Responding to ‘the Atlantic’ smear on Mondoweiss

Armin Rosen’s attack on Mondoweiss on the Atlantic website 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 Here are Rosen’s charges as to why Alex Kane should not be published by The Daily Beast: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 namecalling 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.  

About Alex Kane Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss

Alex Kane is a staff reporter for Mondoweiss. Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss are the co-editors of Mondoweiss.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Israel/Palestine, Media, US Politics

{ 144 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. 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.

    • Cliff says:

      I don’t remember it being that bad, but I do remember you saying that the Israelis only raped and murdered more Palestinians than the other way around, because ‘the Arabs’ weren’t able to.

      I love that Zionist disassociation. And here you are, sniping the blog like the pissant you are.

      Thank god Hostage has put you in your place repeatedly, so you’ve relegated yourself to these drive-bys though.

    • Avi_G. says:

      You are pathetic and so is the terrorist state that you are defending.

      Israel’s track record on assassinations and murder (Euphemistically called
      Extrajudicial Killings) is quite ripe with supporting examples.

      But the truth is a blood libel, too, isn’t it?

    • Yet they allow you to utter baseless smears and infantile attempts to justify the unremitting violence of Israel. Hysterical claims of blood libel are just ridiculous posturing by trolls who have no interest whatsoever in the reports and debates here, and can only respond with such misfiring attacks.

    • AlGhorear says:

      @proudzionist777

      I’ve been on a time-wasting wild goose chase trying to track down Refaat Alareer’s article on the death of Vittorio Arrigoni that you allege was “classic anti-Semitic blood libel”. Needless to say my search ended up fruitless. I did find this: Gaza Mourns Vittorio Arrigoni , but I challenge you to point out even a hint of anti-Semitism in it. Go on, I’m waiting. Quotes please.

      Or do you find it much easier to just drop by and make wild, unfounded, libelous accusations?

      • I accept your challenge.

        Alareer said, “The timing…. and the irreparable damage the crime did to Gaza and the Palestinians tell of the Israeli Mossad hand lurking behind the doers.”

        Blaming Mossad for the crime is right out of a medieval blood libel.

        • Blaming Mossad for the crime is right out of a medieval blood libel.

          no it’s not, it’s a logical option, one that shouldn’t be dismissed. they work undercover therefore one has to speculate what they are up to. they are well known assassins. quit whining.

        • Shmuel says:

          Wow. Damning evidence indeed. So the gentle, law-abiding, peace-loving, Mossad was going about its daily business, earning a living, taking care of its family, upholding its faith, when – all of a sudden – the body of a missing Christian child was found, and someone said the Mossad must have done it, for no other reason than to satisfy its cruel, inhuman ritual need for innocent blood (or a consecrated host – flesh of our Saviour). It was more than just a false accusation. It was the result of centuries of animosity toward the only Jewish secret service in the world (except the Shin Bet and IDF Intelligence, and maybe a few others). The people actually believed that the Mossad was capable of covert ops, assassinations, false flags and other dirty tricks, for no other reason than the fact that it was run and staffed by Jews. When, oh when will the prejudice and persecution end? Thank God we now have tanks and fighter planes and nuclear weapons, without which the gentile mob would undoubtedly have tortured a confession out of the poor Mossad and burnt it at the stake faster than you can say “By subterfuge you should make war.”

          Definitely “right out of a medieval blood libel” – and a “classic” one at that. Your vigilance is appreciated PZ777 (“Israel’s finest and most expensive brandy”).

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Blaming Mossad for the crime is right out of a medieval blood libel.”

          Mossad was around in medieval times?

        • remember that hit list on the rightwing site w/Vittorio’s name on the top of the list? if i were a detective i’d throw that info into the mix.

        • Zionist,

          Whether or not Annie –or anyone, for that matter– believes that Mossad was behind Vittorio Arrigoni’s murder is irrelevant. It is actually a reasonable possibility as Mossad is a covert, intelligence and counter-ops organization that has a long record of assassinations, kidnappings and torture. If Mossad is willing to assassinate scientists, then I see no reason to be shocked that Mossad would be willing to assassinate activists, as well. I’m not saying that is what happened here; actually I don’t believe that they were behind Arrigoni’s kidnapping and murder. But, it’s a plausible scenario.

          It has nothing to do with Mossad’s “Jewishness,” (I doubt many of its covert assassins, kidnappers and torturers actually adhere to Jewish scruples), and everything to do with its well-documented track-record.

          You can’t fall back on the absurd “blood libel” defense every time someone makes an accusation against a Jew or a Jewish group without any evidence that the accusation is based solely on the Jewishness of the accused. In this case, it is not.

        • “You can’t fall back on the absurd “blood libel” defense every time someone makes an accusation against a Jew or a Jewish group..”

          I only use “blood libel” when it fits.

          The Armin Rosen attack on Mondoweiss was over the top and I disagree with most of it. That said, the Alareer article was a blood libel because he, and Phil and Adam know damn well the Mossad had nothing to do with Vittorio’s murder but they went ahead and published it anyway.

        • Thanks for introducing me to the Carmel brandy.
          Your tip is a lot more useful than the usual Mondoweiss attempts to de-cypher ’777′, which I’ve been told, has right-wing, satanic and numerological meanings I’d never dreamed of.

          If truth be told, I use ’777′ because it’s the easiest numerical keystroke for me.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “That said, the Alareer article was a blood libel because he, and Phil and Adam know damn well the Mossad had nothing to do with Vittorio’s murder but they went ahead and published it anyway.”

          First, “blood libel” has a specific meaning. “Accusing a state’s spy agency of something they didn’t do” isn’t it. And falsely accusing someone of “blood libel” is as bad as asserting an actual blood libel. Frankly, you should be banned for doing it.

          Second, unless you have complete access to all of Mossad’s records and have interviewed every person ever associated with it, then you can’t “damn well know” whether Mossad had any role in this or not.

          And given the fact that Mossad has a history of political murder, anyone who would discount Mossad without unequivocal evidence is a fool.

        • How could anyone know such a thing? You must have some evidence to be so thoroughly convinced… yes? (Again, I don’t believe Mossad was behind this, but I wouldn’t say that I “know” they weren’t behind it.)

        • Keith says:

          PROUDZIONIST777- When you get right down to it, the whole Zionist “clash of civilizations,” narrative of Muslims as Jew-hating terrorists is one big ‘blood libel’ on steroids.

        • Rusty Pipes says:

          Any allegation of “Blood Libel” is mere hyperbole unless it includes Christian Baby Blood

        • Mooser says:

          “That said, the Alareer article was a blood libel because he, and Phil and Adam know damn well the Mossad had nothing to do with Vittorio’s murder but they went ahead and published it anyway.”

          Ziocaine omniscience strikes again!

        • Mooser says:

          “If truth be told, I use ’777′ because it’s the easiest numerical keystroke for me.”

          Proudy, why do you try and get away with this kind of stuff. All the Mondoweiss staff in NY and the East Coast have access to competent Kaballahists. They know what the number is intended to accomplish, so there’s no use denying it.
          For those who don’t know: “777″ in the Old Testament stood for today’s “503″.
          And I bet every time he pushes “Post Comment” he says ‘This’ll be the one, I know it, this one is gonna bring the entire house down around that mosers ears!

        • Shmuel says:

          Thanks for introducing me to the Carmel brandy.

          You’re welcome. It’s absolutely vile stuff, palatable only to “proud Zionists” willing to swallow anything, as long as it’s made in Israel.

        • *cue cuckoo-clock sound*

    • How so? Please elaborate on the ‘classic anti-semitic blood libel’ part of Alareer’s article. Thanks.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “classic anti-Semitic blood libel.”

