They should be fired. Period.

I'm witholding judgement until a more unbiased source appears.

Here's one:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=756440087731691&set=pb.100000971194371.-2207520000.1440895960.&type=3&theater

The bib has a star of David, but the fork is clearly an American flag, and I don't know what the knife says. Seems more like a critique of governments than ethnicities to me.

The cartoon does seem to feature that trope (Note the cup of what appears to be blood).

The guy with the Star of David is holding the fork labeled US and using it to cut up a child and drink his blood.

never mind. That is an exemplary anti-Semitic cartoon.

That the only Jewish-majority country is somehow able to control the world's greatest super power and uses that control to force it to kill Arab children. That's also pretty anti-semitic, isn't it?

I very much doubt Netanyahu is anti-Semitic.

Centuries old trope relating to Jews poisoning the wells or murdering christian boys in order to use their blood for making Matzah.

Let's say there was a cartoon by a RW newspaper that wanted to criticize the US policy on some topic but did so using a traditionally racist image with respect to Obama.

So if a cartoonist wants to suggest that the US and Israel are bloodthirsty, I would argue that they could do so without alluding to traditional antisemitic imagery.

According to the myth, they baked it into their holiday goodies, so the cartoon isn't using traditional, antiemetic trope.

That's the general thrust of the motif over the years.

Very few cartoons literally show someone making matzah with said blood - they just suggest that Jews like to kill children and take their blood.

about you? When there is something that makes Israel looks bad, I NEVER NEVER NEVER see you questioning the source. But the other way around? You ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS question the source. Just go to the linked facebook pages and look for yourself. What's wrong? Afraid to find out UN Watch is absolutely right? This is hardly the first time this group has engaged in antisemitism - you FINALLY had to admit last week or so that UN Watch had the story EXACTLY right regarding this group (again after whining about the source and being forced to check out the situation yourself). If you're trying to make people think you're a fair arbiter of the I/P situation, you're failing miserably.

....daily with anti-Zionist, pro-Hamas, BDS propaganda. In Europe, over 40% believe Jews are doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the Jews 75 years ago. That's all they see 24-7-365. So what else should they believe?

So much for the idiotic claim that the Jews run the media.

When they see UN Watch, for example, it causes cognitive dissonance & this Zionist propaganda just can't possibly be true. They've been lied to for years. Their biggest, best honorable humanitarian cause....all bullshit. It's not surprising in Europe. Their parents and grandparents going back centuries believed in the same nasty shit about Jews & we know where that led. The media is just giving Europeans exactly the kind of red meat they're ravenous for. I suspect it's similar in the land down under but I doubt it's as bad as Europe.

confirmation bias but it's still annoying to find it here and have the same posters whining about the same sources but will suck up whatever anti-Israel bullshit they're fed by whatever sources make them.

....while demanding better than 100% proof from sources w/o an axe to grind against Israel.

I guarantee the sources your opponents use here are far more reliable than your go-to sources.

You brought up MEMRI, so let's go with that one. Wanna compare to Mondoweiss? Or do you have a better source in mind other than Mondoweiss?

But back to UN WATCH. Find something that shows they're not reliable. Biased isn't an issue because most sources are biased. The question is whether they're accurate and honest.

I really don't understand why you dislike Mondoweiss so much.

Publishing anti-Semites, or people who work for websites that traffic in anti-Semitic innuendo or conspiracy theories, empowers ideas aimed at obscuring the humanity of one side of an already-violent conflict.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-reminder-that-anti-semitism-has-no-place-in-debates-over-israel/259830/

Every single article on the main page shows Israelis in a bad light and Palestinians in a good light. Some is that way due to spin, some due to what they choose to highlight. Also launders stories of questionable provenance and hardens the language/ removes context to make stories seem like something they are not.

In reality, both sides in this conflict are made up of people with human motivations and human flaws. The spin is that Israelis' motivation is to cause suffering. The other spin is that Both sides have their best and worst actors. No articles there about any efforts at co-existence or tolerance or applauding peaceful attitudes. In total, this makes it a propaganda site with the aim of delegitimizing Israel.

The evidence is overwhelming.

....in regards to their reporting on the Jewish state.

I did take a look at the allegations of anti-Semitism, and I don't think the allegations stick at all, at least the way I define anti-Semitism. I do think the fiction in the New Yorker and the subsequent fiction contest in Mondoweiss was tasteless, all of it.

