingly, the primary mission of Marxist intelligentsia is to further progress towards a greedless variant of humanity. This is to be accomplished by dialectically overpowering natural evolution. The New York Times holds the destiny of Israel, the United State,s and Iran as well, in total contempt. Obama, they believe serves the Marxist mission, ergo, loyalty to Obama is paramount.

  • Can anyone publicize the names of the editor and owners of the NYT.
    Name and shame them.

  • Roberta E. Dzubow

    The NYT got it wrong. The question is whether Obama’s loyalty is for the people of the USA or for the mullahs of Iran.

    Modern Iranians tried to overthrow the fanatic mullahs. Obama refused to help them. Obama canceled sanctions that brought Iran to the table. He wants to cancel more.

    So obsessed for a deal, Obama is capitulating, not imposing stringent safeguards. The mullahs religious beliefs welcome all out war. Why does Obama help them?

  • barry

    …..Andwhat exactly did you expect from the Times??

  • steven L

    Clearly the NYT antisemites are doing everything they can to support the President in putting as much daylight as possible between the American people and Israeli people.
    The dual loyalty is a canard applied exclusively to the Jews. The truth is that we ALL have multiple loyalties and the dual one is exclusively applied to Zionist Jews. This is one of the many definitions of ANTISEMITISM.

  • Michael

    I haven’t heard anything about the Nuclear Agencies having full access rights to inspect the Israeli nuclear facilities. I have heard that the little state of Israel possesses some 100 to 200 nuclear bombs – probably compliments of the uninformed US taxpayers…

    • Israeli nuclear capabilities are well known to US intelligence,so there would be no need to inspect the facilities of a ally and the only true democracy in the region..something the moderate arab population long for with the past spring uprising brutally crushed by tyranistic leadership.

    • B. Ploxay

      The chauvinism of Israel states that the Non Proliferation Treaty is for other countries, not Israel. Let’s face it. Israel is an international scoff law. It is time to thoroughly isolate the rouge regime.

      As for its relationship with the United States, its time to end the entangling alliance now!

  • Carla Isselmann

    Today I received an email in which the occupant of the White House was photographed in July lasy year ,making the one-finger-ISIS-sign to African leaders during a conference.
    When Netanyahu has the courage to confront such a traitor, why are the americans still silent? Why do they not start the impeachment procedures as this administration cannot be trusted any longer!

  • Eric R.

    This is the same NY Slimes that shilled for Stalin, shilled for Mao, shilled for Castro, and put the Holocaust on the back pages.

    It is not the paper of record. It is the paper of genocide.

  • Martin Bookspan

    As I have written previously, it is incumbent upon every Jew everywhere to cancel subscriptions to the cursed New York Times, and every Jewish-owned business and corporation should immediately cancel all advertising in those vermin-soaked pages.

  • Every comment states that it is “awaiting moderation.” Yet they never appear. Are nothing but “acceptable thoughts” to be printed here?

  • Get the spelling right. You spell my times Der Sturmer…got it..Der Sturmer…That’s it.

  • I Love New York City, but it survives in a bubble that can only survive in the “Never Neverland” that is its own perspective.

    Reality is far more difficult. The New York Times’ perspective is a manipulative, yet far-reaching focus that will lead to our destruction.

  • Valery

    but it is true. This is not a superficial impression.
    Netanyahu speech – is the choice for congressmen who they: for Bibi for Obama … or someone they trust in such an important issue as the Iranian nuclear program.
    This has not happened in American history – the foreign policy challenges the leader of the US president in the walls of the Capitol, before the whole world …
    This is unwise, tactless and wrong.

  • Media accuracy and unbiased reporting must be enforced

    It seems the Media cannot regulate itself to present a true and honest reporting.

