Mondoweiss is an anti-Israel blog that continues to grow in popularity, it helps that the site is designed to look like a journo blog without pix of klashnikov bearing hearties and palestinian flags. It has been criticized as anti-Semitic which MW bloggers deny with hyperbolic vigor suggestive of persecution complexes, MW is a deeply racist site that doesn't limit its hatred to Jews.
MW published a Joseph Massad article claiming that "the Jewishness that most Jews celebrate (is) colonial and criminal" it turns out Joey uses stormfront material which is unsurprising since he thinks being Jewish is a crime. They support terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians as "legitimate resistance." For another example here's a blogger telling readers to beware of opinions held by those with Jewish names:
"When you read an article on Israel/Palestine or a letter to the editor, isn’t one of the first things you do to check the name and see if the person is Jewish or not? Doing so is not giving in to anti-semitism. It’s a simple way to prepare yourself for possible bias on the part of the reporter or letter-writer."
There's a term for telling readers to distrust people who are perceived to have a Jewish name but isn't 'criticism of Israel.'
I found a wide variety of hatred on mondoweiss: Philip Weiss (the founding of MW is the closest thing he has to an achievement, how sad) revealed himself to be a supporter of hezbollah, during Lebanese elections he wrote "I hope Hezbollah wins." A widely circulated critique of pop atheist Sam Harris contains anti-Tibetan racism, the use of a Rwanda genocide outlet and a Stalinist as sources. Red-brown politics are not dead, they're enjoying an online renaissance.
*MW published 'a tale of two martyrs' an article that equates hamas fan Rachel Corrie to Anne Frank, yes they really something so obscenely idiotic and racist. My response:
*Gilad Atzmon is a hitler fan who has endorsed the protocols of the elders of zion, yet mondo weis has defended him against ADL criticism the ADL's actions as “outrageous” and portraying him as "an outspoken critic of the lobby and all forms of Zionism” and "truly controversial." The MW founder Philip Weiss has even let Atzmon interview him about Jewishness.
*Allison Weir is a racist abomination, she heads the anti-Israel group 'if Americans knew' she's also a prolific blood libeler in a single article she claimed that Jews steal organs and she thinks medieval Jews ritually killed children and used their blood in rituals. Yet this doesn't bother MW's founder as you can see from quotes are from multiple articles:
"And below are excerpts of Alison Weir at Counterpunch questioning"
"Weir offers to have a cup of coffee when we're in the same neighborhood; I'd love to take her up on the offer."
*MW publishes Nima Shirazi a pro-IRI hezbollah fan: he once wrote a defense of the IRI strongly relying on Paul Craig Roberts a White supremacist who wrote positively of Burma's former junta.
*Jack Ross a neo-nazi who used to write for the holocaust denial mag 'the barnes review' found a home at MW becoming part of the team. Philip Weiss the founder praised him as a man who writes "glorious" material "with the same fierce focus and concision" he makes it clear that they are close friends since he "was one of the first people to reach out to me on this site four years ago. We met at a chocolate bar near Union Square then at Junior's on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn. Jack was built like a lineman, with an Abe Lincoln beard, and was just 22 but if you shut your eyes and listened to him you would think he was 50." He stops just short of claiming that the goose stepper is "90 feet tall and his adventures are legendary" though Ross probably does think that the only good Chinaman is a dead Chinaman.
*MW supports and cites axis fan Justin Raimondo the same guy who thinks that fascist imperial Japan should have won the pacific war and that the Poles were to blame for the holocaust.
*The site has nothing but kind words for Helen Thomas.
*MW published a "homage" to the totalitarian bigot Alexander Cockburn who published blood libels and CP recently published a homage to Pol Pot written by neo-Nazi Israel Shamir which denies the Cambodian genocide.
*Co-editor Adam Horowitz penned a defense of crazy, frothing racist Richard Faulk in which he insisted that Richie bitch's racism isn't "relevant" and that he was a close relationship with Rwanda genocide denier "Edward S. Herman.
