Would this ever be in the New York Times? Chemi Shalev in Haaretz on the Jerusalem moment at the Democratic National Convention:
But beyond the question of the forthcoming elections, there is the need to evaluate the long-term damage caused to Israel from Israel’s positioning in the election campaign and the unacceptable volume which it occupies therein. That volume of attention has been steadily increasing since the beginning of the Republican primaries in January, as if it were equivalent to double the importance of China plus India and Russia, or perhaps California and New York rolled into one.
It is difficult to tell just what do Americans themselves think when they see their candidates swear allegiance to Israel as if it were part and parcel of the national anthem and flag. What do they think of the situation where every single deviation from blind support for the Israeli government’s positions is considered heresy and treason? It may be a reasonable position for impassioned Christians and loyal Jews. But most Americans are neither, and in their inner hearts they may just wonder about that distant country’s source of power, that can cast such a giant pall on US politics and which could also drag their country into a war which they do not want to fight.
Oh they get to talk about it in Canada too. Tony Burman in the Star. Commenting on the Canadian government’s expulsion of Iranian embassy officials:
Although his swearing-in at Rideau Hall must have happened in the dead of night, Canada appears to have a new foreign minister. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. His day job may be prime minister of Israel, but Canada’s abrupt actions against Iran seem to confirm that the Harper government’s outsourcing of Canada’s Middle East policy to Jerusalem is now complete.