    Responsible and honest reporting has been replaced with ambiguous confusing and illusory news reports,
    with no regard to the consequences. Facts and sources are not properly verified
    and an inaccurate unsubstantiated news story gets released to the public, that
    may cause substantial harm. Some stories are intentionally staged for the

    What has happened to ethics in Journalism? Has Social Media added a new dimension to honest reporting? Can we overcome distorted Social Media for accuracy? How can we verify instant Social Media
    images from being photo-shopped? Can we impose responsible Social Media without
    affecting the freedom of speech?

    Whether we like it or not, the masses are influenced by the Media, could you imagine how
    children and young adults absorb the Media hype, regardless weather it is truth
    or illusion. The damage is long term and may not be reversible. Children are
    very impressionable, they think what they see on TV emulate real life, which we
    know is distorted and make believe, they carry these illusions as reality which
    affects their future adversely.

    The Media reporting must be neutral, unbiased, balanced, objective and impartial. Violators should be
    subject to fines and criminal charges if people suffer due to intentional
    distortion of reports or intentionally slanted to deceive or promote favoritism
    that escalates into violence and or cause harm and or financial loss.

    When a Media outlet intentionally distorts and misinforms the news and events, it should forfeit
    the right to free speech and free press and face the music.

    In the past decades Media outlets have expanded the creation of sensationalism to promote readership and
    revenues. These types of reports many times intentionally distorts the facts
    and true dimension of the report. Thus creating more dissention and crisis that
    leads to violence and death.

    It seems that the Media today has no emotion, no compassion. Much of the news is choreographed for the sake
    of sensationalism and rating. Which comes down to dollars and financial gain.
    Society today is so hungry for money, power, instant gratification and glamour.

    Is there a chance of going back to honor, honesty, integrity and fighting for truth and justice the old
    American way. Overcoming false showmanship and artificial presentation.
    Broadcasting truth and reality, thereby regaining public trust in the Media?

    This very same rebuke and standards must be applied to our elected government officials.

    A change for the better must be initiated and it must start at the top.

    YJ Draiman

    P.S. “The biases the media
    has are much bigger than conservative or liberal. They’re about getting
    ratings, about making money, about doing stories that are easy to cover and
    keeping us in a uproar.”

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    When is the Media and the government going to come clean and inform the public the honest truth without
    any bias and distortion.

    • Donald J. Grant (Canada)

      It’s shocking to see the U.S. (and in particular its Congress) denigrate the Office of the President. Like Obama or not, agree with his opinions or not, view him as a lame duck or (worse) a naive lame duck or not, he is your President. Those who appear to want only to castrate the man personally and politically have, in their headlong and unrelenting charge, undoubtedly diminished (and possibly for all time) the Office itself, setting aside for the moment its future occupants. Sad, in their quest, they appear to have no appreciation of the repercussions for their country and its position on the international stage. Shame on them. My respect for our neighbours to the South is at an all-time low.

      • B. Ploxay

        If Obama was a mindless sheep who did the bidding of Netanyahu, he would be hailed as “a great leader”. When he takes seriously his job as president of the United States and remains loyal to the interests of his country and people, he is vilified with mindless pejoratives that come right out of the ministry of propaganda.

  • Jewish groups and Jewish people should boycott The New York Times.
    Jewish organizations and companies should stop advertising in the New York Times.
    They have been providing false and biased news against Israel and the Jews since WWII.
    Let us put an additional financial strain on The New York Times.
    YJ Draiman

  • Who in the Arab world is for Iran?

    Answer:- None by the look of things and this is the acid test of whether Bibi is merely tub-thumping to garner votes for his election campaign!

    What is genuinely frightening is the support Bibi’s position has drawn from Saudi sources especially.

    Just how much more credible evidence on Iran’s nuclear programs have they yet to bring to the table?

    When or if they do so – will Obama bother to call a meeting with his intel chiefs to be briefed on it?


