1.  In his post, Mr. Plosker writes: "Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has pointedly not opposed negotiations with Iran. But he is entitled to express his legitimate concern and to oppose any deal that may leave the threat of a nuclear Iran hanging over Israel like a proverbial sword of Damocles."  Do you agree with this assertion?  Explain your answer.

2.  Mr. Plosker also says: "But why does the NY Times believe that Netanyahu is responsible for generating 'hysterical opposition?' The term would imply some sort of irrational behavior and perhaps is indicative of the NY Times’ general disdain for the Israeli prime minister." Does Mr. Plosker have a valid point?  Explain your answer.

3.  The Iranian government has expressed their desire for the destruction of Israel on numerous occasions.  Their secret nuclear weapons program was discovered in 2002.  Since then, they have given the international community the run-around on allowing nuclear inspectors in to their facilities.  Why do you think the NY Times editors would say that Prime Minister Netanyahu is "responsible for generating 'hysterical opposition?'" over this life or death matter for his country?