      I read that article and nowhere did he mention blood or matzohs, so, no, it was not a “blood libel.”

      And further, there has been no independent examination of mossad’s records, so we still cannot rule out involvement by israel.

      But, even if Alareer got it wrong, then I guess if Abe Foxman is right that survivors of the holocaust are entitled to be irrational, then the same is true for those who are living through the continuing Nakba.

      If a Gazan makes a statement about a hero of Gaza and the terrorist state who is directly or indirectly responsible for his death, who the hell do you think you are entitled to dare question him, pudracist666?

    • Shingo says:

      Refaat Alareer’s article on the death of Vittorio Arrigoni was a classic anti-Semitic blood libel.

      That’s what shills like you were saying over allegations Israel killed Arafat. Funny how no one is using that as a rebuttal anymore.

      • remember how many people freaked out over the swedish press writing about dr hess like they were all so insulted, bloodlibel boycott ikea or whatever, and then the dr in berkeley produces the interview the parts stealing doc gave a couple years before admitting to trading in palestinian body parts. that’s what this reminds me of. faux outrage. the mossad? kill? shiver me timbers, it’s their specialty.

      • ColinWright says:

        “That’s what shills like you were saying over allegations Israel killed Arafat. Funny how no one is using that as a rebuttal anymore.”

        We’re going over to the ‘wink wink, nudge nudge’ phase. ‘Yeah, we did it — whatcha goin ta do about it?’

      • Arafat was a bloody murderer. Vittorio was an innocent. Accusing Mossad of killing an innocent, when you know it’s a false claim, is a blood libel.

        • Shingo says:

          Arafat was a bloody murderer.

          He was an amateur compared to Sharon And Rabin.

          Accusing Mossad of killing an innocent, when you know it’s a false claim, is a blood libel.

          No it’s not. Killing innocents is what Israel does.

        • Blake says:

          @ proudzio: Being a famous former terrorist has always been a huge political resume polisher in Israel. Fact is all Zionists feel more secure have experienced murderers at the helm. But it’s different if you are a tribe member I guess. By the way who did Arafat murder exactly?

          Mossad/IOF have their ways of murdering around the world so Palestine would be easy pickings seeing as you can raid what is left of it anytime you feel like.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Accusing Mossad of killing an innocent, when you know it’s a false claim, is a blood libel.”

          No, it’s not unless you’re talking about a ritual killing, not a political assassination.

          But even if you think that Vittorio was an innocent, a lot of israelis would say that he was guilty. There are quite a few people who are regular commentors on this site who would think it, even if they won’t say so, let alone some cesspool like the JPost comments. Alareer isn’t permitted to consider that fact?

          But, again, how do you know that Mossad is innocent. Are you claiming that Mossad has never killed anyone?

        • eljay says:

          >> Accusing Mossad of killing an innocent, when you know it’s a false claim, is a blood libel.

          Pretending Mossad doesn’t kill innocents, when you know it’s a false claim, makes you an idiot. However, since you’re a hateful and immoral Zio-supremacist, that’s nothing knew.

        • Cliff says:

          why is it a blood libel? do the palestinians get a special word for when someone mistakenly accuses them of something? or do only jews get this PRIVILEGE? and in calling attention to said fact, is that in and of itself yet another sign of antisemitism, and by definition (within this context of Zionist manipulation of identity politics) – privilege?

          inquiring minds want to know, pudzio666

        • seafoid says:

          why is it a blood libel?

          Cliff
          Shulman calls it

          ” the prevalent paranoid mythology”
          link to nybooks.com

          “But I think the reality we inhabit and have largely created by our own actions has more to do with the story we Israelis tell ourselves about who we are—a powerfully dramatic story that, like many such mythic stories, has a way of perpetuating itself, at continually escalating cost to those who tell it”

          and of course the story is bullshit

    • ritzl says:

      Blood libel, eh? FFS, Israel routinely uses proxies to kill people, bombs and kills Gazans for things they didn’t do, shoots internationals in the head with tear gas canisters, shoots Nobel Peace Prize winners, kids, reporters, etc. etc. etc. The whole PA security apparatus is a proxy setup to enforce Israel’s dictates and isn’t shy about using violence. Israel and the US equipped, trained and financed the Fatah paramilitaries under Dahlan specifically to overthrow an elected government. Palestinians are shot in the back of the head for the crime of lying face down on the ground , bleeding from a bullet wound in the back.

      The list is practically endless.

      The pattern is there.

      Then there’s the whole pervasiveness of the death via Israel-enforced collective punishment thingy that a Palestinian living in Gaza must be especially sensitive to and angry about.

      Fact is that you don’t know any more than Alareer about the presence or absence of Israeli involvement in Arrigoni’s death. But for Alareer the totality of Israel’s involvement in Gaza life and death and the pattern of Israeli violence makes the Mossad involvement angle a viable, experience-based supposition. For you, the blood libel accusation is simply a reflexive article of faith because all the rest of the “background” violence can’t possibly be happening.

      Rosen’s smear is just that.

    • Mooser says:

      “The decision by Mondoweiss to publish that article crossed the line…”

      Look, prodzionist 666, if you had taken the time to inform Mondoweiss that you are the ultimate linesman, they would have submitted all articles to you for approval. But instead you spring it on us by surprise. When did you get the job?

    • RoHa says:

      “anti-Semitic blood libel”

      I bet you can type that in your sleep.

      • Mooser says:

        In his sleep? I bet he’s got it on Auto-complete, with a keyboard shortcut. Unfortunately, his Internet service does not include the capability to make hyper-links offering some kind of evidence. It probably costs less that way.

    • proudzionist will agree that NY Times,WaPO,FOX and CNN should be charged with crimes against humanities for inciting wars and sanctions against Iraq and for repeating the same against Iran and for denying or ignoring Naqba. They also should be charged with failing to report daily assault on human lives by israel. they also should be held accountable for suppressing information on anti American activities by Isareli agents .

    • Not so long ago Rabin promised the Palestinians (involved in ist Intifada) that the bones would be crushed . Will it qualify as a bloodless libel every time the world is reminded of the continued blood curdling violence against the civilians in OT drawing its inspiration directly from the threats anounced by Israeli secular and religious leaders against Palestinians?

    • ColinWright says:

      “Refaat Alareer’s article on the death of Vittorio Arrigoni was a classic anti-Semitic blood libel.”

      Actually, no. I looked the article up and scanned it. Refaat suggests Israel killed Vittorio Arragoni.

      Given Israel’s taste for assassination — and her taste for making those operations appear to be the work of others — it seems a reasonable suggestion. In what way is this a ‘blood libel’ at all, much less a ‘classic’ one?

      You would seem to be demanding that we never suspect Israel of carrying out killings — which, given the fact that she does, is absurd.

    • Shmuel says:

      … a classic anti-Semitic blood libel

      Gaza is practically cut off from the outside world, a foreign volunteer is murdered, and a Gazan Palestinian suggests it was an Israeli op, designed to scare off foreign volunteers (particularly flotilla passengers) and isolate Gaza even further. Do you really believe that this is either anti-Semitic or a “classic” blood libel? At the very worst, it’s a shaky conspiracy theory. In Iran, I hear, everything is blamed on the British secret services. In Latin America, it’s the CIA. Are these also “classic [anti-Albion/anti-Yanqui] blood libels”?

  2. ritzl says:

    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…

  3. 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.

    • Cliff says:

      The Israel Lobby progression overlaps with that of the neoconservative movement.

      And history doesn’t always start with 9/11, WJ.

    • “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.”

      Perhaps, but a less judeo-centric media whould at least have made his job a lot harder. The campaign for war in Iraq was waged in our media during 2002, just as the campaign for war in Iran is being waged in our media today.

