1. I never told anyone other than my wife which party I vote for (hint: It's not always the same party).
2. I don't think there's such thing as Israeli "neocon" - some people can testify that this isn't the first time for me to deny the viability of such definition.
Furthermore Rosner doesn't feel that the article is skewed:
I counted all the people interviewed for Smith's piece. Here's the final tally:
2 unnamed officials (maybe it's the same one, it's not clear). Party: Unknown.
5 people you might be able to count as "Likudniks" - even though not all of them are members of the party (Aid to Netanyahu, Kuperwasser, Begin, Dermer, Gold).
3 people associated with the Kadima Party - the opposition to Likud.
2 Palestinians (not one as Sullivan claims).
1 Michael Herzog - party unknown. He worked for Labor's Barak, his brother is Minister from the Labor Party, but he also advises Netanyahu. I can't speak for him, but am quite sure he'd be surprised to be considered a Likudnik.
1 "Veteran" of past negotiations. Party: unknown. It can be anyone. It can be the hawk Gold, or it can be the dove Yossi Beilin.
The main point Rosner is trying to make:
Sullivan was quick to denounce this piece because it stated what all Middle East analysts understand: Obama's policies didn't make much sense. And it's not just "Likudniks" saying this. It is also the Palestinians and the Israeli opposition.