The New York Times gives Iran equal time
Imagine, if you would, that on December 26 or 27, 1941, the New York Times had given equal time to Adolph Hitler to respond to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill's speech before the a joint session of the United States Congress. What do you think would have happened?
Would Hitler have explained how Germany needed lebensraum because its then-current size was insufficient for its growing population?
Would he have explained how the 'real issue' was the Jewish 'leeches' who were sucking Germany's resources dry?
Would he have justified that month's Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a 'necessary response' to American 'aggression'?
We'll never know, because in those days the Times had not yet heard the words 'politically correct.' But today is different, and the Times has - incredibly - given op-ed space to Iran's ambassador to the United Nations to respond to Prime Minister Netanyahu. No, this is not a Purim joke.
Despite extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, no evidence has ever been presented to contradict the clear commitment by Iran’s leaders that they would under no circumstances engage in manufacturing, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons. In 2013, for example, only Japan, which has many more nuclear facilities than Iran, was subject to greater agency scrutiny.Really?
As one side of the talks that continue in Geneva, Iran can also bear testimony to the campaign of misinformation by Mr. Netanyahu to mislead the global public about the details of those nuclear negotiations. When the parties were finalizing the interim agreement in 2013, Mr. Netanyahu claimed that it would involve Iran’s receiving $50 billion in sanctions relief; the actual amount was about $7 billion. And as for his prediction that Iran would never abide by the terms of the accord, Iran has dutifully stood by every commitment — as the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported.Stood by every commitment? Really?
In our view, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently used these false alarms and outlandish claims both to serve his domestic political maneuvering and to create a smoke screen that relegates the Palestinian question to the margins. We have noted how his rhetoric has intensified in proportion to the international pressure on Israel to stop the settlement activity and end the occupation of the Palestinian territory.Oh, of course. And Britain was using its cries of alarm over Nazi Germany in 1941 to cover 'mass Jewish immigration' to Palestine under its auspices.
Have we moved from 1939 to 1941? Are we now seeing what the Times would have looked like had it been sufficiently politically correct back then? Who will protest?