Two think tanks he’s associated with — the Progressive Policy Institute and the Truman National Security Project — were apparently rattled by the incident:

PPI head Will Marshall privately told Block that the think tank would sever ties with Block if he didn’t retract the charges detailed in Salon, according to a source familiar with the discussions. Block subsequently offered Politico a statement on the charges, claiming he had never accused people at CAP in particular of anti-Semitism, but not walking back or apologizing for the gist of what was reported in the Salon piece. It’s still unclear how PPI — which declined to comment — will proceed at this point.

Meanwhile, at Truman, top officials privately debated via email whether to cut ties with Block after the Salon story broke, a source says. They had already been unhappy with Block’s attacks on critics of Israel, and the Salon piece exacerbated tensions, I’m told.

I’ve asked Block for comment and will update this post if I hear back. Sargent reports that PPI and Truman officials are mulling whether to sever ties with Block over the incident.

Arguably even more surprising than the reaction by the think tanks is that Block’s business partner, lobbyist Lanny Davis, publicly — and quite strongly — broke with Block over the accusations of anti-Semitism against progressive bloggers.

Davis, keep in mind, is hardly a lefty on Mideast issues. He has been a senior advisor and spokesperson at the Israel Project, one of the biggest organizations that promotes the current Israeli government line in Washington.

“I respect Josh Block but I 100 percent disagree with much of his language. People can disagree about Israel’s policies without being anti-Semites,” Davis told Think Progress.” “In fact I think it’s a terrible mistake to blur the two. We should be able to debate Israel’s policies. I am very pro-Israel. I believe the onus for negotiations is on the Palestinians but both Israelis and Palestinians share responsibility. However, that’s all fair debate. Israelis debate the subject. We debate the subject. Impugning motives of people at the Center [for American Progress] and impugning [that] those motives are driven by anti-Semitism is, in my opinion, wrong.”

The Freedom Community list includes many neoconservative journalists, according to a person familiar with the matter. As of last night, the icon for the listserv was Margaret Thatcher:

***

I sent an inquiry to Block late Wednesday night. By Thursday morning, the listserv had been scrubbed:

(The phrase “the freedom community” has also appeared in a post by Weekly Standard editor Daniel Halper hailing a neoconservative speech by the president of Mongolia. And Ben Smith reported last year on a similar sounding endeavor called “Freedom Mail.”)

Block sent out his email following publication of an article by Politico’s Ben Smith Wednesday about writers at the Democratic-affiliated Center for American Progress and Media Matters who enunciate a more progressive take on the Israel-Palestine conflict than is usually found in Washington. Block was quoted in the story accusing CAP columnist Eric Alterman of writing “borderline anti-Semitic stuff,” a charge Alterman (who is himself Jewish) dismissed as “ludicrous.”

Block’s email to the Freedom Community list arrived under the subject line “Important piece to echo and the research to do it….” – a reference to the Politico story. He wasted no time throwing around more accusations of anti-Semitism.

“This kind of anti-Israel sentiment is so fringe it’s support by CAP is outrageous, but at least it is out in the open now — as is their goal – clearly applauded by revolting allies like the pro-HAMAS and anti-Zionist/One State Solution advocate Ali Abunumiah and those who accuse pro-Israel Americans of having ‘dual loyalties’ or being ‘Israel-Firsters’ – to shape the minds of future generations of Democrats,” Block writes. “These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.”

The email continues by encouraging journalists on the Freedom Community list to ask Democratic members of Congress about the story.

“I wonder if Steny Hoyer or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Dick Durban or James Clyburn agree with CAP?” Block asks. “I wonder if they will say they disagree and condemn this stuff and expect better.    You know how I feel – look at the below — and ask them how they feel about this discourse from CAP and Media Matters.”

He goes on: “YOU SHOULD AMPLIFY this.  And use the below [research] to attack the bad guys.”

What follows is thousands of words of opposition research focusing on CAP writers Eli Clifton, Matt Duss and Ali Gharib and Media Matters’ M.J. Rosenberg. I’ve posted the full text below. (I’m not vouching for the accuracy of the material, and CAP has responded to the Politico article here.)

