Rosen doesn't adduce a shred of evidence that Kane--the man whose reputation he's trying to besmirch and whose career he's trying to damage--is anti-Semitic.
No complaint is filed about anything Kane has ever said or written. Rather, the allegation is just that Kane works for a publication that has featured
articles, written by other people, that, in Rosen's judgment, gave off anti-Semitic vibes.
The term for this maneuver is "guilt by association," and it has an unfortunate history in American politics and intellectual life.
This tarring of Kane by virtue of his association with Mondoweiss would be lamentable even if Rosen produced a convincing indictment of Mondoweiss, showing
that it indeed evinces anti-Semitism. Does he do so? All I can say is that I clicked on the links to Mondoweiss that Rosen provided and--though I didn't read
every single post with utmost care--I did reach a point where I could safely conclude that Rosen has a looser definition of anti-Semitism than I do. (Judge
for yourself. The links to pieces by Mondoweiss founder Philip Weiss are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, and the links to things written by other people
are here, here, here, and here.)
Following Rosen's links left intact the vague impression of Mondoweiss that, on the basis of limited exposure, I already had: It is an edgy website that is
highly critical of both Israel and Zionism and features a variety of contributors and--inevitably, given that description--publishes things that are outside
the bounds of mainstream political discourse, in the sense that you wouldn't find them in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or on NPR. (And,
needless to say, it publishes stuff I don't agree with.) But if those eleven links--some dating back to 2009--are the most damning indictment Rosen can
assemble from the many thousands of blog posts Mondoweiss has run in recent years, then I don't see how he concludes that Mondoweiss "often gives the
appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise."
I know good, earnest people who have a looser definition of anti-Semitism than I do, and I'm not saying that everyone who finds any Mondoweiss content
obnoxious or offensive does so in bad faith, out of an attempt to silence voices critical of Israel. Still, I do feel that anyone who tries to stigmatize a
publication by suggesting that it's anti-Semitic (or racist, or un-American, or whatever) has an obligation to provide clear examples of things in the
publication that they definitely consider anti-Semitic and explain exactly how they qualify as anti-Semitic. Rosen doesn't do that. Rather, he lists a bunch of links and paraphrases their content in a way that may or may not suggest evidence of anti-Semitism--and that,
moreover, may or may not turn out to accurately represent the content once you click on the links.