One nearly needs a face shield to protect you from the rage-fueled spittle-fest that is this New York Times editorial: An Israeli Election Turns Ugly.

Israel’s election has done a lot to reveal the challenges facing the country and the intentions of the men who seek to lead it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s outright rejection of a Palestinian state and his racist rant against Israeli Arab voters on Tuesday showed that he has forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis.

This lede alone should tell you that the New York Times has a lot in common with the Obama administration. Both of them were heavily invested Mister Netanyahu’s defeat. Both were willing to sacrifice the very existence of the state of Israel in order to give Obama a transient and transparently meaningless foreign policy triumph in giving Iran a nuclear weapon. I am not of the school of thought that puts Netanyahu in the same class as Winston Churchill but compared to Barack Obama, Netanyahu is George Washington and Mahatma Ghandi rolled into one.

His behavior in the past six years — aggressively building Israeli homes on land that likely would be within the bounds of a Palestinian state and never engaging seriously in negotiations — has long convinced many people that he has no interest in a peace agreement. But his statement this week laid bare his duplicity, confirmed Palestinian suspicions and will make it even harder for him to repair his poisoned relations with President Obama, who has invested heavily in pushing a two-state solution.

You know who else doesn’t agree to the “two-state” formulation? The Palestianians and Obama’s new BFFs, the Iranian mullahs. In fact, a “two-state” solution is nothing more than returning Israel to its pre-1967 borders and add a terrorist state to the already inflammable political mix of the Middle East.

Mr. Netanyahu’s demagogy further incites the rage that has torn the country apart. There were other inflammatory moments in recent days. Mr. Netanyahu claimed that nefarious foreign sources were trying to overthrow him and also promised to build more settlements, which most of the world considers to be illegal. Earlier this month, he made a subversive speech before Congress to castigate the Obama administration for seeking a nuclear deal with Iran, but that seems to have done little to enhance his support in Israel.

Want to know what is really subversive? How about the president of the United States plotting to give Iran a nuclear weapon without consulting Congress? How about the president of the United States unilaterally abrogating our responsibilities under every nuclear non-proliferation treaty in existence and setting off an Middle East nuclear arms race featuring Saudi Arabia and Turkey? How about a president of the United States using appropriated funds to sponsor an astro-turf organization to try to oust the popularly elected leader of a friendly nation?

While the New York Times may not like Benjamin Netanyahu, it is clear that his positions resonate with a majority of the Israeli people. There are a small nation, in hostile territory. They are beset by a people — these would be called “Arabs” — who are dedicated to destroying them. That includes large numbers of the Arabs who are also Israelis citizens. Barack Obama is aiding the one state in the region. Iran, that has not only sworn to obliterate Israel to achieve regional hegemony and he is paving the way for Iran to become a nuclear armed adversary. If the Times thinks Netanyahu was “subversive” or is engaging in “demagogy” it may be because while they are safe and sound in NY City, Israelis are not safe anywhere in their nation and the actions of the United States are making them less so.