I have to agree with Josh – Michael Oren isn’t particularly right-wing

Well, then it MUST be true. I’ve provided actual EVIDENCE in the way of a columnist for a respected U.S. conservative pubication who writes that Oren’s think tank ‘promotes the Likud agenda’ and quoting Oren advocating making war on Syria, a view beloved of the Netanyahu-Likud crowd–& yet we’re supposed to take yr unsupported word for it that Oren is NOT right-wing. Sure, let’s throw the rules of evidence out the window. Let’s believe anything you guys say. No proof necessary because you’re both just so damn credible!

Thanks for reminding me again why it is I haven’t visited this blog in months…Yawn

It’s I who should be yawning. You’ve only said the precise same thing around 6 other times & even, if I recall correctly, said you’d wouldn’t bother coming back here. I guess knowing that nothing would make me happier, you found you had to break yr promise.

you have no idea who Oren is

I know perfectly well who he is. I read his NYT column. I’ve heard his name before. He’s not a major light in my universe though apparently a god in yrs.

And when someone points out his qualifications, you compare me to Goebbels.

You carped incessantly about his being a “distinguished historian.” I didn’t accept your estimation & certainly not for a piece in which he makes such a gross error.

You have a habit of repeating arguments which are not true in comment after comment. I just presumed you’d adopted the Big Lie & believed if you repeated an untruth long enough my readers would come to accept it.

Refuse to engage the substance of a discussion

Why is it that in the scores of instances in which I’ve refuted yr bogus claims & arguments w. facts & sources, 90% of the time you don’t even bother to respond. You just go on yr merry way & come up w some new piece of junk claim about some tangential issue. In the law, silence is assent. So I can only assume all those times when you have no reply that you’ve essentially conceded you have nothing to say in reply.

maybe that’s why this blog has virtually no traffic or discussion.

Again with the lies. Try 300,000 unique visitors in the past yr; 3,700 comments (31 published on a single post this week). 70 subscribers. How many visitors do you have? How many people give a whit about what you have to say? Oh that’s right. You don’t have a blog. All this is rich coming fr. someone who refuses to even create his own. Maybe it’s you who’re afraid that, unlike in the film: “If you blog it, they will NOT come.”

I’ve noticed you have a tendency to do that. Refuse to engage the substance of a discussion and just throw ad hominem insults. It’s really sad.

Then again, maybe that’s why this blog has virtually no traffic or discussion.

Oren’s narrative is not particularly “rightist.”

This from a Cato Institute research fellow (about as right-wing libertarian as you can get) writing at American Conservative Magazine (for Pete’s sakes):

Michael Oren, an Israeli historian affiliated with Shalem, a think tank that promotes the Likud agenda…

And this from Whig, a Canadian conservative blog:

Michael Oren of Jerusalem’s Shalem Center writ[ing] in The New Republic…propose[s] that Israel attack the Syrian ground forces deployed along the Lebanese border…Only a direct blow, Oren plausibly contends, would force President Bashar Al Assad to reckon his support of Hezbollah as too costly. In this case, a longer and perhaps a wider campaign now may be the best bet for avoiding far worse hostilities in a year or two.

No, proposing a direct Israeli attack on Syrian ground forces and advocating that Israel widen a war it was doomed to lose almost from the start–no, these are certainly not “rightist narratives.”

you lie about their background and call them “right wing.”

I haven’t “lied” about Michael Oren’s ideological orientation. Red meat conservatives above only confirm what most of the rest of the world acknowledges (except you).

Oren is indeed a distinguished historian

Like Goebbels, if you repeat something you WISH to be true long enough, perhaps someone outside of yr narrow political circle might believe you. Oren is a legend in his own mind–and yours. That is all. Oh & I guess perhaps someone at the Times editorial board thought enough of him to publish this howler of an error. But I bet if they ever entertain the idea of publishing anything of his in future they’ll go over it with a fine tooth comb.
[
UPDATE: I have reviewed Oren's work and read positive comments about it from several historians I respect. I grant that Oren is a serious (though I would never concede "distinguished") historian and that in his work he manages sometimes (but not always) to rise above his personal ideological perspective. But I by no means retreat from my criticism of the serious lapse he displayed in the NY Times column he wrote.]

And any Mideast historian who forgets the terms of one of the most vivid and noxious Mideast political coinages of the past four years is, ipso facto, NOT distinguished. Sloppy, yes. But not distinguished.

if the Syrians were so eager to cut a deal, maybe they shouldn’t have sponsored a war against Israel that would discredit it’s political leadership

Oh, I see. The fact that Olmert displayed his incompetency and total lack of leadership during this war and that his popularity ratings approach SINGLE DIGITS is Syria’s fault! Wow. That’s really something. Olmert didn’t play any role in the decisions he made leading to his disgrace?!

Olmert isn’t the issue. If the sides can work out a good deal, it can ultimately be sold.

Rubbish. The sides HAVE worked out a deal that is terrific for Israel. The deal gives Israel even more than what it would’ve gotten fr. the Barak deal in 2000. Olmert sucker punched the deal. Olmert IS the issue. You and I both know that Sharon, who allowed these negotiations to begin, would’ve never displayed the weak-kneed will of Olmert in this situation. Sharon, for all his faults, had some vision & some gumption.

You’re very good at labeling and hurling ad hominems at anyone who disagrees with you.

As for Olmert being dead politically, if the Syrians were so eager to cut a deal, maybe they shouldn’t have sponsored a war against Israel that would discredit it’s political leadership. In any event, Olmert isn’t the issue. If the sides can work out a good deal, it can ultimately be sold.

In any event, it’s so sad that whenever anyone dares disagree with you, you lie about their background and call them “right wing.” Yes, it’s nice to assume that AIPAC and the Israeli right wing are the only things holding up a peace agreement. But it’s just not supported by the facts. And the fact that a few “columnists” in haaretz say something does not make it gospel.