*Marc Ellis made a rancid incoherent argument claiming that Jews "sell the holocaust" playing in stereotypes about Jews by claiming that they're so crafty that they'll exploit their own genocide! What idiocy. He also made another racist comment where he claimed that "“to speak of the Holocaust without confessing our sins towards the Palestinian people and seeking a real justice with them is a hypocrisy that debases us as Jews" he's the worst christian since the guy who came up with veggie tales.
*An article ("The US media reports: Gilad Shalit swapped for 1000 non-people") celebrates the release of such butchers as Ahlam Tamimi who remains vocally proud of her role in a slaughter of children in a pizza parlor the article relies entirely on the pro-Hamas hate site 'middle east monitor.' From another article "qassam Brigades commander Abdullah Al-Barghouthi is to a start an open hunger strike at dawn Thursday protesting his continued isolation in Israeli jails, liberated prisoner Ahlam Al-Tamimi said."
An apologist's mission is to teleport the blame for actions off the shoulders of the responsible party and onto another party which is what neo-nazi Jack Ross does in an MW article that sounds like a parody of Pat Buchanan least lucid moments. From 'On the neocons’ Munich comparisons':
"When considering the idea that Israel will be "the new Czechoslovakia", we must remember that Czechoslovakia, like Israel, was a state that should never have come into existence. "
So MW doesn't think that Israel has any right to exist.
"And with respect to "appeasement" generally, World War II did not begin because Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler at Munich. On the contrary, Chamberlain had a Wilsonian/neocon conceit to intervene there in the first place, and once he had done so decided he could regulate Hitler's designs by giving the war guarantee to Poland. To repeat - it was not the appeasement, but the internationalist hubris and bellicosity - of Chamberlain which started World War II."
Blaming the oldest parliamentary democracy for the actions of one of the most heinous states in history is nothing more than nazi apologia the paragraph is nothing more than neo-nazi fiction which finds forum and support at mondo weiss. One of the few MW fans with a conscience wrote:
"in other words world war II began, not because hitler invaded poland, but because britian declared war on germany?!! you're nuts! or jack ross is nuts! go join pat buchanan in a rendition of deutschland uber alles!"
Thats right even a regular poster on a hate filled comments sections MW published nazi apologia.
Don't worry mondo weiss hosts support for current regimes especially Iranian theocracy Jeffrey Rudolph (scroll down the misc section for details of his pro-hezbollah material) argues that clero-fascist Iran is "progressive" compared to Saudi Arabia which is as illogical and sociopathic as arguing that Mussolini was a great leader compared to Stalin. Its also inaccurate SA has a lower execution rate than the IRI and a higher standard of living. Ruddy acclaims Khomeini's "radical" doctrines and the "dazzling" Islamic revolution.
Another non-entity using the handle Mohammmad of vancouver describes Khomeini as "most influential leader of the second half of the twentieth century next to Mao. He is significant because for Islamism, he is not only Marx and Lenin, but Stalin, and Trotsky as well. He theorized the concept of an Islamic government, he created the organization and strategies that led to the victory of the revolution and right after that, rather than getting caught between the Stalin/Trotsky dichotomies of Socialism in one state versus permanent revolution, he chose to have both." So even he admits that the IRI theocrats are comparable some of the most blood drenched figures in 20th century history. The blogger also thinks that a militantly anti-socialist, fascist regime with capitalism ingrained as a religious doctrine is part of a movement to "to resist the global forces of capitalism and the influences of a pro Western regime as Capitalism’s only offered mode of functioning."
