Thomas Friedman’s New York Times column comparing Benjamin Netanyahu, Donald Trump, and Vladimir Putin is forcefully written, but it is built around a false equivalence and a series of assumptions presented as established fact — especially when it comes to Israel’s prime minister.

Friedman places Netanyahu, Trump, and Putin in the same moral and strategic category. That may make for a dramatic opening, but it ignores the most important distinction. Putin invaded an independent country in an effort to conquer it. Israel has been confronting enemies that openly call for its destruction, arm terrorist organizations on its borders, and repeatedly attack Israeli civilians.

Whatever criticism one may have of Netanyahu, these are not comparable situations.

The column portrays Netanyahu as reckless, delusional, and intoxicated with power while treating Friedman’s interpretation of Israeli strategy as though it were proven fact. He assumes that Netanyahu believed one air campaign could neatly topple the Iranian regime and that Israel could simply choose Iran’s next leader. That is an extraordinary claim, and the public has not been shown enough evidence to treat Friedman’s version of events as settled history.

Even if Israeli officials discussed regime change, that does not mean it was Israel’s only objective or even its primary objective. Iran has spent decades building missiles, developing nuclear capabilities, financing Hamas and Hezbollah, and threatening Israel. Weakening those capabilities is a legitimate Israeli security goal whether or not the Iranian........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)