Asked for comment about the email, Block sent me this statement:

Those who accuse pro-Israel advocates and American Jews of having “dual loyalties” and being “Israel Firsters” are engaged in anti-Semetic hate speech. Period. These are age-old canards and anti-Semetic smears that go back centuries, suggesting that Jews are disloyal, alien and cannot be trusted. This kind of rhetoric has no place in civil dialogue and anyone’s politics, but especially among progressives.

The organizations who pay the salaries of those using such hate speech, (see below for specific examples), and who have clearly had it brought to their attention, must either confront it and end it, or take full responsibility for it. In this case, that choice belongs to both CAP and Media Matters. This is a free country and people can say what they want, but the question for those organizations is whether they are an appropriate home for such discourse

The Block Freedom Community email is interesting for a few reasons.

First, it’s worth noting that Block is continuing to do AIPAC-style press work even though he left the powerful lobbying group last fall. (AIPAC’s current spokesman has, at least publicly, stayed above the fray, declining to comment for the Politico story.)

Block frequently offers hard-line quotes in Israel-Palestine stories identified as the group’s former spokesman, or occasionally as “a former Clinton administration official who is now a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute.” (He was a spokesman for USAID during the Clinton years.)

In February, for example, months after he left AIPAC, Block sent out an email to reporters and editors proposing “questions to ask the Muslim Brotherhood & Their Allies,” the New York Times reported. In August, he was calling the Obama administration’s approach to Syria “tragically naïve.” In September he was quoted by Eli Lake in Newsweek accusing the Obama administration of encouraging “Israel’s adversaries to pursue their hostile aims against the Jewish state.” And in October, Block was quoted attacking the wording of a poll that came up with unfavorable results for AIPAC.

His gig at the Progressive Policy Institute is in line with that organization’s Lieberman-style Democratic politics. Block is also a partner with Salon favorite Lanny Davis in a lobbying and P.R. firm, Davis-Block.

Block tells me he was shopping the opposition trove on progressive bloggers not as part of work for a client, but rather “just for me … just for what’s right.”

Davis-Block counts among its clients the group Friends of Israel, which is associated with former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar. (Though the group’s website appears to have been defunct since September.)

The existence of the Freedom Community – a private list for the ideologically like-minded that includes proposals for coordination — prompts memories of the JournoList affair of 2010. That involved a listserv of left-leaning journalists and policy wonks whose leaked emails were the subject of (many said dishonest) reporting by the Daily Caller, which was subsequently blown up into a national story by Fox News and Co.

Now, Block’s email is explicitly calling for coordination among conservative writers.

I personally don’t see anything wrong with like-minded journalists and policy folks having private discussions on email lists. Individual journalists could take or leave Block’s pitch. But it’s certainly interesting to see how the sausage gets made.

And next time Block’s name appears in print, it’s worth remembering he has something of a vendetta against anyone who doesn’t fall into line with the status quo view on U.S. policy toward Israel.

UPDATE: This story originally said Block did not respond to a request for comment. He in fact sent the above statement to me Wednesday night, but I didn’t get it because of an email snafu.

—————-

Here’s the complete text of Block’s email to the Freedom Community

[Subject:] Important piece to echo and the research to do it….

Ben Smith is a good reporter and his story is important in exposing what these people are doing.  It is not a good story for CAP and Media Matters. READ the story carefully and see below that some good, but not exhaustive, examples of CAP and MEDIA MATTERS outrageous vilification of pro-Israel Americans, Jews, Members of Congress, and pretty much anyone who thinks Iran with nuke is a problem, or supports a strong US-Israe relationship.

This kind of anti-Israel sentiment is so fringe it’s support by CAP is outrageous, but at least it is out in the open now — as is their goal – clearly applauded by revolting allies like the pro-HAMAS and anti-Zionist/One State Solution advocate Ali Abunumiah and those who accuse pro-Israel Americans of having ”dual loyalties” or being ”Israel-Firsters” – to shape the minds of future generations of Democrats.  These are the words of anti-Semites, not Democratic political players.