    David Ignatius is a Washington Post foreign policy columnist. He is extremely close to and supportive of the Obama administration and the US State Department.
    Thus, his views on the presentation made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on March 3, 2015 to the joint session of Congress are written from a “pro-Obama viewpoint”.
    It is worthwhile to hear Ignatius (surprisingly supportive of Prime Minister Netanyahu) views on the following:
    1. What even Netanyahu’s critics must concede; and
    2. Why Netanyahu broke publicly with Obama over Iran

    Also, it would be worthwhile to reread 3. MIL-OPS IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED AGREEMENT

    1. What even Netanyahu’s critics must concede:
    What Netanyahu did Tuesday was raise the bar for Obama. Any deal that the administration signs will have to address the concerns Netanyahu voiced. Given what’s at stake in the Middle East, that’s probably a good thing. As administration officials said at the outset of negotiations, no deal is better than a bad one.
    The Israeli prime minister’s speech, for all its divisive political consequences, served to sharpen the focus on what a good deal would look like.

    2. Why Netanyahu broke publicly with Obama over Iran

    TEL AVIV — The public rift between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iranian nuclear issue is often described as a personality dispute. But a senior Israeli official argued that the break has been building for more than two years and reflects a deep disagreement about how best to limit the threat of a rising Iran.
    Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence, outlined his government’s view in a telephone interview Wednesday. He argued that the nuclear agreement contemplated by Obama would ratify Iran as a threshold nuclear-weapons state, and that the one-year breakout time sought by Washington wasn’t adequate. And he stressed that these views aren’t new.
    “From the very beginning, we made it clear we had reservations about the goal of the negotiations,” he explained. “We thought the goal should be to get rid of the Iranian nuclear threat, not verify or inspect it.”
    Steinitz, who helps oversee Iran strategy for Netanyahu, said he understands that the U.S. wants to tie Iran’s hands for a decade until a new generation takes power there. But he cautions: “You’re saying, OK, in 10 or 12 years Iran might be a different country.” But this approach is “dangerous” because it ignores that Iran is “thinking like an old-fashioned superpower.”
    Netanyahu’s skepticism reached a tipping point last month when he concluded that the U.S. had offered so many concessions to Iran that any deal reached would be bad for Israel. He broke with Obama, first in a private Jan. 12 phone call and then in his public acceptance of an offer by GOP House Speaker John Boehner to address Congress on March 3 and, in effect, lobby against the deal.
    The administration argues that the pact taking shape, although imperfect, is preferable to any realistic alternative. It would limit the Iranian program and allow careful monitoring of its actions. Angered by what it sees as Netanyahu’s efforts to sabotage the agreement, the administration decided in early February to limit the information it shared with Israel about its bargaining with Iran.
    The discord goes back to 2012 when the Obama administration began secret contacts with Iran through Oman. The Israelis were angry that they weren’t informed, and insulted that the U.S. would think they wouldn’t find out through their own intelligence channels. Netanyahu denounced the interim agreement reached in November 2013 because it formally accepted that Iran could enrich uranium.
    Despite Netanyahu’s view that it was a “great mistake” to accept any Iranian enrichment, Steinitz said “we got the impression that it might be symbolic. The initial figure [discussed by the U.S. and its negotiating partners] was ‘a few hundred centrifuges.'” Now, he said, the U.S. is contemplating “thousands.” According to Israeli press reports, the U.S. has offered to allow Iran to operate at least 6,500 centrifuges.
    Steinitz didn’t dispute the U.S. argument that what matters is a package that includes the number and performance levels of the permitted centrifuges, the extent of dismantlement of non-permitted centrifuges, and the size of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. “Breakout time is an equation with four variables,” he said.
    “The temptation [for Iran] is not now, but in two or three or four years, when the West is preoccupied with other crises.” He said that if Iran chose to “sneak out” at such a moment, it would take the U.S. and its allies several months to determine that the pact had been violated, and another six months to form a coalition for sanctions or other decisive action. By then, it might be too late.
    Steinitz said the Israeli government understands the U.S. goal of a 10- to 15-year duration for the agreement, which would constrain Iran into what’s likely to be the next generation after Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who is 75. But here again, he dissented.
    “I understand the logic, but I disagree,” Steinitz said. What the U.S. is saying to Iran, in effect, is “If you agree to freeze for 10 years, that’s enough for us.” But that won’t work for Israel. “To believe that in the next decade there will be a democratic change in leadership and that Iran won’t threaten the U.S. or Israel anymore, I think this is too speculative.”
    Steinitz concluded the conversation with an emphatic warning: “Iran is part of the problem, and not part of the solution — unless you think Iran dominating the Middle East is the solution.” People who think that a nuclear deal with Iran is desirable, as I do, need to be able to answer Steinitz’s critique.