    • lysias says:

      Without the Israel lobby, wouldn’t more Democrats have opposed the invasion of Iraq, and might that not have made the invasion impossible? Remember, Democrats controlled the Senate in 2002.

    • Now the Israeli supporters will claim “we did not start the Iraq war” for the war did not go well as was promised to US.They are happy to repeat the same on iran and will be ready to claim the same again after the war as that war also would not go well in blood and money. But their happiness will be doubled in value and in communal expression of glee .
      Didn’t somebody from Isareli organizations in US come out and claim that saying iran war is being driven by Jews/Israel is antisemitic?

    • ColinWright says:

      “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.”

      Why was it in poor taste? Do you see something praiseworthy in Ariel Sharon? If so, what?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. ColinWright says:

    “On Twitter, Rosen promised the “definitive bitch-smacking of Mondoweiss.”…”

    Parenthetically, I’m quite the male chauvinist myself (you don’t even want to know) — and I certainly tend to rebel if anyone tries to put on the ol’ political correctness blinders — but isn’t ‘bitch-smacking’ a bit much? How did such a piece of really vile misogyny gain currency? Is it because if Blacks ‘smack bitches’ it’s okay?

    Perhaps Rosen could explain this. I would be curious. How is ‘bitch smacking’ an appropriate expression for much of anything? I mean, ‘Jewing somebody out of a tip’ or whatever pales by comparison. ‘Bitch smacking’ is a really vile expression, if you think about it.

    Maybe I misunderstand the expression. I’m open to any corrections anyone may have to offer. It doesn’t refer to ‘smacking bitches’? I’m all ears.

  7. ToivoS says:

    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.

    Time for you to go back and read again W%M the Israeli Lobby. They have an entire chapter devoted to the Iraq war. Do check out the footnotes at the end of the book (arranged by Chapter #). It is an illuminating experience. I read many negative reviews of that book and not one tackled the arguments that W&M made in that chapter.

    Bottom line: Israel and the Lobby were an essential, if perhaps not sufficient, ingredient in leading the US into that war.

  8. Avi_G. says:

    Mondoweiss published a piece by Jack Ross (who Rosen implies is a Holocaust denying Nazi sympathizer)

    Ironically, Nakbah denial is so commonplace that mentioning the Nakbah is already met with accusations of anti-Semitism.

    But, again, that is but a sliver of the tactics used to police the discourse on Israel in the U.S..

  9. CitizenC says:

    Yonah, among other mistakes, you misuse “neoconservative”. The neocons are a specifically Jewish contribution to US right-wing politics and ideology as several books have attested. People like Cheney and Rumsfeld are best called gentile radical nationalists. C&R in particular date to the 1970s, when they steered Ford rightward prematurely, probably cost him the 1976 election.

    They were in the Project for a New American Century, which blueprinted the Iraq in the mid-1990s. PNAC was well-stocked with neocons, who entered the govt with Bush 2. Cheney’s office was the nerve center of the Iraq war party, and full of neocons like David Wurmser. Rumsfeld’s DoD was full of neocons, of whom Wolfowitz was the godfather, having hatched PNAC in the early 1990s.

    By themselves, the gentile rad nats are not powerful enough to advance their agenda. The neocons, including their depth in think tanks, academe and media, Congress, and political funding, are indispensable enablers in the radicalization of US foreign policy.

  10. tokyobk says:

    Write away. Critique Israel all you want. Some people will want to blanket smear you, some are hiding under your blanket.

    I have never seen anything from Alex Kane to make me think he is remotely an anti-semite. Nor Phil. Though without a doubt your hair trigger sensitivity to Islamophobia (a good instinct — the sensitivity that is) does not spring so fast when it comes to Jews. Look at the above assertion that the author’s past targets represent a “trend.” Maybe. Indeed. The kind of thing that would be ridiculed here if said about a list of Jewish advisories.

    Whatever the Atlantic writer’s agenda, there are things in the comments regularly and sometimes in the postings that are indeed disturbing. There is an ex-Jew trend here which is a perfectly legitimate conversation but blends into politics and conspiracies. To be fair, you did shut down the anti-circumcision conversation.

    In the post on Abigail Disney this comment “Good for Mickey and Donald! Now, Uncle Sam should rip off his uncomfortable and ridiculous yarmaka and don the old Mickey ears.” could not be more classic stock and even belies the touted notion that it is “Israel” or “Israel lobby” that is to be challenged, not Jews. If Alex to Phil or Adam do think Uncle Sam wears a (sic) yarmaka, then there is perhaps something to the Atlantic, but I doubt it.

    Most people here and most critics of Israel are not anti-Jewish. Some are.

    There was a time when Zionist Occupied Government was something you only heard from a Nazi website. Please be careful and don’t become “Jew Watch”

    • Cliff says:

      I think that’s a fair assessment. However, at the same time you need to consider that Phil himself is Jewish or as he puts it, part of the extended Jewish ‘family’ maybe. Meaning that he identifies even if he’s not explicitly religious.

      This website deals regularly with Jewish identity as a result. It doesn’t do a lot of delving into Islamic identity either.

      I recall a recent discussion on Christian (supposed imperialistic Islamophobia) blah blah originating in the 12th century or something.

      Now, there is plenty of Islamophobia to go around. Just look at the comments by Fredblogs wherein he describes the Islamic reign/Golden Age in the Iberian Peninsula as an ‘Occupation’ of ‘Spain’ – an entity that didn’t exist. He effectively defends the antisemitic Visigothic Christians to spite present-day Palestinian solidarity. That’s how utterly pathetic and Zionist-driven his mentality is.

      Islam should also be put under a microscope. I believe it as a religious was political from the start whereas Christianity was not – due to different circumstances, sociologically speaking. The Prophet (pbuh) was not Roman occupation. He was an accomplished merchant. His first wife proposed to him and was independently wealthy. Muhammed’s most violent act against the old ways was to destroy the idols in the Ka’bah – akin to Yeshua throwing out the money lenders (I think).

      Similarly, in Buddhism, when the Buddha is having his final meditative experience beneath the tree where he ultimately passes on and achieves nirvana – he first undergoes a psychological battle with his ‘inner demons’, though they are given actual names (yet still we are told that they are not to be considered in the same vein as the Judeo-Christian construct of God/Devil entities).

      The basic commanality is how we can step back and put each religion under a microscope and demystify its foundations. In doing so, we can ground it in reality and understand why it manifested as it did. Nothing in history occurs out of a vacuum.

      MW promotes this intellectualism but it’s not perfect because we’re not perfect. It’s not moderated like a classroom on a college campus. If it were, then you could wave goodbye to racists/fascists like hophmi or Fredblogs or giladg.

      So consider the fact that Phil and co. allow a lot of pseudo-sociological analysis from charlatans on both sides for profiling purposes or simply to be fair or simply out of bad judgement/human error maybe, i.e., MW is nothing like JewWatch or JihadWatch or any crazy conspiracy website.

      The articles here are sourced impeccably and are only criticized with what amounts to mud-slinging and banal charges of antisemitism from raving lunatics how spend way to much time ‘defending Israel’ online.

      • ColinWright says:

        “Islam should also be put under a microscope. I believe it as a religious was political from the start whereas Christianity was not – due to different circumstances, sociologically speaking. The Prophet (pbuh) was not Roman occupation. He was an accomplished merchant. His first wife proposed to him and was independently wealthy. Muhammed’s most violent act against the old ways was to destroy the idols in the Ka’bah – akin to Yeshua throwing out the money lenders (I think).”

        I agree with this — as far as it goes.

