Friday, June 22, 2012

MJ Rosenberg Sinks Ever Lower

Well, it's a new low for Huffington Post blogger and former many things MJ Rosenberg. After pretending to be "pro-Israel" for a long time, he has now finally moved to one of the only places that will take him in: Mondoweiss, one of the most notorious Israel hate sites on the Web (which is saying something). And what's MJ Rosenberg's new message? He is going to start saying "Israel firster" again, after solemnly promising that he wouldn't. Yes, really. Obviously, there isn't much in the way of credibility left.

I'm not going to analyze the whole article, if you really want to read it you can. But I just wanted to see the most amusing sections. Let's start here:
"Even among Jews, support for Israeli policies is deep only among that dwindling number that defines itself, first and foremost, as part of the organized Jewish community. (Of course, these are the people politicians listen to because they vote and contribute money based exclusively on a candidate's support for Israeli policies. But according to the American Jewish Committee poll, these Israel voters and donors constitute just 4% of Jews."
Um, okay. Which policies? And what does "deep" support actually mean? According to his poll Israel is a top priority for 4% of Jews, but that doesn't mean it isn't a priority. 10,000 people attended the AIPAC conference last year. If he has actual proof that support for Israel is decreasing (as if that justifies his bigotry) then let's see it. But let's not get too bogged down because the good stuff is still ahead:
"I now understand it was really about the term “Israel Firster” and about my use of it now. I say now that because I used the term regularly during my decade at the moderate (to the point of being almost indistinguishable from AIPAC) Israel Policy Forum and no one objected. It was viewed correctly as a description of those individuals and institutions which place support for right-wing Israeli policies over any concern for how those policies impact the United States." 
Really. MJ Rosenberg was calling people "Israel firsters" in public for ten years and nobody said anything? Now, it's not that I don't believe him, but wouldn't this be the kind of thing he would have mentioned during the period in which he was under fire for saying that (a period which lasted months and months), ultimately leading to him being fired from leaving Media Matters?  It's just very convenient that he just happens to remember this now, after he is no longer in the spotlight and his been reduced back to obscurity. But once again, if he would like to show me examples of him calling people he disagrees with "Israel firsters," then I'd love to see it. But somehow I don't think there are any.

Fortunately, he is here to provide us with his third fourth fifth definition of "Israel firster," as if changing what it means somehow makes the implications less anti-Semitic!
"Short definition: you are an Israel Firster if you believe it is acceptable to criticize US Presidents (whether Obama, Bush or any other) but believe that you must stand behind any and all Israeli policies and prime ministers. Call it “my country, right or wrong” but with a significant twist."
We have heard this one before. Of course, just because one doesn't criticize Netanyahu doesn't mean that one "puts Israel over the USA" which is basically what "Israel firster" means. But just for the heck of it, let's take the most right-wing Zionist blogger that I can think of (Sultan Knish) and see if he has ever criticized any Israeli Prime Minister.
"Livni, like much of Kadima's Ex-Likudniks including Olmert himself, ably demonstrated the fallacy of nepotism within the ranks of the Likud. Among that second generation of the sons and daughters of Herut stalwarts, Netanyahu is the best of a bad lot. And that isn't saying a lot.
It is an ironic piece of Israeli history that Sharon, once a member of a thuggish left wing movement that beat Jewish Zionist youth, managed to worm his way high up into the Likud, and proceeded to destroy Begin's Prime Ministership, while handing Israel its first true military disaster in Lebanon-- resurrected his political career to do it a second time by delivering a near fatal blow to the Likud, and surrendering Gaza to Hamas."
True, Greenfield usually criticizes the PMs for not being right-wing enough, but that's Rosenberg's problem for using words like "never" and "all." In his next paragraph he declares that this most often apply to politicians who are against war except involving Israel. I don't think there's anything more telling about how fringe Rosenberg has become than him declaring left-wing Democrats to be traitors for opposing the Iraq War. The same war, by the way, that his friends often declare America only waged because of "the Lobby." Would Rosenberg be happier if people like Barbara Boxer supported the war in Iraq? But hey, don't mind me I'm just the messenger.

 So let's move on with Rosenberg's essays as he sinks ever lower, this time into the realm of conspiracy:
"The phenomenon is not, of course, limited to Congress. It is evident in the media (think MSNBC) and even in the blogosphere where even supposedly independent bloggers can write endlessly about the failing negotiations with Iran without revealing who is torpedoing them."
Jews aren't loyal to America. Now we have the media being under the sway of the Jews the lobby. But once again, a fringe blogger has somehow managed to figure out what everybody else just can't say. I think that was the plot of a B-grade horror movie that I saw one. After this he cites Robert Wright (surprise surprise) saying that AIPAC (surprise surprise) was the problem. But then this is where it gets good:
"However, as I said, I have been using “Israel Firster” for years and it wasn’t even considered “anti-Israel.”Why would it be? Preserving the status quo or promoting wars that will get Israelis killed is not, by any definition, pro-Israel?"

 Mr. Rosenberg. Nobody has said that you saying "Israel firster" is anti-Israel. What we said is that it is anti-Semitic, because it calls back to Dreyfus-era charges that Jews are loyal to other Jews and not their respective countries. I was writing about that in 2010. If you don't know that even though it has been explained to you many times, I don't know what else to say. I really don't.
"But then, in 2012, it all changed. Suddenly suggesting that those who put their view of Israel’s interests above anything else was anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and (I love this term) perpetuating a “blood libel.”"

Goddamn it. I don't even know how he could be this dumb, unless he is choosing to be. Nobody is calling this is a "blood libel," because everybody (except apparently MJ Rosenberg) knows what a blood libel is! And although a blood libel is anti-Semitic, and calling Jews traitors is anti-Semitic, that doesn't make the two one and the same. If Rosenberg knows anything about Judaism he ought to know that much. And yeah, "suggesting that those who put their view of Israel’s interests above anything else," especially when we're talking about Jewish people, and even more especially when it isn't true, is anti-Semitic. If you don't like that, Mr. Rosenberg, tough luck. That's just how it is. And if you don't want to be criticized for saying it, don't say it.

This is getting long so I'm going to wrap it up. Rosenberg once again tries to pretend he is a respected member of the Jewish community, then pimps the suffering of his wife in DP camps, then claims that he does all this because of his love for Israel. The irony of him writing this on Mondoweiss appears to escape him. 

So that's that. The interesting part is that about half of the Mondoweiss crew loved him and the rest chewed him out for still wanting Israel to exist. Which I'm sure by now he is probably used to. Either way, I guess he'll be staying at Mondoweiss for a while. It's where he belongs.


  1. Water eventually finds its own level, as do anti-Semites.

  2. Wow, Mondoweiss. Seriously? How long until he's posting at Stormfront?


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.