Armin Rosen’s attack on Mondoweiss in The Atlantic is about nothing more than policing the discourse on Israel. Rosen’s article on alleged anti-Semitism is a shoddy attempt at smearing Alex Kane, Mondoweiss and Peter Beinart. It was sparked by the fact that a mainstream publication, The Daily Beast (on Beinart’s Open Zion blog), had the audacity to publish two articles by Alex that speak in favor of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Rosen argues The Daily Beast should never publish someone associated with Mondoweiss (or, we’re sure, with the Electronic Intifada, or any other website that pushes the boundaries of our lacking discourse on the Middle East). Why? Because Mondoweiss “often gives the appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise,” and thus “by vilifying and dehumanizing one side of the conflict, the poison of anti-Semitism makes a constructive, forward-looking discourse far more difficult to achieve.” This coming from someone who defended the term “Islamo-facism.” Usually we’d ignore the kind of shallow and unsubstantiated attack on this website, but the piece appeared in The Atlantic, and Rosen is an Atlantic fellow, so we will meet fire from this quarter with a strong defense.
On Twitter, Rosen promised the “definitive bitch-smacking of Mondoweiss.” You’d think that in order to characterize someone as anti-Semitic (which is actually a libelous accusation, when unsupported), you’d have to really bring the goods. Here are Rosen’s charges as to why Alex Kane should not be published by The Daily Beast:
- Phil Weiss wrote an article for the American Conservative which has been associated with Pat Buchanan;
- Phil Weiss writes about the Israel Lobby;
- Mondoweiss published a piece from Refaat Alareer a writer in Gaza that questioned the role the Israeli government could have played in the death of Vittorio Arrigoni;
- Mondoweiss published a piece by Max Ajl which puts the deaths of the Fogel family in the Itamar settlement in the context of the violence of the occupation;
- Mondoweiss published a piece by Jack Ross (who Rosen implies is a Holocaust denying Nazi sympathizer);
- Mondoweiss claims “Iran has never officially denied the Holocaust,” which Rosen admits is factually true;
- Phil Weiss writes about the role of American Jews in the establishment
Notice any criticism of Alex? No? Well, Rosen still holds Alex responsible because “publicly he does not challenge the site’s lunacy.” If that is not the epitome of McCarthyite guilt by association, then we don’t know what it.
This isn’t the first time Rosen has offered himself as an attack dog. He distinguished himself during his time in a joint Jewish Theological Seminary/Columbia University program by being an especially shrill voice in the campaigns to deny Joseph Massad tenure at Columbia Although Massad was far from the only professor Rosen disapproved of. He also had issues with Mahmoud Mamdani and Hamid Dabashi — notice a trend?
Rosen’s conduct toward Massad is similar to his conduct with us. He’s name-calling in an effort to establish a redline in the discourse. He doesn’t want our voices granted any legitimacy. And the reason is obvious. We are unremitting critics of what Israel looks like today and what Zionism had produced for Palestine, the US and American Jewish life; and because Americans are opening themselves up to these ideas, we are getting more attention from the mainstream. Rosen is doing his utmost to shut the door on us.
Alex Kane’s work stands on its own. While Rosen admits he is not responsible for what other people write, his entire article is based on that very premise. He should actually take the time to read Alex’s work–in The Daily Beast, in Mondoweiss and in other publications. Alex has an extensive record by now of writing on this issue, and anyone who wants to show that he’s an “anti-Semite” has material to comb through. But there’s nothing anti-Semitic about his work.
Ultimately, this is not about Alex or Mondoweiss. It is about the larger issue of policing the discourse on Israel in this country. It is about the routine use of smears to discredit your opposition. It is about the tired use of the word “anti-Semitism” to shut down debate over Israel–a use that has cheapened that word to mean “anyone who critiques Israel.” And as for Rosen’s issue with Phil’s examination of Jewish privilege, read Marc Ellis’s meditation on Jewish empowerment, or Liz Shulman on the issue of male Jewish privilege, or Avraham Burg on Jewish wealth and access and of course Peter Beinart who grounds his critique in the admission “we live in an age not of Jewish weakness, but of Jewish power.” We live in an unprecedented moment of Jewish history; our intellectuals, and not just Jewish ones, have a right and responsibility to reflect on these questions.
Refaat Alareer’s article on the death of Vittorio Arrigoni was a classic anti-Semitic blood libel.
The decision by Mondoweiss to publish that article crossed the line, and was just as anti-Semitic as Mr. Alareer’s poison pen.
The shrillness of the defenders of Israel is going ultrasonic. Maybe this should be the second post at Salon to point out that fact.
Glad you took the time…
The critique also mentioned the New Yorker parody where Ariel Sharon’s father was Adolph (hitler, assumedly). This was in fact in very poor taste.
The examples given in the critique (smear?) really don’t add up to a lot. The development of the neocon movement is a historical phenomenon that deserves study and certainly the importance of israel’s security to the creators of the movement is clear. Once Bush chose Cheney, who had already switched sides from realist to neoconservative, as his veep. And once the Supreme Court chose Bush over Gore. And once the WTC was attacked and the first obvious target (Afghanistan) was small potatoes, the attack on Iraq was inevitable. Bush used the Israel lobby to help him sell what would have been sold by hook or by crook in any case. Thus the real story of the neoconservative movement comes down to one man: Dick Cheney. The actions of the Israel lobby from November 2000 until the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, played a tiny role in the war, not a pivotal role. Dick Cheney was the man in charge.
Thank you Alex, Adam and Phil for standing up to would-be bully Armin Rosen and showing plainly that Rosen has no substance to back up his smears of Mondoweiss. Mondoweiss threatens all those who want to maintain the status quo: a system of Jewish privilege, enforced by violence, between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
RE: “Ultimately, this is not about Alex or Mondoweiss. It is about
the larger issue of policing the discourse on Israel in this country. It is about the routine use of smears to discredit your opposition. It is about the tired use of the word ‘anti-Semitism’ to shut down debate over Israel. . .” ~ Kane, Horowitz and Weiss
MY COMMENT: This is part of the reason I fear that Revisionist Zionism and Likudnik Israel (specifically by virtue of their inordinate sway over the U.S.) might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of ‘The Enlightenment’ ! ! !
To borrow from a recent article by Chris Hedges, if a culture silences dissident voices and retreats into what Sigmund Freud called “screen memories” (reassuring mixtures of fact and fiction like those found in national myths), it dies. It surrenders its internal mechanism for puncturing self-delusion.