This little dullard also attacks the nations that walked out on a-jad dismissing the very idea that a-jad is racist and promoting this bit of a brain vomit "this bloc is no more nor less than the white, western colonialist and imperialist nations, with Israel acting as their convenor, and that to be opposed to white, western colonialism and imperialism is the real definition of ‘racism’ in their eyes." Note how he uses 'white' as an perjorative very racist and self hating since he belongs to a White ethnic group, the 'bloc' included countries that suffered under real imperialism and colonialism for centuries: Greece, Ireland, Cyprus Polan etc. By contrast Iran was an empire for centuries and invented the concept, Iranian imperialism is still as we see from the IRI holy war against Kurds and colonial rule against said ethnic group, Ahwazi Arabs and Balochi people.
On article defends Iranian holocaust denial as "to show to Iranians and Muslims the limits of freedom in the West" and to "to challenge the West’s, and Israel’s, monopoly on contemporary history. By questioning Holocaust, not only does he challenge the West’s hold on the notion of history, he also challenges the central role of World War 2 and its consequence as the implicit pretext injustice, racism and war crimes today." Mo' wrote that "it is not Ahmadinejad who denied the Holocaust" such racist content means that MW is in no position to use the r-word to defend others.
Other mondo weiss material claims that the Iranian Islamic revolution "succeeded" and that the "e Iranian people chose an Islamic form of government precisely because they were worried about the consequences of rapid modernization and westernization under the corrupt rule of the Pahlavis." The blogger makes the blatant lie that it "was done with minimal human cost compared to other revolutions" keep in mind that the total number of dead on both sides in the Israeli-Arab conflict since 1948 is 15000. By contrast the revolution lead to murders of at least 40,000 Iranians, 100,000 Kurds killed in the genocidal holy war against them, stoning, slaughter of Ahwazi Arabs, apartheid for entire peoples and genders, extermination campaigns against the Bahai to name just a few are therefore seen as no big deal by mondo weiss. Khomeini's theocrats are described as heroes who were able to "liberate the country from the hands of local tyrants and their international supporters." The regime is described as "safe and democratic" which only proves that he needs a dictionary that "expanded the majority's freedoms" at no point is any evidence to back up these outlandish, fascist and obviousy false claims: thus they can be easily dismissed. MW claims that its "easier to be a practicing Jew in Iran than in Israel" so thats why the 100,000 Jewish Iranians were reduced to 20,000 after the revolution. Obviously content like that proves that MW is a pro-IRI blog that rants about Palestinian Arabs (the ultimate radical chic but couldn't give a monkey's ass about Ahwazi Arabs.
MW endorsed Mahmood Mamdani's genocide denial and apologia for the Sudanese regime in an article titled "Mamdani: ‘Save Darfur’ movement is not a peace movement" that dismisses "simple moralizing" and portrays Darfur as a complex conflict (while they portray the Israeli-Arab as good vs. evil) so much for the blog's support for human rights. For more on Mamdani check out this article aptly titled "Khartoum's best friend" to grok the sort of people MW supports, so MW a blog posing as a human rights outlet publishes pro-Sudan material.
"Mamdani’s book is not addressed to
victims of violence everywhere
else which might have salvaged his moral
credibility), but, to those ﬁghting for
an independent African Union. He has
done more than just about any other
intellectual to downplay the atrocities in
Darfur, and while I am not in a position
to question his motives, it seems likely
that Omar al-Bashir and his government
in Khartoum would regard the author as
the closest thing they have to an ally in a
North American university.
Nowhere in the entire book the ﬁgure
of 2.7 million is mentioned. That is the 2.7
million Darfuris who have been internally
displaced by the ﬁghting. Meanwhile,
Mamdani does his best to make a case for
ludicrously low estimates of mortality
ﬁgures in Darfur – little more than a few
hundred a month after the worst period
of ﬁghting ended in 2005 – while brushing
off the ﬁgures reported by human rights
groups and experts such as Eric Reeves,
which put the death toll between 300,000
Thats what MW has endorsed making them fans of the Sudanese regime. They also made that post in 2009 most Sudanese apologia paints an image of cabals (picture amnesty international in robes and you have the idea) using human rights to start war. Apart from the obvious idiocy of that claim (the last thing the US would want is to get involved in a Sudan war) making it in 2009 when any window for intervention had passed only makes Mamdani and his fans seem even more immoral and fallacious. Other articles worry that its just an Israeli conspiracy and an excuse for racism against Arabs certain articles praise Mamdani and condemn those who disagree with him.
