Netanyahu wins historic fifth term in Israel, New York Times calls that 'a setback'

Well, the New York Times is at it again.  Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu scored an unprecedented fifth term in a nail-bitingly tight race, and instead of trumpeting that historic victory for what it is, the paper is instead stroking its chin and calling it "a setback."

Here is the Times' own tweet:

Mark Levin and Bill Mitchell certainly noticed:

Breitbart's Joel Pollak did, too, and given that the others tweeted his piece, he was probably the first:

TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won an historic fifth term in Israeli's national elections Tuesday, with his Likud Party narrowly edging the opposition Blue and White Party and the right-wing bloc of parties likely to form the next government.

Yet the New York Times had declared the election a "setback" for Netanyahu, based on exit polls that showed Likud losing by a substantial margin to the opposition, led by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff Benny Gantz.

One exit poll showed a possible tie between the right- and left-wing blocs, meaning that Gantz had an opportunity to replace Netanyahu as prime minister.

Sure, it's true that in a parliamentary system, it's harder to govern with a narrow majority.

But "setback"?  Baloney.  Bibi won, and won historically.  Winning is better than losing.  When the Times says "setback," all one can ask is, "compared to what?"  Losing?  It sounds as if they'd call a defeat for Bibi "progress" if they could. And whip out the fireworks, too.

Pollak has some excellent details about the minutia of Israel's political scene, and why the victory is still a victory, even with Bibi's narrow margin.

What's really a big victory and not by a narrow margin is the fact that Bibi's victory means that Israel is going to stay safe, its dazzling economy is going to keep prospering, and appeasement to terrorists is not going to happen.

Narrow victory or not, it's a victory.  And it's cause to celebrate.  The New York Times just can't swallow hard and bring itself to do it.

If you experience technical problems, please write to