I can't help but feel that this is an allegation in line with BS definition of "new anti-Semitism", and that it's an attempt to smear Mondoweiss for political purposes. While it's good that that things that are improper are highlighted, like that story on Vittorio Arrigonni (http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/gaza-mourns-vittorio-arrigoni.html), and the New Yorker fiction parody contest (http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/read-25-entries-in-new-yorker-fiction-parody-contest), the level of impropriety is much lower than for example MEMRI or the Jerusalem Post. Now when I come to think of it, I don't know of any pro-Israel website that's less partial and biased than Mondoweiss...

However, with the reservations above, I think that the Mondoweiss rebuttal of the article by Rosen refutes his criticism pretty well:

Responding to ‘the Atlantic’ smear on Mondoweiss
Source: Mondoweiss, July 16, 2012

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


Read more: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/responding-to-the-atlantic-smear-on-mondoweiss

Excerpt:

Being against the existence of Israel isn't particularly exceptional. One of the interesting things about Mondoweiss is the tremendous amount of work they invest in their animosity. I happen to think the Saudi regime is ghastly, but I'd never spend hours every day digging up dirt on it. The Mondoweiss people do that, first by avidly seeking any remotely negative story about Israel, then by seeking the ones which aren't true, then by damning anyone who casts doubt with terms such as hasbarists, Ziobots (I assume these are part Zionists and part robots), and of course genocidists. In order to collect all that dirt they've got to pass by the occasional positive story too, but these never get linked to or even alluded to unless to demonstrate how yet another journalist has succumbed to the threat of Zionist censorship. The result is a depiction of reality which has at best a glancing relationship with the real world, but these folks aren't interested in the real world. In their world, Zionists are easily the worst group of humans, they purportedly hate all Palestinians, they enforce the most cruel policies possibly on them, they steal from-, degrade and kill Palestinians, on a daily basis. You read Mondoweiss regularly and the force of hatred towards Zionists becomes overpowering: no normal decent person could have anything but the deepest contempt for such a gang of deceitful violent criminals. As a commentor named "American" recently wrote:

The thing about the zionist is they attack even those who help them. They turned on England, calling it “worse than Hitler’ because England tried to uphold the immigration quotas agreed to. They demonize the UN that created their state for them.
Everyone, without exception, who has ever had anything to do them has regretted it….the US will too in the end. They are vipers who need to be decapitated.

Comments at Mondoweiss are moderated, so that one could have been deleted - but wasn't. And why would it be? It merely states what is obvious to the locals. Any attempt to argue with them will either be blocked by the same moderators, or derisively laughed off the screen. If a sane commenter has made a reasonable point which gets past the moderators, the locals will dig up a dozen spurious links to disprove it: the value of links being not their veracity, or the trustworthiness of their sources, but their usefulness to the party line. Links which are not useful - you guessed it: they're written off as hasbara lies.

Interestingly, the Mondoweiss community not only has no interest in the lives of real Israelis, it also has no interest in the lives of real Palestinians. Their point is to hate Israel and damn it, no matter what; the possibility that there are Palestinians who live alongside Israelis, interact with them, and even could imagine living with them in peace, is a thought never contemplated. I have Palestinian staff members, colleagues and friends; none of them could remotely fit into the Mondoweiss world. The methodology also has the odd result that according to Mondoweiss, Israelis and Palestinians are all boring cardboard figures, with none of the complexities, complications, shades of grey, frustrations and successes of real people. The very parts of the human story which make it worth following are all dropped, to be replaced by detestation (towards Israelis) and patronizing pity (towards Palestinians).

http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2012/04/mondoweiss-vipers-nest-of-antisemites.html.

Try to consider some of these points without a "Mondoweiss response" to guide you. Don't be predisposed to be dismissive and to take up their side. It's okay to admit a mistake a judgment. We're all on the same side here.

Also, maybe read through the comments (which are moderated) of a few articles and see what kind of vibe you get from them. Based on what I've seen you post here, I would think you would find a great many of them to be repulsive.

With all the due respect, please consider this.