Remember MW literally doesn't think Israel has any right to exist and that Israeli leaders should be tried for war crimes (which is hypocritical since they don't support the same for Arab war criminals). Yet posts about Darfur on their site make it very clear that they think the Sudanese regime has every right to exist and they don't think that Omar Bashir should be sent to the hague. One article written in praise of Sudanophie Mamdani argues that "by pursuing Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for war crimes, the International Criminal Court is making a settlement less likely, because al-Bashir is an indispensable part of the peace process." To make that rancid sentence more damning it was written by no other than MW's founder Phil Weiss who doesn't call the Darfur genocide genocide: he puts the g-word in quotes. The comments were an open sewer but one single astute person posted "Amazing. It would seem that Mamdani just proved the palestinian claims to be the same bullshit." While I support Palestinian self determination he has a point, if we accept Mamdani's arguments then the Palestinians certainly have no case.
Theodore Sayeed's articles on Sam Harris contain many vile claims, I have no desire to defend Harris whose work doesn't interest me at all, its simply criticism of Teddy bore and mondo weiss.
His second article on Harris contains nothing but positive words for various Iraqi insurgency gangs who had no public support, most of them came from foreign countries and whose actions included things like detonating bombs strapped onto mentally disabled girls in market place to kill over a hundred people. Yet he attacks Harris as an "iraq war supporter" despite the fact that Teddy supported the most violent participants in the war! Teddy bore describes those guys as heroes who were "Iraqis resisting occupation" and heaps scorn on Harris for criticizing them after the usual line about "smearing criticism of Israel." He describes Tarek Mahenna as a nice boy persecuted for merely using his free speech yet he was in convicted "of conspiring to help Al Qaeda" the evidence against him was stronger and his sentence lighter than those received by militia fanatics.
In one part he ridicules Harris for 'believing' in " in the existence of psychics, reincarnation, meditation" psychic powers and reincarnation are silly idiotic claims. Meditation practices are scientifically confirmed methods that yield results in laboratories, Teddy bore has only proven his own ignorance and scientific illiteracy. Yet he has the pompous hubris to describe meditation as an idea "derided by science as the high fooleries of the occult" that is part of "kookdoom" further proof of his ignorance. Can you imagine the reaction from MW from someone describing Islam in similar language? Which brings us to Mondo Weiss's...
Teddy doesn't seem to like Buddhists much he describes the Dalai Lama in language that makes the PRC's lingo seem tame. He dives into the waters of neo-colonialism by ranting about the "peerless theocratic barbarism of his clerical antecedents in Tibet whose rule was marked by torture, amputations and serfdom." Describing one of the oldest and richest cultures that way is racism that should disgust anyone with a conscience, its actually worse than the views of classic colonists many of whom praised Hindu and Berber cultures.
Apologists/supporters of PRC rule in Tibet justify it by arguing that Tibet is an inferior hell populated by subhumans too inferior to rule themselves; if they were in the 1920s they would probably be arguing that Congolese are cannibalistic hordes who need Belgium's gentle hand. Its a stomach churning exercise in sociopathy where obscure intellectually deformed troglodytes portray an ancient culture as inferior superstition that should be wiped out and replaced by China soul crushing brand of totalitarianism. By writing his article Teddy has joined men who lack conscience and character in supporting colonial rule and the eradication of a culture and religion using the oldest type of colonial propaganda that tars a people and their entire history as inferior.
