Breaking News: Israel's elections were a setback for Benjamin Netanyahu, exit polls showed. It's unclear if he or his rival will be able to form a government. https://t.co/fVRvWfDkhq

Mark Levin and Bill Mitchell certainly noticed:

New York Times screws up again https://t.co/Ch3rGsh5Ek — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 10, 2019

I GUESS OBAMA SHOULD HAVE TRIED HARDER - New York Times Declares ‘Setback’ for Netanyahu as He Wins Israeli Election https://t.co/LqA70qhjud via @BreitbartNews — Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) April 10, 2019

Breitbart's Joel Pollak did, too, and given that the others tweeted his piece, he was probably the first:

TEL AVIV, Israel — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won an historic fifth term in Israeli's national elections Tuesday, with his Likud Party narrowly edging the opposition Blue and White Party and the right-wing bloc of parties likely to form the next government. Yet the New York Times had declared the election a "setback" for Netanyahu, based on exit polls that showed Likud losing by a substantial margin to the opposition, led by former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff Benny Gantz. One exit poll showed a possible tie between the right- and left-wing blocs, meaning that Gantz had an opportunity to replace Netanyahu as prime minister.

Sure, it's true that in a parliamentary system, it's harder to govern with a narrow majority.

But "setback"? Baloney. Bibi won, and won historically. Winning is better than losing. When the Times says "setback," all one can ask is, "compared to what?" Losing? It sounds as if they'd call a defeat for Bibi "progress" if they could. And whip out the fireworks, too.

Pollak has some excellent details about the minutia of Israel's political scene, and why the victory is still a victory, even with Bibi's narrow margin.

What's really a big victory and not by a narrow margin is the fact that Bibi's victory means that Israel is going to stay safe, its dazzling economy is going to keep prospering, and appeasement to terrorists is not going to happen.

Narrow victory or not, it's a victory. And it's cause to celebrate. The New York Times just can't swallow hard and bring itself to do it.