Imagine a website that is exclusively devoted to publishing negative stories about Palestinians. The people who run the site believe they are doing so in the name of exposing the underreported truth about important elements of the Palestinian leadership and people. They scour the press for stories that highlight such behavior and post them on the site. Articles that shows how bankrupt that society is or how devoted to violence they are or how the society has an undertone of anti-semitism or how the leadership is corrupt or how their leadership has outsized importance on the world stage or how their society is sexist or homophobic. All the worst things they can find - and they expound on those articles to highlight how they illustrate their point about Palestinian society.

Every incident of Palestinian violence in particular is published with photos, interviews with the Israeli victims of the violence. And often these stories tie the behavior to the religion of most of these Palestinians. Articles from prominent Palestinians where they talk about justifying violence via religious texts. Track down every remark that any Palestinian legislator said that presents Israelis negatively and seem to justify violence against them. Draw attention to them wherever they might be posted and explain how they reflect the sickness, prejudice, hatred with that society. Then direct criticism towards Muslim-Americans who express support for the Palestinian cause - implying that they may even be more loyal to supporting said cause than they are to the United States.

When questioned about their obvious bias, the people who run the site can present a very reasonable argument about how they support peace and justice, only report on stories with factual evidence, and are doing so to support those Palestinians who are in the minority but who do not support these awful policies and attitudes. And that people who attack the site are just trying to silence them to prevent this important information from getting out there.

Is there really any doubt that you were consider this to be a hate site and one that ought not to be posted here?

state.

This would mean that Mondoweiss is basically doing all those things you accuse them of, as it would be natural for them to be against racism and right-wing nationalism. I think that you're trying to frame the left-wing ideals of how Israel ought to be as being anti-Israel.

I see Israel as a democracy and I think that Israel deserves support as a democracy, but I absolutely loathe the idea of Israel as an ethnocracy. This means that I consider right-wing nationalists like Netanyahu to be anti-Israel, as he and his political views are racist and fundamentally opposed to Israel as democratic state.

and I'm not going to defend the motivation behind that.

But I do think you see certain forms of democracy as being impossible for Israel, and then I'm thinking of a full democracy, with Israel as a democratic state only, not a Jewish one. Some would probably call that post-Zionism. I don't have a problem with Israel as a full democracy like Germany or the US, where ethnicity is intentionally disregarded, I would in fact prefer it, as it's in line with my idea of the ideal democracy.

but I admire that in your posts you think for yourself and look at things from multiple perspectives.

so for your post above, here is my reaction (which I think is a belief held by a lot of pro-Israel people) and I would like to know what you think of this view. the full democracy call seems beautiful in theory, if there is a secular country where Jews and Arabs and people of whatever ethinicity feel allegiance to that country and feel that they are all citizens in it together. although not perfect, that is a pretty good approximation to the US. In Germany, there is one dominant ethnicity and various minorities, so I don't think it has been put to the test that a one-state Israel would be. in particular, the fear of many on the Israeli side (presumably Jews) is that Muslims would become the majority, and that as a majority, they would vote in leaders who do not want to continue the democracy and who would instead be very unfavorable to the Jews. For example, Hamas could win an election (noting that there are also voices on the Israeli far right who call for expulsion of Arabs). What make this a serious fear is that there is already such a level of animosity and such a tradition of conflict, along with many outsiders (and all sorts of crazy conflict in the mideast in general) who currently like to stir up conflict between the two sides and who I am pretty sure would try to continue this. I see a lot of endpoints to such a democracy that devolve into an all out civil war, a la the breakup of Yugoslavia or Lebanon or Syria or even worse. I see few endpoints that involve a functioning democracy. To get to a point of co-existence would in my view generations of education to undo demonization that people have learned, and something far beyond something like truth and reconciliation committees because this is really part of a larger Arab-Jewish conflict or Muslim-Jewish conflict -- it has been made essential to a lot of discourse in the Islamic world. The downside is so bad, and so hard to work around, that it seems like a poor risk - especially from the Israeli Jewish perspective, even if the alternatives are bad. So, either that risk is much lower than it seems, or there is some way to lower the risk to an acceptable level. I haven't seen compelling arguments on either of these, only the easier argument that the alternatives are bad.

in the occupied territories. I do think that if there is a way for those who were once disenfranchised to address their grievances through political means or by just being allowed equal treatment, there's little need for actual violence. Hamas doesn't have the same draw in a democratic environment as it does in Gaza. Perhaps the PLO would be more popular, but do Palestinians really think they can run a country?