Besides his claims about Tibet are not even true; it was remarkably advanced with no death penalty, with great art, free available education through monasteries, it wasn't nearly as autocratic as pre-colonial China, Women had a remarkably high status (far higher than in modern Palestine or any of the other regimes MW supports) and had a very small unfree population. A study of Tibet does not reveal a hell of "theocratic barbarism" or "torture" but one of the richest and oldest cultures on earth, that will survive both Chinese totalitarianism and the impotent racist rants of obscure curs with keyboards lashing out at a grand country that they do not have the intelligence to even comprehend. People like Teddy are so deformed in mind and filled with hate that they attack things greater than themselves or their facile identities.
Ted's source for that Maoist bit of hyperbole is 'dissident voice' a hate site that denies the Rwanda genocide which is proof of nothing but Teddy (and MW's) racism. The author of the DV piece is Gearóid Ó Colmáin a stalinist who supports Chinese colonial rule in Tibet, denies the Rwanda genocide, praises Stalin on his execrable blog and every regime he can find, apart from being the worst thing to come out of Eire since riverdance. Colmain is not a historian in fact I doubt he's capable of learning or possessing important skills or knowledge, maybe next time Ted can cite Jeff Rense on the Nanking massacre.
Gearoid's bio informs the reader that he "is a member of Pôle de renaissance communiste en France (PRCF) a political movement which advocates Marxism-Leninism and the formation of a revolutionary communist party in France" its almost enough to make one think that the people at fuckfrance.com have a point. Colmain describes Maoist autocratic rule in Tibet as a process that brought Tibet "from serfdom to people's democracy" and claims that the Dalai Lama had "connections with nazism" rancid filth from an obviously diseased mind. If Carlos the jackal had a blog, Gearoid's articles would make Ilich Ramírez Sánchez's ramblings seem intelligent by comparison.
He describes Tibetan protesters as savages who smashed "skulls" while presenting Chinese police as heroes. In Colmain's festering excuse for a brain Tibetan self-immolations are "barbarous acts" of "terrorism and violence" he claims that coverage of said acts prove only "western moral degeneracy" (which is as hilarious as being called a slut by Linda Lovelace) its some of the heinous anti-Tibetan racism I've ever read, which is endorsed by Teddy bore and mondo weiss who obviously agree with it. So that makes mondo weiss and Theodore racists who support of colonial rule in Tibet with an article on a fringe hate site written by a Stalinist maniac; so criticism of Harris from them is a moot point, they have no moral high ground or any ethics at all.
One post compares Blacks in apartheid SA to rioters 'protesting' the innocence of Muslims film. Obviously there is no equivalence between a riot motivated out of rage at living in an oppressive dictatorship to mealy mouthed anger that someone countless miles away made fun of your religion (the Muslim rage cover photo was taken in Morocco). The comparison only confirms the idiocy that finds a soap box at mondo weiss. Now if apartheid era Boers attacked American embassies out of rage at the existence of a Morgan Freeman film that sure that would be on par with the movie 'protests.'
In another article Theodore Sayeed praises the overrated racist, axis Japan fan Gore Vidal, he half seriously claims that the passing of a man who described a rape victim as a "young hooker" is proof that "a cosmic plot afoot to knock off the higher order man." He breaks into hysterics about a certain Jew hating Stalinist "two weeks ago it carried off Alexander Cockburn. Another week, another legend. In a saner world, the end of a calendar would be marked by the end of its greatest scribes. With the departure of Gore, an historic epoch is cremated." If you think the passing of an obscure racist and hack writer who defended every totalitarian obscenity he could find was tragedy worse than the titanic you're not a serious thinker, in fact it would charitable to describe someone like that as capable of thought in the first place. Its like having some little piece of trailer trash go on about how valveeta is the best food.