This kind of hate speech has no place in the political discourse, let alone one FUNDED, SPONSORED AND DEFENDED by a group claiming the mantle of the Democratic party.

I wonder if Steny Hoyer or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer or Dick Durban or James Clyburn agree with CAP?  I wonder if they will say they disagree and condemn this stuff and expect better.    You know how I feel – look at the below — and ask them how they feel about this discourse from CAP and Media Matters.

After you read the story, see below for more examples of CAP’s and Media Matter’s work and statements along these lines….

YOU SHOULD AMPLIFY this.  And use the below to attack the bad guys.

http://bit.ly/s3yyL1

POLITICO 

Israel rift roils Dem ranks

Two of the party’s core institutions emerge as critics of its pro-Israel congressional leaders.

By Ben Smith

[FULL TEXT OF POLITICO ARTICLE]

###

The first thing to note about the Gutman affair – which has now prompted Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, as well as pundits at Commentary and elsewhere to call for his firing – is that the initial reaction was based on a woefully inaccurate account of his remarks.

Gutman was paraphrased by the Israeli news outlet Ynet as saying, “A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.” The clear suggestion is that Gutman was engaging in apologetics for certain forms of Jew hatred.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz then put that line in quotation marks even though no such words had passed Gutman’s lips.  In fact, a reading of his real remarks shows that he explicitly repudiated the idea that any anti-Semitism should be tolerated, rather than condemned.

It’s worth quoting Gutman at length. He did make a distinction between anti-Semitisms, referring to the risk of “oversimplifying and of lumping together diverse phenomena.”

He then described what might be called classical anti-Semitism:

There is and has long been some amount of anti-Semitism, of hatred and violence against Jews, from a small sector of the population who hate others who may be different or perceived to be different, largely for the sake of hating. Those anti-Semites are people who hate not only Jews, but Muslims, gays, gypsies, and likely any who can be described as minorities or different. That hatred is of course pernicious and it must be combated. We can never take our eye off it or just dismiss it as fringe elements or the work of crazy people, because we have seen in the past how it can foment and grow.

This type of anti-Semitism, he said, rears its head from time to time, but does not appear to be growing.

But there is another phenomenon, Gutman argued, that is on the rise.

It is the problem within Europe of tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews. It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.

Then – contrary to the right-wing portrayals of his remarks, such as Romney’s description of them as “rationalizing and downplaying anti-Semitism”  – Gutman explicitly called this phenomenon unacceptable:

It too is a serious problem. It too must be discussed and solutions explored. No Jewish student – and no Muslim student or student of any heritage or religion – should ever feel intimidated on a University campus for their heritage or religion leading to academic leaders quitting in protest. No high school or grammar school Jewish student – and no Muslim high school or grammar school student or student of any heritage or religion – should be beaten up over their heritage or religion.

But this second problem is in my opinion different in many respects than the classic bigotry – hatred against those who are different and against minorities generally — the type of anti-Semitism that I discussed above. It is more complex and requiring much more thought and analysis. This second form of what is labeled “growing anti-Semitism” produces strange phenomena and results.

He then goes on to explore how this problem might be addressed, including by a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The core point that has so many pundits on the right upset is the link between the Israel-Palestine conflict and anti-Semitism. On this, Adam Serwer at Mother Jones makes the crucial point:  “Gutman’s suggestion that anti-Semitism would subside if a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be reached isn’t the same as saying Israelis or Jews are ‘responsible’ for anti-Semitism.”

As it turns out, there is rigorous research that backs up Gutman’s point — that of, in his words, “tension, hatred and sometimes even violence between some members of Muslim communities or Arab immigrant groups and Jews … largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian Territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem.”

The Community Service Trust is a thoroughly mainstream British organization that specializes in the study of anti-Semitism and providing security for Jews. The group publishes an annual survey on anti-Semitic incidents in the U.K., and its most recent study (.pdf) would seem to vindicate Gutman.

