The NY Times Lied About Israeli Reaction to Netanyahu's D.C. Adventure

Those who only read the NY Times would get the impression that last week's trip to the United States by  Bibi Netanyahu was an absolute political disaster for the Israeli Prime Minister.

The Progressive newspaper of record, the New York Times headline proclaimed:

"Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure."

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel's security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.”

As my friend Dr. Barry Rubin explains, Israelis have very little hope for peace because unlike the progressive media, they understand that the Palestinians because even though it makes them unhappy they know that the Palestinians don't want to advance peace negotiations. But that theme--the Palestinian leadership doesn't want peace--is not permitted in virtually all of the American mass media.

Two new polls prove the NY  Times report about Israeli reaction was totally biased.

A poll conduced by the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz which reported the positive Israeli reaction to Netanyahu's trip.

"Ha'aretz Poll: Netanyahu's Popularity Soaring Following Washington Trip"

"A new poll conducted by Dialog, under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of the Tel Aviv University Statistics Department, showed that 47% of the Israeli public believes Netanyahu's U.S. trip was a success, while only 10% viewed it as a failure."

In fact the poll seems to indicate the D.C. trip reversed Netanyahu's decline in approval:

While in a Haaretz poll five weeks ago Netanyahu seemed to be in hot water with the public, with 38 percent expressing satisfaction with his performance and 53 percent disappointed with it, in yesterday's poll the results were essentially reversed: 51 percent were satisfied, while 36 percent were not.

The moderate Jerusalem Post conducted its own poll conducted after Obama's Speech to AIPAC:

When asked in the poll whether they saw Obama’s administration as more pro-Israel, more pro-Palestinian or neutral, just 12 percent of Israeli Jews surveyed said more pro-Israel, while 40% said more pro-Palestinian, 34% said neutral and 13% did not express an opinion.

Other polls taken after the Netanyahu trip agree with the other two:

A Telesker poll published in Ma’ariv on Wednesday found that the Likud had strengthened against Kadima. The poll predicted that the Likud would rise from 27 to 30 Knesset seats, while Kadima would fall from 28 to 27.

Asked who was more fit to be prime minister, 36.9% said Netanyahu; 28.3% said Kadima leader Tzipi Livni; 9.2% said Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman of Israel Beiteinu; 2.6% said Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Independence; and 18.2% answered none of the above.

A Sarid Institute poll broadcast on Channel 2 Tuesday night found that 38% of Israelis found Netanyahu most fit to be prime minister, and 35% Livni. The poll found that the Likud had grown in support at Kadima’s expense.

Since the last poll taken by the institute during a crisis over gas prices, Kadima fell by five seats and Likud rose by four.

The poll found that if an election were held now, Likud would win 34 seats (up seven from the last election in February 2009); and Kadima 29 (up one).

A Geocartographic Institute poll broadcast on Channel 1 Tuesday night predicted that the Likud would win 33 seats, and Kadima 22. According to that survey, 61% of Jewish Israelis oppose Obama’s formula of the 1967 lines with land swaps as a basis for an agreement with the Palestinians, while only 27% favor it.

If the NY Times had any interest in the truth it would have declared that Israelis saw the Netanyahu trip as a success, and as a result the Likud party grew in support. But the truth isn't the story the progressive media wanted to convey.  The Times, like most progressives wanted to brand the Netanyahu trip as an object failure for the Israeli PM, because he committed what is to them, a felony, he had dared to "school" the precious infallible President.