Pataki is certainly right that your book is flawed. But it's flawed in the same sense that every book is – none are perfect.

It was intersting that Pataki posed as a criticism that 'MIQ' did not give an accounting of Palestinian "atrocities". That seems to very seriously miss the whole point. It's a critique reminiscent of those organised media campaigns that make charges of anti-Israel media bias, based on a lack of what they call 'balance'. Balance being some golden mean where both sides are criticised in equal amounts, whatever the circumstances.

It seems a little unfair to citicise a book for not doing things that it never set out to do. Perhaps Pataki is suggesting that it should be longer in some future edition?