        However, my take on Islam (and unlike most self-appointed ‘experts’ on Islam, I’ve at least bestirred myself to plough through about half the Quran) is that Mohammed was (a) trying to reconcile what must have been the rather confused bits of Christianity and Judaism floating around the peninsula at the time, and (b) come up with realistic formulae that believers could actually apply in their lives. He’s actually trying to avoid controversy. ‘Okay, okay. Jesus was a prophet. And he even had a virgin mother. You can have that. And that won’t bug the Jews either.’

        This isn’t to say Mohammed didn’t hear God talking to him. He probably did (people used to be more susceptible to such impressions). However, what ‘God’ was doing was making sense of it all. And indeed, Islam is still pretty sensible. It must have been really sensible in context (Seventh century Arab desert society).

        The irony is of course that Mohammed’s attempt to reconcile things just created more conflict. One is reminded of the attempt to resolve the pope/Anti-pope schism. A council agreed on a compromise candidate.

        That just led to three popes. You can’t win…

        • Cliff says:

          Mecca was (and is) an oasis or economic prosperity. At that time however, the gods of old were housed in the Ka’bah. Pagan gods. Islam’s message was the indivisible nature of God. This did not mesh well with the old pagan tradition naturally. Neither did Mohammed’s eschatological message. The pagans didn’t believe in an afterlife.

          Furthermore, Mohammed said that if you lived a bad life – you would suffer in eternity. Another no-no for the pagans. While Mohammed was known for his talent for mediation, it was really only inevitable before conflict was going to arise. Islam did not spread by the sword. It was appealing to people just like Christianity was appealing to people.

          One story says that when the Ka’Bah was in need of repair, different tribal leaders wanted to carry the stone needed to fix it to the broken portion – yet, they were so antagonistic toward one another that none of them would share the stone. Mohammed out the stone on a rug, and asked each leader to grab a portion of the rug. This way it was as if they were ‘all’ carrying the rock because they were sharing the weight.

          Mecca was a place of religious ‘trade’ too as well as just plain trade. However, the latter’s security wrested on the fragility of the former. Islam posed a threat to this economic stability. It was a game-changer. There could really be no long-term coexistence I think. That being said, it was the pagans or the old vanguard who made the first move.

          After Mohammed’s uncle died, he lost his protection and he was forced out of Mecca. That’s when he trekked to Medina (the hiraj or hajj). And along that journey Islam was essentially solidified. In Medina, Islam became a political governance and through the repeated conflicts with the Meccan pagans and old vanguard, Islamic unity was further solidified.

          Before Mohammed and Islam, Arab society was tribal and polytheistic. Now, through Islam – Arab society had (for the most part) become an ‘empire of faith’.

          So Islam was political from the beginning due to the variables in place. Due to the things Mohammed and the early Muslims had to deal with.

          Yeshua was busy living under Roman occupation. Christianity was just another sect of Judaism initially – and largely derivative of mystery religions like the Mithras, etc.

          Can you imagine Yeshua going to war with the Roman empire? He and Christianity would have been wiped out. Hence, due to the variables he had to contend with, it’s no surprise that under that kind of pressure, he was not preaching political resistance. His kingdom was a kingdom of God on Earth. That is what got him crucified – not politics, but the notion that the Roman empire was not the true kingdom but simply an Earthly one.

          Yeshua’s political rivals and religious rivals sold him out no doubt and plotted against him and these ideas he was preaching (of which, we can only verify the Sermon on the Mount historically – right?) – were dangerous to the Establishment but they weren’t overtly political.

        • hey Cliff- Curiosity- Why do you assume the Sermon on the Mount was historical? I’m sure you have some source for this.

          I don’t think the Romans or the Herodians were too picky about this world or the heavenly kingdom, if you went around declaring yourself king that was a good way of getting yourself crucified.

        • Cliff says:

          WJ,

          There is a difference between Jesus Christ the religious figure and Yeshua the historical figure. I’m recalling everything I learned from Civ. I.

          The Sermon on the Mount is supposedly an actual historical event (although to what degree I don’t know).

          The Romans didn’t crucify people regularly as you got closer to the heart of the Empire. However, to keep order at the fringes – why not? They did too – and Yeshua was seen as a troublemaker. Preaching a kingdom of God on Earth undermines the political legitimacy of the Roman Empire. Christians were persecuted against.

          My source is my college text book. I recall my teacher also stating it was a historical event (the only one that we knew of explicitly).

          Again, to what degree I don’t know.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “They did too – and Yeshua was seen as a troublemaker. Preaching a kingdom of God on Earth undermines the political legitimacy of the Roman Empire. Christians were persecuted against.”

          I disagree, because the Roman’s interest wasn’t spiritual, it was political. I think that the context of the preaching was something that the Romans could not care less about, so long as you didn’t challenge Rome’s authority in the here and now [which the bible paints Jesus as taking pains to steer clear of], why would they care what (to their eyes) these wierd people preached about concerning God?

          I think that if he did the exact same thing, in the exact same place, but did not do it at Passover, when the city was (from the Roman perspective) a tinderbox, nothing would have happened to him. (Assuming that there is some historiocity to the Jesus story.) But do it at Passover, and bets are off.

        • Cliff says:

          I’m talking more along the lines of how he was perceived or possibly maligned (by his enemies).

          Yeshua did preach about End Times and a Kingdom of God on Earth though and even if he, himself, was not political – it would be seen as a threat because Christianity was just another mystery religion/sect of Judaism.

          Look at how Christianity inevitably became the official religion of the Roman empire. It was a proselytizing religion. Paul of Tarsus (formerly Saul) was originally one of the Jews who was staunchly anti-Christian but became the most prominent figure of early Christianity post-Jesus. He was a merchant and spread the religion through merchant contacts.

          In fact, that is who Christianity first spread to and then it gained widespread acceptance among the poor. It was easy in the beginning to become Christian and there was a very loose structure of organization.

          Yeshua was just some guy the Romans were crucifying on some such day of the week. It was common in that part of the empire.

        • Citizen says:

          @ Cliff
          So, when Jesus kicked the silky moneychangers out of the temple, he was not attacking their establishment jewish hypocrisy, but attacking Rome, the very same Rome of which Jesus said, “Give onto to Caesar, what is Caesar’s…”

    • Mooser says:

      “To be fair, you did shut down the anti-circumcision conversation.”

      ROTFLMSJAO!!! Yeah, tokyobk, that was a close one. Whew! I mean, discussing infant genital mutilation? Is nothing sacred? I promise, tokyobk, next time there’s an anti-circumcision thread, you’ll get a warning, so you can dig out that old athletic supporter with the hard cup.

  11. RE: “Mondoweiss ‘often gives the appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise’” ~ Armin Rosen

    MY COMMENT: This “appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise” sounds a bit like the old “anti-Semitic by implication” or “anti-Semitism by implication” which was used by Abe Foxman in regard to Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (if memory serves me correctly).

  12. hughsansom says:

    Once again, I’m stunned by how low the bar is for admission to “The Discourse” if one is conservatice, like Armin Rosen. And I’m dismayed, again, to see how conservative the once-excellent Atlantic has gone.

    As Kane, Horowitz, and Weiss note here, the charge of anti-Semitism, made frivolously and maliciously with no other intent thato silence dissent, is actionable. It’s well past time that some cases be brought. The viciousness with which Alan Dershowitz’s favorite accusation is brought needs to be rendered inadmissable.

  13. irmep says:

    The Atlantic could have moderated a long-running, overdue and serious discussion of the Israel lobby in 2002 when it was in discussions with Mearsheimer and Walt to publish their seminal article. Instead, they told them to take a hike. The Israel lobby debate has, thankfully escaped the constricted bounds of establishment outposts like the Atlantic, thanks to Mondoweiss.

    It is a debate that will continue to grow and confront serious questions in places like
    Mondoweiss. It is a huge compliment that they’re going after Alex and Phil with such drivel. In reading the hit piece, it seems frankly that the Atlantic is now….jealous.

