A giant billboard protesting The New York Times during a past controversy. (CAMERA via JNS)

Ira Stoll exposed The New York Times for again promoting its anti-Israel agenda, this time in what was supposedly an interview with David Friedman.

During the tenure of U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, the Jewish state made unprecedented strides toward peace in the Middle East, signing deals with four Arab states under the Abraham Accords, which represent the first agreements of their kind in a quarter century.

Friedman’s accomplishments remain largely ignored in a Sunday interview with the outgoing ambassador in the New York Times, which instead focused on anti-Israel voices.

“[David] Halbfinger’s 1,500-word dispatch [in The Times] included two paragraphs from the hard left Foundation for Middle East Peace, the Alexander Soros Foundation-funded vehicle that supports the anti-Zionist New York Times opinion page contributing writer Peter Beinart,” noted Ira Stoll, former managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post.

Stoll monitors the Times‘ anti-Israel crusade in his features forThe Algemeiner .

The Times piece also included two paragraphs from “Husam Zomlot, who headed the Palestinian diplomatic mission in Washington,” which was shuttered during the Trump administration due to the Palestinian Authority boycott  of the White House.

“The third-party comments took so much space that there wasn’t room for much of Halbfinger’s actual interview with Friedman,” Stoll notes

Halbfinger then “published two threads” on Twitter “totaling 44-tweets of remarks” made by Friedman, which “ran longer in accumulated word-count than The New York Times article, and were more informative, sticking more closely to Friedman’s comments.”

Stoll notes that the reporting in The Times article itself was “inaccurate and tendentious,” specifically calling out Halbfinger’s characterization of the U.S.’ “radical overhaul of White House policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

“There was nothing ‘radical’ about the Trump administration’s Israel policy,” Stoll notes. “The Times news article might have more accurately described the policies — such as moving the American embassy to Israel’s capital — as righting historical injustices, fulfilling long-made promises, and adhering to laws like the long-ignored Jerusalem Embassy Act. When the Obama administration provided $150 billion in cash and sanctions relief to the terror-supporting, genocide-pursuing Iranian government, the Times described it not as a ‘political giveaway’ but rather as an exchange ‘in return for nuclear concessions.’”

Stoll continues, “America didn’t give away anything in terms of the US-Israel relationship during the Trump era. It earned America credibility around the world as a steadfast friend, as the results on the Bahrain, UAE, Morocco and Sudan fronts indicate.”

The Algemeiner piece concludes that The Times‘ approach to Israel in this so-called interview “is just weird” and “seems more appropriate for an opinion column or a rival’s campaign commercial than for a news article by an objective journalist.”