The reaction to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's landmark-yet-controversial speech to US Congress Tuesday has proved to be as divisive as ever in the American media sphere.
A Tuesday editorial in the New York Times referred to the prime minister's speech as theater and claimed it was as a pre-election campaign ploy.
"Even Washington doesn’t often see this level of exploitative political theater; it was made worse because it was so obviously intended to challenge President Obama’s foreign policy," the Times wrote. "Mr. Netanyahu’s speech offered nothing of substance that was new, making it clear that this performance was all about proving his toughness on security issues ahead of the parliamentary election he faces on March 17."
Meanwhile, the Washington Post chided US President Barack Obama for brushing off Netanyahu's concerns.
"Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide," the Post wrote. "The White House has sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection; has said that he was wrong in his support for the Iraq war and in his opposition to an interim agreement with Iran; and has claimed that he offers no alternative to President Obama’s policy. Such rhetoric will not satisfy those in and out of Congress who share Mr. Netanyahu’s legitimate questions."
Shortly following Netanyahu's address, Obama told reporters "as far as I can tell, there was nothing new" in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress panning US-led nuclear talks with Iran.
"The prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives," Obama said, urging Congress to wait to evaluate a nuclear deal with Iran until an agreement is finalized. Obama said that he would only agree to a deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.