    Given the Atlantic’s funding and history, the site is now limited to a role of trying to referee a vibrant competition on the gridiron a decade later….from high up in the stands.
    link to original.antiwar.com

  14. Keith says:

    There is a method to their madness. While the charge of anti-Semitism has lost much of its sting due to overuse, and while Alex Kane and Mondoweiss are not going to be intimidated by the charge, nonetheless, it is still a relatively effective technique for giving the Zionist cadres permission to ignore the criticism. No need to become intellectually involved with unpleasant facts difficult to counter when they can simply be dismissed as “anti-Semitic.” And since perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism, the creation of useful paranoia is two for the price of one. Anti-Semites aided by Kapos. Only Israel and Zionism standing between the Jews and the ovens. Circle the wagons. It has worked for over 60 years. It is what they know.

    “…our intellectuals, and not just Jewish ones, have a right and responsibility to reflect on these questions.”

    When have most public intellectuals ever done this? When have most public intellectuals not pursued an agenda? After all, it is how they earn their living. To expect otherwise is naïve. But, it is good to mention it, of course.

    • Keith says:

      As for the Max Ajl article as an example of anti-Semitism, there is a certain rough justice here. We’ll see how Max feels when reckless charges of anti-Semitism are on the other foot.

    • yourstruly says:

      not just intellectuals but ordinary folks have a right and responsibility to reflect on these questions.

  15. Denis says:

    Rosen’s title was truncated at the printers. It was meant to be:

    A Reminder That Anti-Semitism Has No Place in Debates Over Israel [but Gratuitous Allegations of Anti-Semitism Are Always Welcome]

    The printer was an antisemite, btw.

    This line particularly struck me:
    Having just agreed w/ Phil that Iran has never actually denied “the” holocaust, Rosen then sputters: “It [a quote from MW] also reflects a troublingly dismissive attitude towards Holocaust denial on the part of high-ranking Iranian officials.”

    As you can see, we’re making some progress in the mind-control game of the 21st century. Currently, mal-Semities like Rosen deem that it is unacceptable for a person to have thoughts or suspicions about the reality or extent of “the” holocaust (which means, I presume, the Jewish holocaust), and in some countries it is against the law for such a person to express those thoughts or suspicions. Rosen now pushes that boundary to the point where there is an affirmative duty to root out and destroy not just holocaust deniers, but also those who are not affirmatively rooting out and destroying holocaust deniers.

    Whoever controls the message, controls the game. Up to now Israel has controlled the message. But that’s changing, thanks in part to the folks at MW, and that is really what’s gotten up Rosen’s nose.

  16. The great Israel Shahak, in his classic “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years”:

    “Historically it can be shown that a closed society is not interested in a
    description of itself, no doubt because any description is in part a form of critical
    analysis and so may encourage critical ‘forbidden thoughts’. The more a society
    becomes open, the more it is interested in reflecting, at first descriptively and then
    critically, upon itself, its present working as well as its past. But what happens when a
    faction of intellectuals desires to drag a society, which has already opened up to a
    considerable extent, back to its previous totalitarian, closed condition? Then the very
    means of the former progress – philosophy, the sciences, history and especially
    sociology – become the most effective instruments of the ‘treason of the intellectuals’.
    They are perverted in order to serve as devices of deception, and in the process they
    degenerate.”

    “When a whole society tries to return to totalitarianism, a totalitarian
    history is written, not because of compulsion from above but under pressure from
    below, which is much more effective. This is what happened in Jewish history, and
    this constitutes the first obstacle we have to surmount.”

    • Keith says:

      CHARLES BARWIN- While I think the world of Israel Shahak and continue to highly recommend his “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” we must, nonetheless, keep in mind that he writes from the perspective of a secular Israeli Jew, where Zionism seeks a closed Jewish state. The situation with American Jews is significantly different and more complex. For starters, a closed Jewish state is not an option, hence, the Zionist strategy seems to be to integrate but not assimilate. That is to maintain a Jewish tribal identity and organized Jewish power within the host society. The use of hasbara to deflect criticism and forestall introspection is much more difficult in the US than Israel, the relationship of Jews and Gentiles more complicated. It should also be kept in mind that the “treason of the intellectuals,” is the norm in most societies, including the US. I would go so far as to maintain that it is the primary function of most public intellectuals to create the mythology which camouflages reality, a necessary function to manufacture consent. As such, an honest examination of history is always difficult.

      • “The use of hasbara to deflect criticism and forestall introspection is much more difficult in the US than Israel”

        I don’t know Keith. We often hear about how there is a more complete and nuanced debate among Israeli Jews than there is in the US.

        It’s not difficult at all to deflect criticism and forestall introspection in the U.S.

        Shahak points out that the great majority of Jewish history was anti-intellectual, and that the Enlightenment and liberation of Jews from their rabbis/leaders happened because of forces outside the tribe.

        There was definitely a golden age of Jewish achievement and humanity that happened within the past couple centuries after the Enlightenment, but that age seems clearly in the past with the rise of Zionism after 1948 and particularly after 1967.

        Israel is only one component of the Jewish nation. Jewish nationalism, and the strict conformity it demands, transcends all borders.

        Jewish mythology, Jewish chauvinism, Jewish victimology, and Jewish shtetl policing are as strong as ever – in Israel and in most Jewish communities across North America, Europe, and beyond.

        Even Finkelstein can’t wait to see mondoweiss go under, and Phil without a job.

        • Blake says:

          “Even Finkelstein can’t wait to see mondoweiss go under, and Phil without a job.”

          Finkelstein describes Phil Weiss as a friend (ff to 6.09):

        • Keith says:

          CHARLES BARWIN- “We often hear about how there is a more complete and nuanced debate among Israeli Jews than there is in the US.”

          Perhaps among the intellectuals, however, remember that Haaretz has but a limited following, the Israeli mass media hardly a source for diversity of opinion in regards to Israel and Zionism. And don’t forget the huge impact of the Israeli educational system with its renewed emphasis on ‘More Zionism, more Bible,’ in the words of a recent education minister. It is only my opinion, however, I think that American Jewish Zionists have a more difficult job propagandizing their target population.

          “Jewish mythology, Jewish chauvinism, Jewish victimology, and Jewish shtetl policing are as strong as ever – in Israel and in most Jewish communities across North America, Europe, and beyond.”

          If that was the case, then both Philip Weiss and Norman Finkelstein are wrong that younger Jews are turning away from Israel and Zionism. Phil has his own personal experience, Norman has the numbers to back it up (see “Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End”). Personally, I agree with them.

          As for “Even Finkelstein can’t wait to see mondoweiss go under, and Phil without a job.” I think that is rather biased conjecture on your part. I think Norman was somewhat unfairly criticized for some minor remarks he made to a BDS interviewer, hardly an aggressive ‘attack’ on BDS, which he continues to insist he supports. His problem seems to revolve around a few of the BDS leadership which he takes issue with. I have tried to stay out of the fracas, however, the author of the attack on Finkelstein also is part of the group which tried to ‘excommunicate’ Gilad Atzmon from the BDS movement. This seems to me a bit of a turf war initiated by part of the BDS leadership on any and all critics, and smacks of an element of Stalinism. I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on his innuendo regarding a cult-like mentality on Mondoweiss. Perhaps he was wounded by the criticism and how, in spite of his considerable efforts and achievement, they exhibited a certain predictable uniformity and group-think mentality. As for the relationship between Phil and Norman, I suspect, and certainly hope, that they will remain amicable.

