Monday, March 19th | 3 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

April 8, 2015 3:31 pm

In Idiotic Editorial, New York Times Prioritizes Iranian Pride and Jobs Over Israeli Concerns

avatar by Elder of Ziyon

Email a copy of "In Idiotic Editorial, New York Times Prioritizes Iranian Pride and Jobs Over Israeli Concerns" to a friend

In 2008, Obama threatened to "ratchet up the pressure"against Iran if it abandoned its nuclear program. Photo: Elder of Ziyon.

While many, many newspapers, from both the left and the right, are publishing strong reservations about the Iranian nuclear deal, the New York Times is firmly in line with the Obama administration – and even more in line against Binyamin Netanyahu.

Which causes some interesting logical inconsistencies:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has gone into overdrive against a nuclear agreement with Iran. On Monday, his government made new demands that it claimed would ensure a better deal than the preliminary one that Iran, President Obama and other leaders of major powers announced last week. The new demands are unrealistic and, if pursued, would not mean a better deal but no deal at all.

…As outlined on Monday by Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s minister of intelligence and strategic affairs, the Israelis are now insisting that Iran end all research and development on advanced centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium; reduce the number of operating centrifuges at its Natanz plant beyond what was agreed to in the framework; and close its underground enrichment facility at Fordo. Also, Israel has demanded that Iran allow inspections “anywhere, anytime” by international monitors, ship its stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and disclose past nuclear-related activities that might involve military uses.

In any negotiation, there could never be a deal without compromise. It would be preferable if every vestige of Iran’s nuclear program were eradicated. But that was never going to happen, not least because Iran’s know-how could never be erased.

Iran’s leaders would not accept a deal in which they did not maintain some elements of a nuclear program tailored for energy and medical purposes — not weapons. Ultimately, Mr. Obama had to make many judgment calls in getting a deal that would prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Now, where exactly does Israel’s demands listed in this very editorial contradict Iran maintaining “elements of a nuclear program tailored for energy and medical purposes?”

Not one of the conditions proposed of stopping R&D on advanced centrifuges, reducing the number of centrifuges at Natanz, closing Fordo, insisting on truly comprehensive inspections, reducing its stockpiles of enriched uranium, and disclosing military dimensions of its nuclear program is inconsistent with a peaceful nuclear program.

Instead of insisting that the US make the best possible deal while allowing Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program, the NYT wants that Iran have more freedom to build nuclear weapons.

And one of the reasons they give? Because the specter of Iranian unemployment from closing Fordo is just too horrible to contemplate.

The alternative is no deal, and Iran simply moves forward on its nuclear program without any limits. Shuttering Fordo was an early goal, but, in the end, the agreement would allow Iran to keep a small number of centrifuges spinning and to produce medical isotopes at the plant. For the Iranians, it was a matter of political symbolism and jobs to keep the plant open; Mr. Obama apparently felt there were enough protections that he could agree.

No, the alternative is to enforce sanctions until Iran agrees to a program that can only be used, verifiably, for peaceful purposes.

Iranian jobs and pride are not and must not be a factor.

Ideally, more of the 10,000 centrifuges operating at the Natanz enrichment plant would be stopped, as Israel has demanded, but the agreement would halt 5,000 — a significant reduction.

The NYT editors are, frankly, idiots.

5000 first generation centrifuges are the exact amount Iran needs to build nuclear bombs. They are way too few for a nuclear power program and way too many for peaceful medical research.

If Iran wants to assure the world of its peaceful intentions, it should not insist on thousands of centrifuges.

This is pretty clear logic, but apparently too difficult for New York Times editors, who cannot grasp that “fewer” and “more than enough” are not mutually exclusive concepts.

While the deal does not grant international monitors the right to go anywhere, anytime, it does impose a tough inspection regime and establishes a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site.

The editors are again too blinded by Obama’s brilliance not to understand that there is a major contradiction between “tough inspection regime” and “a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site.” If Iran can block access then it is not a tough inspection regime.

