To continue the beating of my point into the ground, the 'feud' between the NY Times and Netanyahu is revealing - because of the thing that is never mentioned. The Times is mad at Bibi because they feel his strident and public criticisms of the would be pending deal with Iran are ruining the chance of an historic agreement being made [even though to imagine something historic in the offing here is nothing but pure conjecture - there's absolutely nothing in the public domain to suggest Iran is doing anything here other than playing games - which is not to say a real deal is impossible, but only to point out that there's much, much more reason to doubt the possibility of such an outcome than to vainly believe in its proto inevitability]. What I find interesting in this 'debate' is how the elephant in the room cannot be spoken of - by the Times because they cannot see or simply refuse to see the truth standing right in front of them, and by Netanyahu because to point at the elephant would be diplomatically uncouth and ill advised - namely, that if you believe that Obama, contrary to his stated claims, has no intention of using force to stop Iran's nuclear program and has never had any intention to venture down that road, then what Netanyahu is saying and doing makes perfect sense whereas the illusions The Times insists on clinging to look like gross naivety or lies told in service of their master.