        • Blake:
          “Philip Weiss says:
          July 12, 2012 at 9:47 am

          Avi,
          I have two main responses. One is that Finkelstein seems to want to undermine our fundraiser, on which I and others depend for a living, an unseemly undertaking for someone who knows what it is like to be stripped of employment.”"
          link to mondoweiss.net

        • Keith, see my reply to Blake re: Weiss/Finkelstein, if my comment goes through.

          Let’s hope that YoungMassJew is one of a majority of his generation to question and overcome Jewish mythology . I suspect he is part of a large minority, and that even a large minority would face a ruthless suppression by a minority of Jews from all economic strata of the Jewish population.

          Deceptive tactics, violence, and new myth creation would be options on the table. The Israeli government might consider the breakaway of young Jews to be an existential threat.

          Let’s remember that one or more people here at Mondoweiss are primarily concerned with the reputation of the Jewish people, and the prevention of anti-Semitism.

          That’s why we hear in comments that the vast majority of Jews are liberal, and that the anti-occupation % of Jews is skyrocketing.

          There’s a ton of reason for optimism, but a shit ton of reason for pessimism as well.

          One substantial act of anti-Semitism, endlessly hyped by the zios’ media, and Jewish solidarity and conformity skyrockets.

          On the bright side, there’s no better time to win young Jewish hearts and minds with an MLKish message of valuing content of character uber alles.

        • YoungMassJew says:

          Wow thanks Charles for the shout out. Much appreciated.

        • Keith says:

          CHARLES BARWIN- I hadn’t been aware of Phil’s response to Avi. What a shame. I hope that Phil re-evaluates the situation, keeping in mind that Norman could be forgiven for viewing what transpired as a personal attack, Mondoweiss an unexpected hostile forum.

          As for the rest of your comment, I mostly agree with you as you currently phrase it. Yes, I believe young Jews are turning away from Israel and Zionism, however, I, too, question the impact of this in the near term.

        • Citizen says:

          @ CB
          Yes, I agree with your assessment, not Keith’s.

  17. Mooser says:

    Phil, I don’t if you’ll need a body gaurd, but I think you should supply the entire staff and yourself with Totes.

    • YoungMassJew says:

      Now now Mooser, I don’t think we want to be joking about this. Phil’s sensitive as am I about this issue.

      • Mooser says:

        “I don’t think we want to be joking about this.”

        Listen YMJ, when I am assigned a job, I do it, and do it to the best of my ability. And buddy, I hardly think anybody how would describe a woman as “like an American Jewish girl with class” is any to sensitive to anything except themselves.
        But how did you manage to get from a new commenter to an intimate friend of Phil’s (are you a friend of Bill’s, too?) who knows him inside and out, ans is aware of his sensitivities. Or are you saying that Phil brings all these issues up just so he can be hurt at the things he knows good and well will be said?
        Anyway, I congratualte you on your social abilities. I’ve been commenting here for years and he won’t give me the time of day. Although I once did contribute an article on “What the Well-Dressed Man is Wearing” to Mondoweiss.

        • YoungMassJew says:

          @ Mooser, It wasn’t being 100 % serious. I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what type of dude Phil is, his emotions, what sets him off, his sensitivites. I was simply throwing that out there. I actually have pretty poor social skills in my opinion so I think you were being sarcastic. By the way, whose Bill???

        • Rusty Pipes says:

          FYI: members of AA sometimes call themselves “friends of Bill” — after Bill W., the founder of AA.

  18. Dutch says:

    Alex, Phil, Adam:
    Very well-formulated reply on the piece by the Atlantic (which, by the way, is very disappointing).

  19. Mooser says:

    There will be a lesson here for all young American Jews, and I don’t want them to miss it. It will burn into their minds at long last, the value of Jewish tribalism. These young American Jews, especially those headed for the intellectual and artistic professions, will see how Jewish tribalism meets this challenge! You see, kids, when a fellow tribesman is going wrong, especially one from the same background, you don’t use smears, emotional and intellectual (if not straight you’ll-lose-your-job financial) or physical threats. You don’t start out by accusing him of anti-Semitism and worse. You don’t publish hit-pieces. No! That’s for Gentiles! We discretely get in touch with the person, talk to them, tell them of our feelings and needs, and persuade them into a compromise. And even if a compromise isn’t possible, you don’t try to ruin them, (if for no other reason than it exposes exactly how insecure in your own position you are.) you simply ignore them, because Jewish tribalism is thicker than water. No matter what a man’s thoughts, he’s never the “other” if he’s a Jew! And no Jew would ever, ever think of harming, in any wise, in any sphere, a fellow Jew when their differences are merely intellectual. There are too few of us left for games like that, so it doesn’t happen!
    Yes, when Young American Jews see how useful, how able to mediate, how able to effect compromise Jewish tribalism is, they can decide what place it should have in their life.

    • YoungMassJew says:

      “You don’t publish hit-pieces, No! That’s for Gentiles!”

      I guess you are referring to goyim naches.

      • Mooser says:

        “I guess you are referring to goyim naches.”

        I don’t see what the religion of Mexicans has to do with it. Yes, I imagine they are Catholic for the most part. No doubt there are Evangelical and Pentecostal inroads now. But all that matters to me is that they are hot, fresh, and the sauce isn’t too mucho caliente. And take some care to select the right cheese. If you are lucky enough to have a Mexican grocery near you, they will have it.

  20. radii says:

    “responsibility to reflect” … absolutely, and it should be noted that only enlightened people even consider doing any reflecting

    the attacks are a sign of progress – not always easy to weather, but proof of success

    and, as predicted, the zio-propagandists have not yet noticed that their old tried-and-true anti-semitism cannon now shoots blanks

    • yourstruly says:

      so successful, indeed, that perhaps mw might consider placing a moritorium on posts such as the above and, instead, publish a weekly list of the latest articles in which israel’s apologists accuse israel’s critics of being antisemites.

      • ColinWright says:

        “…and, instead, publish a weekly list of the latest articles in which israel’s apologists accuse israel’s critics of being antisemites.”

        Now that is a great idea. It could be relatively effortless, too. Everyone could contribute their finds, and at the end of every month we could hold a poll, and send a certificate to the winner of the ‘most absurd accusation of anti-semitism of the month’ prize.

        It just gets better. We could even offer special recognition to multiple winners.

  21. Mooser says:

    “publicly he does not challenge the site’s lunacy.”

    He probably doesn’t even read my comments. He’s a busy guy.

  22. Chespirito says:

    Dear Adam, Alex, and Phil: you three are all first-rate journalists, and this lame smear is another feather in your caps.

  23. Rusty Pipes says:

    While I agree that Alex Kane’s excellent work stands on its own, the operative word really is “could” rather than “should:”

    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.

    Rosen, who already has established his value for the movement to stoke Islamophobia by attacking Arab-American academics and promoting the “Islamo-fascism” meme, is not likely to let the facts about what Kane actually has said get in the way of using him to smear this site. Woulda-coulda-shoulda. Rosen cited none of Kane’s own writing, although he easily could have found plenty of examples of it through a basic search.

    The real question is whether the editors of the Altlantic think that it reflects well on their publication for one of its fellows to be smearing the work of a writer he shows no evidence of having read or the management of a progressive website? Some readers of the Atlantic might bother to check out this website, judge it for themselves and find that it covers aspects of America’s domestic and foreign policy that many mainstream sources like the Atlantic have been neglecting.

    • Mooser says:

      I still think that MJ Rosenberg holds the record for quick shiv work around here. That bit about the ‘anti-circumcision movement is pervaded by anti-Semitism and Islamophobia’ was brilliant! Including both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. And he came up with it so quickly! I don’t know when he had time to do all the research necessary to a set of knife-thrusts like that, but he’s a brilliant guy.
      Why, he did it faster than a little kid learning his first lessons about Jewish tribalism could scream ‘Mommy, Mommy, I saw Phil touch his pee-pee! He’s a bad boy and I’m a good boy, right?!’