Iran’s hostility and threats toward Israel and its involvement in terrorist activities are heinous and unacceptable. But those issues should be dealt with separately; resolving them should not be made conditions of the nuclear agreement.

I missed the NYT editorial that said those words when Obama himself linked Iran’s aggression with its nuclear program in his 2008 AIPAC speech.

In short, this editorial proves that the editors of the New York Times are unable to do the slightest amount of critical thinking when its mind is made up beforehand.

The problem is that so many people think that the New York Times editorials represent the epitome of intellect and correct thinking.

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

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Lauren Goldman

    At the outset, and throughout last summer’s war of defense against Hamas, the NYT condemned any action on Israel’s part, while wringing their hands over the poor Gazans. The NYT has reached the point, concerning their views on Israel, that they may as well be owned by Al-Jazeera.

  • Fritz Kohlhaas

    NYT will do anything to kiss Obama’s behind!

  • Arnold Berger

    Why would we expect anything different from the NYT? They have been very controversial about Israel from a long time. Wake up to who they really represent and not worth the print by Algemeiner.

  • Mark_NYC

    The NY Times is one of the most destructive forces in the U.S. working against the security of the state of Israel. One can always take the position that the interests of this paper should be concerned primarily with what is best for the U.S. and not a foreign country such as Israel, but that doesn’t change the reality of their actions or the effect they have on public opinion. Israel is an ally of the U.S. de facto as well as in spirit, and being insensitive to their existential security concerns is almost unforgivable, similar to the Times’ lack of concern about the wiping out of European Jewry during WWII as witnessed by their lack of news coverage of the holocaust. And this from a newspaper with a long history of (faux) Jewish publishers.

  • I stopped reading THE NEW YORK TIMES in 1982 because of its extreme obvious bias against Jews. I NEVER regretted that decision, because THE NEW YORK TIMES never gave me a reason to regret that decision.

    On the contrary, over the past three decades, THE NEW YORK TIMES has continued to relentlessly bash Israel while consistently portraying Israel’s enemies favorably.

    [1] is a much better newspaper than NYT
    [2] is pro-Israel and
    [3] has three times as many readers as the NY TIMES.

    I urge all Jews to stop reading THE NEW YORK TIMES and instead buy THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

    New York Times op-ed: Wipe Israel off the map:

  • Larry

    Nothing woulds make the editorial staff and owners of the NY Times happier than to see Israel disappear. Cancelled my subscription to this Israel bias rag many years ago. If you read it in the NY Times “it’s not fit to print”.

  • Edward J . Alweis

    The blindness of the NY Times to political reality is shocking. It is quite simple: if sanctions are lifted they will never be restored. Within a short time Iran will violate any agreement and all hell will break loose with a massive effort on the part of mid-East players going all out for nuclear weapons. The stupidity of the likes of the NYT is shocking.

  • Betty kaplan

    I could not agree more that the New York Times is blinded by their own preconceptions.

    How could Iran’s nuclear program not be linked to the regime’s antisemitism?

    Iran states that they will only sign an agreement if their right to destroy Israel is non-negotiable.

    Who ever heard of an agreement of any kind with a nation whereby their right to genocide is assured?

    Since war uses of nuclear power is what is at stake in the agreement, how could Iran’s plan to destroy Israel not be part of its nuclear ideology for war purposes?
    Mr. Obama is not brilliant. He is perverted toward the Jewish people.

    I am a child of survivors of the Holocaust. That should explain my fury toward Mr. Obama. How could he sell us away given our history and, pain. Betty Kaplan

  • ‘so many people think the NYT editorials represent the epitome of intellect and correct thinking.’ Am I the only person in London who never met anyone who thinks the NYT editorials are ‘the epitome of intellect and correct thinking’? For generations the NYT has appeared to be edited by Jews who are more Gentile than most Gentiles when it comes to Israel and Jewish issues. We have about a dozen daily papers in London so no one paper has excessive clout.

  • Meron Medzini

    Even if you do not agree with ther contents of the NY Times editorial, there is no reason to call its editors idiots. Name calling detracts from your argument that in many places is correcet. Also – you use the term Elder of Zion for the author of this article, this is folly. How can you be taken seriously if you use such terms and names.

