We thank the New York Times for their concern in protecting our sensibilities, but we would rather know these things:
Today’s speech by Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, about the sanctions on his country and its determination to persist in its quest for nuclear capability was a significant news event. Khamenei served notice on the United States that he would not be bluffed into giving up his nuclear plans. Though he conceded the economic pressure on his country has hurt, he said Iran is undaunted and would retaliate against the United States should its nuclear facilities come under attack. All this was reported in newspapers around the world, including the New York Times, which posted a story on the speech Friday morning.
However, there was something missing from the Times report of Khamenei’s speech that was reported elsewhere.
Oh really? Nothing too disturbing, I hope? Tish-tosh, don’t worry your pretty little heads:
“The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed,” Teheran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Friday.
He promised that “Iran would assist any country or organization that would fight the Zionist regime, which is now weaker than ever,” he said.
Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, said that Iran has helped Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas in their fights against Israel.
The crowd met the statement by chanting “Death to Israel.”
To an unbiased observer (which would apparently exclude the New York Times), the existential threat to Israel was at least half the story. Infinitely more, when you consider the consequences of the threats.
An Iranian bomb would change the balance of power in the region and endanger all moderate Arab regimes while strengthening the hand of Tehran’s terrorist allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas (though relations between Gaza and Iran have cooled recently). It would also threaten the free flow of oil from the Gulf to the West and diminish the strategic position as well as the security of both the United States and Europe.
But it is only Israel that Iran has promised to destroy. That is why placing a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime pledged to the eradication of the Jewish state is a different order of threat than Khamenei’s usual bluster aimed at the United States. Because of its small size and concentrated population, one or two nuclear explosions would mean another Holocaust.
So when Khamenei repeats the Islamist regime’s pledge to make good on its threat to destroy “the Zionist regime” in the same context as its vow to satisfy its nuclear ambitions, this is no minor rhetorical point.
For the Times to eliminate Khamenei’s threat to Israel from its coverage even as it accurately reports other elements of the speech is more than curious. At the very least, it is an egregious error of judgment. At worst, it smacks of an effort to skew the discussion about Iran away from the imminent peril that its Tehran’s nuclear program represents.
No, at worst it is far worse than that: it implies agreement. The reporters and editors at the Times wouldn’t say it, but perhaps they agree that Israel is a cancer that must be removed. That would certainly explain the bias of their coverage. I’ll be generous enough to allow that they would prefer the removal be accomplished by means other than megaton warheads, but maybe they’re not so fussy.
Now hold on, BTL, you say. Aren’t at least some of the editors and reporters at the Times Jewish? To which I answer: so what? Haven’t we learned by now that politics is identity? To the American Left (I can’t speak for other species), there is no stronger affiliation—not religious, not ethnic, not nothing—than politics. That is why a black radio DJ can accuse a black Republican candidate of being a “token Negro” [see below], call her a “curly-haired nigga”, and refuse to shake her hand for fear of getting her “whiteness” on him. (He apologized—but only for the “whiteness” part; he stood by everything else.)
And that is why the Times can act as a Holocaust (Part Deux) Denier before the fact.