      Yes sir, when it’s time to “out-Jew” one another, nobody else is in the tribe. It’s every boy for himself.

  24. Blake says:

    I would not be disheartened “all publicity is good publicity” as the saying goes.

    First comment had 85 likes:
    “What a surprisingly moronic and histrionic smear job. The writer suggests mondoweiss harbors conspiracy theorists who believe “The Jews” act as a single tribe, when the site is populated by may progressive Jews who seek a peaceful solution to the ongoing abuses of Israel and the IDF in Palestine. Unfortunately, this grade school level essay trots out the tired (and now utterly discredited) trope that any criticism of Israel’s documented human rights abuses in Palestine are to be equated with “anti-semitism.”. Yawn. Meanwhile, who’s the real conspiracy theorist, Atlantic? Anyone who spends time reading Phil Weiss’ brave and highly intelligent blog will roll their eyes at this stupidity. The Atlantic should be chagrined to have put it on its site.”

    • seafoid says:

      “all publicity is good publicity” as the saying goes.

      The bots only come out into the open when the hasbara fails. Screaming “antisemitism” at Phil Weiss is no substitute for a rich fact-based defence of Zionism. I haven’t seen one of those for a long while.

    • Mooser says:

      Blake, who the hell is “disheartened”? Mondoweiss couldn’t be too goddam “disheartened”; it features these charges in a post, and started what they knew would be a rough discussion. No, they don’t seem too “disheartened” about the whole thing. How naive do you think they are? Do you think they don’t know what to expect? For God’s sake Phil (more or less) grew up with these people. I’m pretty sure he knows what to expect from them.

  25. Roya says:

    Who the hell is this Armin-nobody-Rosen anyway? Not even Wikipedia knows. Based on his name I’m guessing we share a heritage but I’d like to formally disown him right now.

    Anyway this charade just means that Mondoweiss has become big enough that it can’t be ignored by the mainstream, which is a good thing.

    • Mooser says:

      Yes sir, this entire thing reminds me very much of Pesach one year when my uncle burst into the room before the meal demanding, “Okay, which one of you ate all the haroset off the plate, before the I even started the Seder.
      They all ratted me out, snitched like a big dog, every one of ‘em! And got gelt for it! Well, I guess I got gelt, too, but what can you do?

  26. Roya says:

    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.

    Please sue, Mondoweiss. That would get you great publicity, draw attention to the Israel-Palestine issue, and prevent any other idiots from making similar accusations.

    • ColinWright says:

      “Please sue, Mondoweiss. That would get you great publicity, draw attention to the Israel-Palestine issue, and prevent any other idiots from making similar accusations.”

      That might well be a good idea. However, I think if one carefully parses Rosen’s rhetoric he would seem to be very much aware of that possibility and is avoiding saying anything that would actually furnish grounds for litigation.

      But I could be wrong. If Weiss or any of the other named parties feel inclined to go over it themselves, there might be grounds for a suit there.

      • Fredblogs says:

        Or there might be grounds for an anti-SLAPP suit if Mondoweiss loses.

        • Cliff says:

          Nah, the anti-SLAPP suit isn’t are bag, baby. Didn’t you hear? StandWithUs or whichever Zio-task force slash hall monitors had their lawsuit backfire.

          You mad, brah?

          Tell us more about the ‘occupation’ by ‘Islam’ of ‘Spain’ btw – LOL.

        • Fredblogs says:

          @Cliff
          If you’d like to know more about the Moorish occupation of Spain, go to your local library, it’s all in books.

          StandWithUs, or whatever the name was filed a SLAPP suit. A strategic lawsuit against public participation. IOW a meritless lawsuit intended to drive up legal fees of the defendants. Many states have laws that compensate the victims of such frivolous lawsuits. These laws are called Anti-SLAPP statutes. I’m not a lawyer here and only their lawyer can advise them whether they are at risk for such a suit if they try to sue the Atlantic for libel. I’m just pointing out that anti-SLAPP statutes work both ways.

        • ColinWright says:

          In Washington State, perhaps. Believe me, Mr.Hasbara, you don’t want SLAPP to go national. There goes half your tool kit.

        • Cliff says:

          Fredo,

          I was posing a rhetorical question. You seemed to have forgotten that last time you spat out your bullshit hasbara about the supposed Islamic ‘occupation’ of ‘Spain’.

          There was no Spain. Spain did not exist prior to the rule of the Islamic dynasties of the Iberian Peninsula.

          The various kingdoms that ruled in that area had no exclusive ‘right’ to the Iberian Peninsula. And God only knows why you’re rushing to the defense of the Visigothic barbarians. They were extremely antisemitic and forced conversion upon the local Jews of Cordoba.

          Al-Andalus was a paradise for a long time. Especially during the era of the Third Caliphate. It went through several periods of fundamentalism before and after, mostly due to in-fighting among Muslim factions (Berbers and the rest who felt socially marginalized).

          What any of this has to do with ‘occupation’ is beyond me. You’re full of ****.

          There is no book in my local library that carries Mein Kampf or any other related/comparable hate literature (or fear-mongering videos by Greet Wilders or various Islamophobic Zionist charlatans you worship).

          My suggestion for you Fredblogs, is to enroll in a local community college if you lack the funds to get into a proper institution. Then take an introductory Ancient Civ. I course. You’ll begin with some anthropological primer and then some stuff about empathy and then – if you find a good teacher at least – get all the way up to the 1400s. That’s usually where Civ. I stops.

          Stop copying and pasting your arguments and think of something original to say. We all know your hate-spewing Islamophobic propaganda act by heart now. So since Phil won’t axe you – due to your demographic pull – at least entertain us with some new material!

          You and hophmi are out of fashion. BRING ON THE NEW TROLLS I SAY!

      • Roya says:

        @Colin the article’s description reads, “The consequences of a website that spouts anti-Semitism entering mainstream discourse on Israel and Palestine” so I think Armin N. Rosen was pretty explicit in his groundless “anti-Semitism” charge against Mondoweiss.
        @Fredblogs Ditto what Cliff said. Would love to hear more from you about the Golden Age of Jews under Muslim rule of Spain.
        @Mooser You’re probably right but law is full of nuances so if it were my website being attacked by fools I would check with my lawyer to see if we could make a viable case.

        • ColinWright says:

          ‘@Colin the article’s description reads, “The consequences of a website that spouts anti-Semitism entering mainstream discourse on Israel and Palestine” ‘

          But there you are. The site can’t sue — and it’s the only one being libeled. Rosen didn’t say Weiss or anyone else in particular was ‘spouting anti-semitism.’ I’ve posted at sites where the administrators definitely don’t share my views. It would be absurd to hold that the views I’ve expressed could reasonably be attributed to them — so how can Weiss assert that Rosen accused him of anti-semitism?

        • Cliff says:

          Hasdai Ibn Shaprut. Maimonedes. The great Jewish poetry and literature that came out of Islamic ‘Spain’.

          Ben Maimon transmitted Greek science to Judaism, as Averreos did to Islam.

          Although, Maimonedes lived under the Almoravid Berber dynasty or the Almohads – who were Islamist in comparison to the Third Caliphate.

          The Third Caliphate is the era wherein Jewish poetry flourished as I recall, and Ibn Shaprut, was the Jewish physician/kind of a renaissance man, who worked closely with the Caliph after curing him of an ailment (thus earning his trust).

          When the Christians eventually took over the remnants of Islamic Iberia – the last hold-out being Granada (after lots of in-fighting within the Islamic royalty succession, specifically a prince who changed sides frequently and then ended up aiding Isabella and Ferdinand as they ‘created’ Spain) – there was another transmittance of ancient Greek texts.

