I completely agree that Biden has been tone deaf when speaking about Palestinians, Arab Americans, and Muslim Americans.
The flowery descriptions and use of adjectives are all fawning over Biden. It’s odd to see a president get such praise from a professional journalist and I can’t think of a prior example by the Times in recent years.
In that paragraph? They say that this conflict is incredibly divisive and then re-purpose a direct quote (‘he had to go…’ in italics) to say that Biden’s painted himself into a corner. I can’t see how that can read as fawning praise. The entire article presents a mixed record. Their efforts to prevent a broader war have been successful, their efforts to reign in Israel have mostly failed (in part because Netanyahu keeps ratfucking them), and they don’t seem to have a backup plan to pivot to unless occasional criticism can be called a plan. And it can’t be called that because they reported that it was all unplanned outpouring of frustration with the Israeli government. I don’t think Israel, Natanyahu especially, comes out looking good either.
So much of this article is about how furious Democrats are about their stance on the war and how frustrated the administration is about how little they’ve accomplished. Even the supporters they interview are far off from fawning praise. Chris Coons’ “he’s had some impact” is not exactly a ringing endorsement and he’s someone to expect praise from.