New York Times Uses the Word 'Hysterical' to Describe Netanyahu's Opposition to Iran Deal

The New York Times ran an editorial in its print edition Tuesday supporting the Obama administration’s approach to negotiating with Iran, but it was an adjective the paper chose to describe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – “hysterical” – that has received considerable attention in the Israeli media.

The choice of the word "hysterical" in this context doesn't seem to suggest "causing...laughter," but rather inciting worry, fear, or dread.

In the second to last paragraph of the editorial titled “Iran Nuclear Talks: Unfinished, but Alive,” New York Times editors write “Unfortunately, the inconclusive negotiations have given an opening to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who excoriated the proposed agreement as the ‘deal of the century’ for Iran before it is made public, to generate more hysterical opposition.”

The editorial’s derogatory characterization of Netanyahu was in the lead position of all of the Hebrew news sites – as well as some Israeli English-language ones - that TheBlaze checked Tuesday morning.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the media after meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry Nov. 8, 2013 (Photo: Debbie Hill/AFP/Getty Images)

“Liberal-leaning paper continues to slam prime minister, says in editorial that together with US congress, Saudi Arabia he's trying to sabotage deal between Iran, world powers,” wrote Ynet News.

Maariv wrote, “The New York Times is continuing its struggle against Prime Minister Netanyahu. In an editorial by the newspaper, which is identified as a supporter of President Barack Obama’s position, it was claimed that Netanyahu is creating hysteria and is disturbing [efforts] to reach an agreement with Iran.”

See the front pages of several Israeli sites which displayed the story in the lead position Tuesday morning:

The front page of Israel's Ynet News.

The Times of Israel also had the story in its prime slot.

Israeli Army Radio (glz.co.il) ran the story as the lead on its web site.

The news site associated with the most widely-watched Channel 2 News, Mako, wrote that the New York Times editorial “delivered particularly strong criticism of Netanyahu’s vehement opposition to the negotiations with Iran and to the interim agreement on the nuclear issue.”

“The American paper continues to attack Netanyahu,” Israel’s Army Radio wrote on its web site.

“In Jerusalem there is concern about the continuing American policy and by the crisis in personal trust between the leaders,” Army Radio added.

The Times of Israel reported that the Prime Minister’s Office would not comment on the NYT editorial.

The New York Times also had criticism for France, Saudi Arabia and members of Congress who oppose the Obama administration’s approach to the negotiations with Iran, which broke up on Saturday in Geneva without reaching an agreement.

“First, diplomacy takes work, and agreements rarely flow seamlessly from beginning to end. Second, if all those inveighing against any deal — namely members of Congress, Israel and Saudi Arabia — see the weekend results as a new opportunity to sabotage it, what is the alternative?,” Times editors wrote.

“No one has proposed a better path than negotiations, and getting the best deal possible should remain the goal for Iran and the major powers — the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — as they look to another round of talks later this month,” the editorial added.

As TheBlaze reported, Netanyahu on Sunday called the unfinished deal the so-called P5+1 countries discussed with Iran last week “bad and dangerous.”

The negotiations broke up without an agreement reportedly due to the hard line held by France. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said that his country could not accept a “sucker’s deal” which some news organizations translated as a "fool's deal" or a “fool’s game.”

But the Times editorial insists France’s concerns - regarding Iran’s uranium enrichment and its Arak nuclear reactor which could produce plutonium - could have been “easily resolved.”

“Israelis and American lawmakers, however, have happily embraced Mr. Fabius’s outburst in pushing the United States and its allies to take a tougher line against Iran. It would be alarming if his comments seriously impair chances of a deal,” the editorial says.

“It would be nice if Iran could be persuaded to completely dismantle its nuclear program, as Mr. Netanyahu has demanded, but that is unlikely to ever happen,” it adds.

The paper also took aim at former President George W. Bush seeming to place some of the blame on him for Iran’s relatively advanced nuclear efforts, writing “The administration of President George W. Bush made similar demands and refused to negotiate seriously and the result was an Iranian program that is more advanced than ever.”

Netanyahu on Monday continued to speak out against the proposed arrangement with Iran, urging Western negotiators to strive for a “better” deal. “We will continue to speak out” against the proposed deal, Netanyahu said according to the Times of Israel, adding “this process has a goal… to prevent Iran attaining a nuclear weapons capability.”

In contrast with the New York Times editorial, the Washington Post in a Tuesday editorial called the delay in striking a deal "fortunate."

"Supporters and opponents of an accord with Iran on its nuclear program ought to agree that the latest pause in the talks was fortunate," the Post editorial board writes.

[related]