          It’s ironic that all of these periods of intellectual cooperation between Muslims and Jews led, inevitably, to the Enlightenment…yet, when you read European writers of that era they don’t give any credit where credit is due

          The Islamic Golden Age preceded the Enlightenment and surely facilitated it through the cultural cooperation of Al-Andalus. The subsequent Christian appropriation was a cheap immitation. We know how that ended too – the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion of all the Moriscos. Etc.

    • Mooser says:

      “Please sue, Mondoweiss.”

      I’m no lawyer, and I still owe mine thousands of dollars, so I’ll have to rely on my own knowledge, but I think you have to show some kind of damage in order to sue. What is he suing for, to make the Judge tell those people “Grow the hell up”?

  27. Sin Nombre says:

    Stop playing defense. Look at what Rosen wrote:

    “Publishing anti-Semites, or people who work for websites that traffic in anti-Semitic innuendo or conspiracy theories….”

    Enough said. Rosen, a ferocious partisan of a foreign country, is not just arguing with those with whom he disagrees, but is instead and in addition to just calling names is openly and expressly trying to prevent them from being heard. And accordingly he is acting as an open and express enemy of the traditional American value of free speech and open debate and as an agent of some foreign value.

    Openly. Expressly. So call it and him that, for Christ’s sakes.

  28. ColinWright says:

    It’s possible all this isn’t a balanced account of the controversy — I could care less.

    However, it is nice to see the MondoWeiss is important enough to make ‘em squeal. I’d hate to think they were just able to ignore it.

  29. American says:

    All they have left is smears and character assassination.
    And a bitch smacking of Mondo?
    And the Atlantic publishes this kind of juvenile thug?
    Pathetic.

  30. The Atlantic Home
    Monday, July 16, 2012

    “Some ideas have earned their banishment from civilized discourse, and anti-Semitism is one of them. The paranoiac take on Jewish peoplehood holds that there are not Jews, but The Jews …”

    Note: “The Jews”
    —————————
    The logic behind the attack is this:

    - The discourse in Europe on the “Jewish question” (shared by many Zionists)
    vilified ‘The Jews’ and paved the way to the Holocaust.

    - The discourse on MW on Israel and ‘The Lobby’ (shared by many American Jews) delegitimizes Israel and paves the way to the destruction of Israel.

  31. American says:

    I have to say I am really so tired of all this anti semite screeching from the zionist that my reaction now is to just nod off…..zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    I can’t even summon the interest to correct or explain anything to them any more.

    • Mooser says:

      “I can’t even summon the interest to correct or explain anything to them any more.”

      On the other hand, it sure tells you everything you need to know about Jewish tribal loyalty, doesn’t it? I bet Ceaser had fewer holes in his toga.

  32. Rosen’s “arguments” are a variation of –

    The case for Israel made in four propositions

    1.We rock (Our arguments rock!)
    2.They suck (Their arguments suck![cuz they're made by anti-Semites])
    3.You suck (Your arguments suck! [cuz they're made by anti-Semites])
    4.Everything sucks (Everyone’s argument sucks [cuz they're made by anti-Semites] [and ours rocks!])

    I guess I’d never seen it take such an erudite and scholarly mantle before.

    This is pretty much all the rubuttal Rosen deserves, but this response was masterful nonetheless.

  33. ColinWright says:

    Well, went and read Rosen’s piece.

    “…The paranoiac take on Jewish peoplehood holds that there are not Jews, but The Jews, a self-interested group of people who don’t as much think individually as answer to tribal imperatives; an omnipresent mass of ravening self-interest, whether they’re cooking matza with the blood of Christians or bending modern-day superpowers to their will.”

    Somewhat ironically, Rosen then goes on to vilify MondoWeiss — and this site does seem to be at least disproportionately Jewish — for daring to criticize Israel.

    In other words, Jews are not a group — and here’s what happens to Jews that step out of line. Isn’t it always the Zionists that demand that Jews conform, that they all must support Israel — and support it uncritically — or they are ‘self-hating Jews’?

    Rosen may well be right that Jews are not ‘ a self-interested group of people who don’t as much think individually as answer to tribal imperatives.’ However, he obviously regards that fact as deplorable, and is doing his best to rectify it.

    • yourstruly says:

      he’s against group think yet he advocates for an entity that claims to speak for all jews?

    • Mooser says:

      Ah, Colin is perceiving the essence of Jewish tribal loyalty! That’s why Jews never speak ill of another Jew, no matter how deep their intellectual differences. No, for other, less wonderful people the carping, the smears, the back stabs, the private meetings with their boss. No, we don’t pull that crap! That’s what 2500 years of persecution does for you. You learn to stick together, and what’s really important.
      You don’t tell on each other for “thought-crimes” like you wanna be the Rabbi’s favorite model Cheder-boy.
      Speaking of which (cheder) I could use some naches about now. I’m all famisht. Blood-libel and lunacy is hungry-making work for this vile body.

  34. ColinWright says:

    Anyway, the piece is decidedly shrill, and I find it hard to believe it will impress anyone but the converted.

  35. eGuard says:

    The subtitle of the article, smear washed out, reveals what triggered Rosen (my bolding):

    the Atlantic: The consequences of a website [...] entering mainstream discourse on Israel and Palestine.

    • marc b. says:

      yup, that sums it up, Eguard, and by mainstream rosen means the great unwashed whose opinions shouldn’t matter.

    • ColinWright says:

      The irony is that Rosen’s hit piece is only problematically successful.

      On the one hand, I can’t see it convincing many that MW is ‘anti-semitic’ — the accusations really are vague, weak, and shrill.

      On the other hand, it may get a whole lot of people to wonder just what this MondoWeiss is, anyway.

      …and wander on over. ‘You don’t say? Izzat a fact? Well I’ll be…’

      It might produce a flurry of would-be Knights of Zion on this site — but overall, the impact should be good.

  36. Mooser says:

    “the great unwashed whose opinions shouldn’t matter.”

    Whatsamatter marc b.? You never heard of a mikveh?

  37. Kathleen says:

    “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. ”

    Because more Jews than ever are FINALLY stating the facts and standing on the side of justice on the I/P conlflict. A long long time coming. Thank you to all of those who came out decades ago when it was much more difficult to take stands on this issue. Thank you Edward Said, Barghouti, Pappe, Carter, Tutu, Gish, Vanessa Redgrave. Thank you.

    And as the walls in the media come down lets hope things somehow change on the ground

    • Mooser says:

      I just hope there’s enough time left before Zionism imposes a burden on Judaism that it cannot bear. The responsibility, in these times, for crushing out of existence an entire people, in front of and in spite of the whole world.

  38. Rusty Pipes says:

    Rosen’s tactic is right in line with the Reut Institute strategy of dividing the left by separating those it deems acceptable critics, like Beinart and Open Zion, from those it brands “delegitimizers,” apparently like Mondoweiss and Phil Weiss.

  39. chris o says:

    Maybe, hopefully, a lot of people who never heard of the site will check on its rampant anti-Semitism. It’s like directing someone to a car crash and people will want to look. Then they can judge the site for themselves, of course. And many of these people will be really intrigued and like what they see.

    • chris o says:

      Just to be clear, I meant people will check the site for its”alleged” anti-Semitism. And so people will like what they see, not because it is anti-Semitic, but because it explores taboo yet glaringly obvious realities.

  40. Citizen says:

    There are 140+ comments here, and the same amount on The Atlantic site. Mondoweiss readers should go back to the comments there; they will really show you just how twisted and hard the pro-Israel mindset is there. BTW, those commenters have decided to replace the term “anti-semite” with “jew baiter.” And the comment thread there does this a lot.