    • Reform School

      When your comments are sure to be read by angry savages with a long history of murdering the authors, and by idiots so indoctrinated by Leftists ‘educators’ they do not know where to place a ‘ ? ‘ and where a ‘ . ‘ it is eminently sensible to use a pseudonym or pen name rather than one’s own. Have you read DUMBTH? No? Obviously!

    • Rabbi Menashe Bovit

      The writer of this article does not just call the NYT editorial writers idiots he gives many reasons to substantiate why he considers them to be idiots. This is not an ad hominem attack,an approach often used by those same NYT editors who for example will refer to Netanyahu with terms such as “hard line, right wing” (while Palestinian terrorists are “activists” or “militants”). As for using a pen name, a fellow named Samuel Clemens also used one and few would say that Mark Twain’s writing shouldn’t be taken seriously.

  • Reform School

    Did you think MAD Magazine’s changing the NY Times’ motto from ‘All the News that’s Fit to Print’ to ‘All the News that Fits We Print’ had no basis in reality?

    • Reform School

      WHY might elude both books and university courses, but identifying a problem is usually a necessary first step toward its solution. How many college graduate students will now admit they might not be as smart as their forebears? Aware the demand for higher education long ago exceeded the seats available, colleges and universities joined forces to bring in those students best-qualified to learn in a formal environment. Initiated during the 1930’s, not until the 1950’s were the College Board’s S.A.T./Scholastic Aptitude Tests administered widely enough to be statistically reliable. Archived from the beginning, graphically- charted annual national average scores in the United States of America went up and down like a child’s toy yo-yo until 1963. As of 2013 (the last year or the study) they had fallen every year since. Designed to measure fully-developed critical-thinking skills [rather than accumulated facts) the 50-year trend supports arguments the United States has dumbed down. I suspect increasing reliance on computers eventually takes a toll on a society, as the popular song titled ‘In the year 2525’ lamented. I also suspect that when societies lose their ability to think critically and effectively, neither the proverbial “butchers, bakers and candlestick makers” nor the doctors, lawyers, businessmen, educators, government bureaucrats, police officers, reporters, editors, presidents, politicians, lawmakers or judges are immune. Legendary TV pioneer Steve Allen wrote more than 50 books during his long career. Two of the latter ones noted the catastrophe.

  • Harold Moskowitz

    it is not that they cannot do critical thinking. It’s that when it comes to Obama and/or liberal policies, they have no desire to do so – they will do and say anything to get their way. And since they are not big Israeli or Jewish fans anyway, if Israel evaporates in a cloud of nuclear fallout, no big deal. Their only regret is that more republicans won’t die in that blast.

  • Rick k

    The NYT is the White House spokesperson. There is no logic in their thinking and will say anything to make sure Israel is viewed as the bad guy..

    Their editorial department opinions have no credibility.

  • Rev Victoria Matlock


  • rachel robinson

    where are the comments mentioned above??

  • Leo Toystory

    I have found that a single copy of the Sunday Times will line my birdcages and litter boxes for months.

  • Howard Kahan

    Whoopeeee !!!! The new york times is true to their liberal spirit, as warped as it might be. Churchill once said “Those who coddle the lion, will be the last ones eaten”

  • Arty Cohn

    You are right!
    “The NYT editors are, frankly, idiots”

  • It is spelled Der Sturmer…it only looks like The New York Times

  • MD Israel

    Is there a functioning brain operating at the NYT? Why do people pay to read such nonsense?

    • henry dykman

      I cancelled my subscription after the NYT hideous editorials during the last Israeli war with hamas last summer.
      Enough is enough! Every Jew should cancel his/her subscription if they still subscribe.

  • Harvard L. Armus

    Precisely to the point. Is it based on the Times dislike for those pushy, troublesome, none-waspish “ost-Juden”?

  • jeff

    the erosion of professional standards of journalism at the NY Times is very troubling.

    • zorka

      Obama controlled media, think about.