Ben Smith defends himself by linking to Shmuel Rosner.  Rosner takes offense at my labeling him a Likud and neocon:

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.
1 Rosner.

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. 

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.