Whether the endgame will result in one or two states is completely up to the Israelis. If Israel and it's allies like the US and the EU actually feared that the one-state solution would result in civil war, peace negotiations would have resulted in two states years ago.

I'm not a proponent of the one-state solution; any solution that takes into account the democratic rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories and in the diaspora is a good one. If that would be the two-state solution, then so be it. However, any form of two-state solution must result in a Palestinian state that is as viable as Israel, or else it's the one-state solution by default.

Personally, I have very little hope for the two-state solution, and I think that the one-state solution must be on the table as a possible option. The way things are going, it will IMHO be an unavoidable option. Netanyahu is working very hard to destroy all other options. But if Jewish Israelis won't lose their democratic and political rights or their jobs, and the only difference will be that more people will have access to the same rights, why should the one-state solution be feared?

Here's a post from yesterday's Mondoweiss:

It starts early: Netanyahu warns first graders Hamas is trying to kill them

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/netanyahu-graders-trying

Here are some of the comments:

"It’s shocking to me the world puts up with this horrible human being. And shocking that he is so stupid he can’t see that what he’s doing is basically the same as what the Nazis did."

"Israeli politicians use the word ‘peace’ so cheaply and in such a perverse and dishonest way that I nowadays feel a wave of irritation whenever I hear the word ‘shalom’ "

"This is why they have their segregated school system, because of the different messages they need to send to the young ‘uns. The Jews get the one articulated above while the Palestinians and other non-Jews are instructed to be obedient and grateful and not make trouble."

"If asked if I wanted north korea or israel as a neighbour it would be a rough choice to make."

"Now: sone London Zionists seem to have surpassed even the Israelians. They teach 3-year-olds that (all) Gentiles staged the genocide, and they (all) want to kill the Jews."

"This is the behavior we would expect of the leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Africa, recruiting child soldiers."

Again, these are moderated comments. And none of these comments are challenged or criticized. It makes sense to a regular Mondoweiss reader that Israel ought to be compared (unfavorably) to North Korea and to the Lord's Resistance Army. And these sorts of comments are not outliers but are rather the general thrust of what you find there.

Look at this comment in particular:

"I nowadays feel a wave of irritation whenever I hear the word ‘shalom’ "

Is that not anti-semitic? If you agree that it is, can you not see how Mondoweiss guides its readership to such feelings? Or at least makes it a seem like a reasonable thing to post.

Just flip it around in your mind. Certainly there have been speeches of this nature by Palestinian leaders as well. Imagine a site presenting such a speech as evidence of Palestinians teaching their children to hate Israelis at a young age. And then imagine a set of comments like this but about Palestinians/Muslims.

I would love a response to my post on this. In particular, do you find that statement to be anti-semitic?

To be fair, it's not certain that it's anti-Semitic, but it's certainly inappropriate. However, it's not possible to judge a website from the comments; if it were, then even haaretz.com would be a racist website.

BTW, this is going off-topic and I don't think I've got much more to say about Mondoweiss.

...terror against Jews, but not be antisemitic?

I don't support Corbyn in any way, his stance isn't pro-peace - it's pro-terror.

Hamas calls for the killing of all Jews in its charter. How can anyone support a genocidal organization like that and NOT be antisemitic?

It's been asserted by some that he's not an anti-Semite, but when I come think about it, you didn't agree with that assertion, so he's a bad example.

I don't think I have any other examples, because supporting and defending terrorism against Jews naturally goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism. I suspect you have looser definition than me of what qualifies as supporting and defending terrorism that includes linking terrorism to certain grievances, and supporting those grievances.

So no, I don't think Mondoweiss qualifies as supporting and defending terrorism.

Those two paragraphs describe what makes Mondoweiss an anti-Israel propaganda site. That bias alone discredits the site to a large degree. People who think anti-Israel propaganda sites are by definition anti-Semitic, since they are targeted against the only Jewish state, will conclude that Mondoweiss is anti-Semitic - in effect and possibly in its motivation -- further discrediting it. But people who think being anti-Israel no matter how strong is not the same as being anti-Semitic can (absent additional evidence) see Mondoweiss as the former but not the latter. Even stipulating that anti-Semitic effect is not evidence of anti-Semitic intent, and that an obsession with the existence of the one Jewish state is not necessarily related to the Jewishness of the state as opposed, the evidence is that Mondoweiss' anti-Israel position makes it more propaganda than anything else.