    1. Recognizes Iran’s  the “right to enrich” , thus enables the world’s most dangerous terrorist state to become a nuclear threshold power. Establishes a timetable with a “sunset clause”, after which Iran will be permitted legally to go ahead at whatever pace that it chooses for its nuclear development programs.

    2. Ignores all of  Iran’s  ancillary programs such as fuse developments, warhead developments, guidance developments, propulsion developments, etc. Ignores Iran’s nuclear cooperation with North Korea (testing, components, etc.) and with Syria (facilities development)..

    3. Ignores the current agreements for Iran to purchase very  advanced air defense systems from Russia. These air defense systems will make Iran’s nuclear production facilities and nuclear forces nearly invulnerable to attack. { As been noted in previous intelligence summaries —the objective of Iran is not a single weapon–it is a force of multiple weapons, protected by a basically impenetrable air defense envelope.}

    4. Relinquishes  the ability to have in place in order to to immediately institute sanctions or other punishments should and when Iran is caught cheating.{Which according to the IAEC and several US and foreign intelligence sources is probably doing right now… since reconnaissance evidence exists and Iran will not allow on the ground inspections of these suspicious sites.]

    5. Grants Iran it’s sphere  of influence  over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and allowing  its funding and arms  supply to Hezbollah and Hamas.

  • howiej

    It was Obama and his administration that sought to make it either me or Bibi. The Democratic leadership instructed their members to “find something else to do” instead of going to the Joint Session. A WH staffer contacted the Congressional Black Caucus to absent themselves from the speech. They tried to portray the speech as purely a reelection event for Netanyahu. In Israel they had a Supreme Court Judge sit with a button to stop the broadcast of the speech, on a 5 minute delay, if it was thought to portray a reelection bid. The broadcast went uninterrupted.
    To listen to the Democrats’ who commented on the speech one would be embarrassed that those speaking were members of Congress. Obamas arguments over what the speech contained, or didn’t, would not make the mother of a Junior High School student proud. Obama is willing to sacrifice Israel to bring a false peace to the Middle-East.

  • brenrod

    NYT is out of the loop: congress and democrats already chose who they believe; BB is their because Congress does not trust a president who deceives them and wants to keep them out of the decision.


    Are you kidding me, the ME is already nuclearized. Israel has over 200 nuclear bombs and it has the capacity and the will to wipe the whole area out of existence. Just look at its ‘limited’. ‘defensive’ atrocities in Gaza. You so myopically talk about Iran introducing nuclear weapons when Israel already possesses them and it has aggressively acted to conquer other nations. While I am not a lover of Iran, i think its inevitable possession of the bomb will strangely force Israel to behave not like a rouge nation.

    • Yale

      Most of what you claim is demonstrably untrue.

      The big difference, for Americans, between any nuclear weapons Israel may have, and the ones Iran is building is that Israel’s weapons aren’t targeted at the US, while Iran’s will be.

      • B. Ploxay

        Iran doesn’t have a missile that can reach the US. Sorry. Iran is no threat to the US. Israel’s enemies are not America’s enemies.



  • EthanP

    Anti Semitism and anti Zionism is an old story at the “Grey Lady”. No surprise here.

  • Why bother talking to or telling the New York Times that they are anti semitic…they already know that fact. What you should do is to tell the many Jews who read that rag.

  • Wendy Minot

    I deplore Netanyahu’s speech to the United States Congress, and I pray that Israel will not reelect this man who would sacrifice every last one of us for personal gain.

    Wendy Minot
    CA USA