He praises Vidal's novel on Lincoln for having "fetched the Great Emancipator down from the seventh heaven, knocked the halo off the national myth, and converted him into a power grubbing mortal who, far removed from the high-flown speech of Gettysburg, never let the abolitionist cause impede his political aspirations for the top job." Its one thing to write that its a good book, Teddy bore isn't doing that though: he is agreeing with Vidal's distortion of history. Gore Vidal wrote the book out of hatred for Lincoln who he believed should have the slaver oligarchy secede. Teddy also tosses out the term "court historians" suggesting that he's a closet lewrockwell.com fan. He lionizes Vidal's post-911 insane rants as "wit kissed polemics."
Now for the particularly abonimable part of his article: Teddy bore endorses and agrees with Gore Vidal's notorious support for Timothy McVeigh, strange since he's usually the guy anti-Israel types trot out for their "but what about the non-Muslim terrorists huhuhuh" routine. Theodore writes "Timothy McVeigh wrote him letters from death row and, in a culture that prefers to send the wicked prematurely to heaven, Gore went beyond the official cant that he was just a very naughty boy and dug up the reason why. Something to do with kids massacred in Waco by the FBI apparently. How odd. It’s almost as if terrorists have political motives." So we have MW defending a far right terrorist: they argue that the alleged killings of children by one party justifies and legitimizes the massacre of babies in a daycare center by an inbred psychopath. Gore Vidal described Timothy as a "noble boy", "kipling hero", a "Henley-style hero" with an "overdeveloped sense of justice" and compared him to Paul Revere, opinions that survive Vidal's corpse through mondo weiss.
Mondo Weiss also supports McVeigh's Lebanese in article 'can you pass the hezbollah test' opens by condemning Western media for using "simplistic stereotypes to demonize it" the d-word card is not an argument it only proves that the person playing it wants theocratic fascists to be exempt from criticism for bombing mosques and butchering Jewish children. The hezzies are described as "a sophisticated organization that effectively combines pragmatism and militancy, social services and religious faith" so MW is a pro-hezbollah blog. Hezbo atrocities are described as "resistance operations against Israel" that "were relentless and effective" perhaps the phallic gun flag the hezzies fly triggered the author's fantasies of fascist 'resistance.' He clearly wishes he could be on the battlefield fighting alongside his heroes whom he praises for "decency and efficiency" this vile pro-fascist article has been widely circulated and posted on blogs ranging from Juan Cole's site to 'counter currents.'
*Alistair Crooke is a fan of Hezbollah and Assad yet he's cited as a source in multiple posts. The latest MW addition Alex Kane who's supposedly a sweetheart wrote this "writing in Al Jazeera, Alastair Crooke offers this explanation."
*Hezbollah fan Norman Finklestein.
*Counterpunch which publishes blood libels unsurprising since they praise the decaying totalitarian charlatan behind that crank website.
*Dissident voice which denies the Rwanda genocide.
*Richard Falk a 911 truther and Jew hater.
*Gareth Porter is an obscure little twit who has defended the Khmer Rouge and denied that the Iranian regime was responsible for the AMIA bombing yet he's cited as a source on MW.
"First, Gareth Porter reports at IPS"
*Hezbollah fan Franklin Lamb who is " is a political activist described by Hizbollah’s TV station in Lebanon as “persistent in his support for the just cause of the Lebanese people’s resistance”."
If a site has unmoderated comments it would be dishonest to use that as criticism, after all who has the time or energy to police comments on a major? However if a site has moderated comments then it can be criticized for posts, MW had "ground rules" and has "banned" people yet every post features hateful comments like:
"Rwanda was another of the 20th century's great propaganda works, depicted as a Hutu genocide of the Tutsi minority while the US stood by, in fact, it was a US-backed Tutsi genocide of the Hutu people."
"I don’t believe North Korea is a threat to the United States and that we should have normal relations with that country."
"Israel Shamir says a peace agreement with the Palestinians will open"
"On the whole, I appreciate Israel Shamir and Otto Weininger's views"
Like attracts like, at least on the net. But don't worry I'm sure they react to criticism with quiet grace and dignity.