This line in particular resonates as a summary of the goal of Mondoweiss for its readers:

"The force of hatred towards Zionists becomes overpowering: no normal decent person could have anything but the deepest contempt for such a gang of deceitful violent criminals."

For people who already have that belief, or have come to it, Mondoweiss feeds an anger addiction. For people who are able to see Zionists as human beings - even if they disagree on many points, this kind of blind hate throws a wrench in any efforts to get toward a better situation.

....is honest and accurate?

Most of the content is a commentary on current events. Factuality is much less of a factor than the validity of the opinions expressed at Mondoweiss, simply because facts are taken from somewhere else. There are instances when the facts check out, like in the article about the Mamilla cemetery (http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/destruction-palestine-jerusalem), and then there are others that speculate a little bit too much (http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/gaza-mourns-vittorio-arrigoni.html).

They deny the Jews the right to their own country in their ancient homeland (rights denied to no other people on earth - they also deny the Jews are a people).

Mondoweiss further denies the Jews a right to self-defense.

They also lie about & slander the Jewish state & Jews constantly.

===========================

Now be consistent.

If someone lies and slanders Palestinians & their leaders constantly, & also argues Palestinians have no right to their own homeland, they're not a people, & they are not entitled to self-defense....what do you make of such a person? Hater or not? Apply the same standard, okay?

I think it's extremely important to be critical of sources, and I don't think you can find a single occasion where I have accepted dubious sources as fact.

The problem is that I don't know the level of reliability of UN Watch - I did Google around a little bit and found strong links to AJC and indirectly to Daniel Pipes and MEMRI, the last two which are very careless with the truth. I also discovered that UN Watch is a pro-Israel outfit and that they are completely uncritical of Israel and spends a lot of time defending what Israel does. For me, this seems to indicate that UN Watch is biased in some way, and when it comes to biased sources, I want confirmation from another source.

If these accusations are true, and I did look at them, they will be comfirmed by others.

I'm simply driven by a strong desire not to have egg in my face.

credible if I could remember even one time where you questioned a source that was anti-Israel (that was still allowed to be posted here). My suspicions are grounded in reality.

There's more, but I don't remember right now.

To the extent it could be associated with bias, it is likely that UN Watch is particularly focused on monitoring some of the UN's activities that relate to Israel. But it seems to have a broad net and my googling doesn't turn up signs that it is fabricating or misleading. Not sure journalists these days would bother to take the effort to confirm these, as it may not be a viable mainstream news story. More likely, if it is possible to disconfirm it, someone will do that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Watch

....pretending Israel's leading newspaper was reporting as news that Carter's cancer is retribution from God. That this is a mainstream & not batshit crazy fringe view condemned by 99% of Israelis...

Self-reflection may be in order.

This video will be screened at selected legislative bodies which fund UNRWA.

Anyway, here's a list of documentaries from David Bedein and the (his?) Center for Near East Policy Research, all of which seem to have a common theme:

....because it appears to this observer that you support UNRWA's child abuse (brainwashing kids into becoming hate-filled Jew murderers).

while a droning commentary tries to connect these acts to the children in a classroom. The content is propaganda aimed at causing revulsion in the viewer, and any possible factuality in the video is lost.

It's also quite possible that the part with the children is a fake; apparently Bedein made a "documentary" called "Camp Jihad" with footage not from UNRWA:

David Bedein
Source: Wikipedia
(snip)

The evidence is clear. You even conceded months ago that many UNRWA teachers & staff had incendiary messages on their Facebook accounts, inciting violence against Jews....after you attacked UNWatch for reporting the facts.

Your denial now is pathetic, again attacking the messenger.

That video is an attack on UNRWA, not Palestinian children suffering under hate-filled child abuse that you're unwilling to acknowledge, much less condemn.

A fake documentary is a fake. The footage in the documentary is not connected to the reality it claims to portray.

The Facebook posts alone do that. You even came around on that one.

And the UNRWA representative who denies all the allegations now is none other than one Christopher Gunness, the same guy who originally denied the Facebook fiasco and decided to slam UNWatch instead, only to fess up later, admit to it, and act on it. What a nice guy...nothing but the best intentions. Are you able to condemn that liar trying to cover for incitement that leads to harming & killing Jews?