(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) The New York Times showed its true colors when it published an article that focused on whether Iran will “live up to its fiery rhetoric” and follow through with its vow to “destroy Israel,” which resulted in the publication facing an intense backlash from people.
In its anti-Israel article titled “After Years of Vowing to Destroy Israel, Iran Faces a Dilemma,” the Times suggested that Iran was at a crossroads.
“With Israel bent on crushing Iran’s ally Hamas, Tehran must decide whether it and the proxy militias it arms and trains will live up to its fiery rhetoric,” the Times wrote on Wednesday.
The publication also said that despite “more than four decades” of deadly threats from Iranian Jew-hating rulers towards Israel, they are “publicly signaling they do not want a full-scale war” as Israel implements its response to the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Gaza.
In addition to that, the report added that the “fiery leaders” of Iran may lose credibility among constituents and allies if they stay inactive.
People on Twitter criticized the article as soon as it was published, accusing the paper of attempting to goad Iran into annihilating Israel.
“What in the name of all that’s holy is this?? What’s the dilemma here exactly? Will its terrorist proxies ‘live up to’ their ‘fiery rhetoric’ by killing many, many more Jews? Like they said they would? WTF?” National Review senior writer Noah Rothman wrote.
What in the name of all that’s holy is this?? What’s the dilemma here exactly? Will its terrorist proxies “live up to” their “fiery rhetoric” by killing many, many more Jews? Like they said they would? WTF? pic.twitter.com/m0oen5mPby
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) November 1, 2023
Versus Media podcast host Stephen L. Miller also responded to the anti-Semitic article.
“In case people haven’t noticed, whatever little professional guardrails remained at The NY Times are gone. That was the whole point behind firing editors of the Cotton op Ed and the slack struggle sessions,” he wrote.
In case people haven't noticed, whatever little professional guardrails remained at The NY Times are gone. That was the whole point behind firing editors of the Cotton op Ed and the slack struggle sessions. https://t.co/sfTNRImjql
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) November 1, 2023
Conservative commentator David Burge criticized the paper, too.
“NYT: poor beleaguered Iran faces their own heartbreaking Sophie’s Choice,” he wrote.
NYT: poor beleaguered Iran faces their own heartbreaking Sophie's Choice https://t.co/lqQXpZ19eQ
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 1, 2023
However, instead of removing the article from its website, issuing an apology and firing everyone responsible for the publication of the piece, the Times doubled down by defending the article.
“The Times stands behind this piece as well as the vast depth of reporting we have done on the Israel-Hamas war and its regional implications,” a spokesperson for the Times told Fox News.