It notes what happened after the IDF killed nine pro-Palestinian activists on a flotilla to break the Gaza blockade in May 2010:

The only significant trigger event in 2010 occurred when Israeli forces boarded a flotilla of ships bearing pro-Palestinian activists who were trying to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza; nine activists were killed during the subsequent on-board clashes. Reactions to this episode led to a monthly total of 81 antisemitic incidents in the UK in June 2010, compared to 49 in June 2009, when there was no comparable trigger event.

And it also discusses the number of anti-Semitic incidents in 2009, the year of the Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza:

The record total [of anti-Semitic incidents] in 2009 was triggered by reactions to the Gaza conflict in January of that year, which led to record numbers of incidents in January and February 2009.

Those two points show a correlation between flare-ups in the Middle East and anti-Semitism. But what about causation?

The report explores this complicated question:

Clearly, it would not be acceptable to define all anti-Israel activity as antisemitic; but it cannot be ignored that much contemporary antisemitism takes place in the context of, or is motivated by, extreme feelings over the Israel/Palestine issue. Drawing out these distinctions, and deciding on where the dividing lines lie, is one of the most difficult areas of CST’s work in recording and analysing hate crime.

This point by Community Service Trust echoes Gutman’s sentiments almost exactly. And it shows the Gutman affair is more about driving a particular narrative about tensions between the Obama administration and Israel than it is about any supposedly controversial remarks.

UPDATE 12/7/11: J.J. Goldberg at the Forward finds the IDF has expressed much the same views as Gutman. And Lara Friedman finds still more confirmation for his point from the Tel Aviv University Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism. Commentary has an opposing view here.

Exhibit A in the ad (watch it below) is a sign-bearing man who yells that “Jews control Wall Street!” Now, as I’ve previously reported, Occupy protesters have taken to surrounding the man, who gave his name to me recently as David Smith, with rebuttal signs, including one that reads, “Asshole —>”. Smith has been hanging around Zuccotti Park nearly every day for a couple of weeks.

But as Josh Nathan-Kazis reports at the Forward, Smith started carrying anti-Semitic signs around the financial district long before Occupy Wall Street existed:

Occupy Wall Street’s most visible anti-Semite was picketing the Financial District long before Zuccotti Park was occupied. …

During a trip to Zuccotti Park to observe the early stages of the protest on September 19, two days after activists first set up camp there, the Forward’s Nate Lavey and I watched as Smith entered the plaza with his cardboard sign, was confronted by one vocal passerby, and then was chased out of the occupied plaza by a shouting mob of activists. Police eventually intervened to separate him from the crowd.

Smith is a familiar face to those of us who work downtown. The Forward office is a few blocks from Wall Street, and I saw him at least once earlier this summer, picketing silently near the New York Stock Exchange.

That account matches the widespread hostility I’ve observed among occupiers against Smith. Given that Occupy Wall Street is based in a public space, occupiers simply don’t have the power to permanently kick Smith out. Of course anti-Semitism needs to be confronted when it crops up. And that’s exactly what the true occupiers have been doing.

Smith, according to a recent interview, is homeless and going blind from glaucoma. He previously told me that he made a sign reading “Google: Zionists Control Wall St.” because God told him to. And yet, as Nathan-Kazis notes, Smith has been endlessly written about, photographed and filmed. He now represents Occupy’s “anti-Semitism problem.”

Another man featured in the Emergency Committee for Israel ad is Danny Cline, who appears to be an aspiring YouTube star with no involvement in Occupy Wall Street beyond showing up at the park to film his own rants.

The reality is that the Occupy Wall Street movement is filled with Jews. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency recently noted its distinctly “Jewish flavor.” Fifteen hundred people attended a Yom Kippur service outside Liberty Plaza earlier this month, in what participants described as one of the most powerful and moving events of Occupy to date.

Still, the “Occupy Wall Street is anti-Semitic” meme — a classic example of a tactic known as “nutpicking” — spreads. Don’t expect the fact that all this is largely based on two or three trolls to stop the right from continuing the attacks.

Here’s that Emergency Committee for Israel ad:

And here’s video from the park on Yom Kippur:

“This absolutely does not represent anyone here,” Rogouski, who is unemployed and has been at the protest from early on, told me. “If I don’t do this then the press is going to seize on [the anti-Semitic sign].”

Indeed, there were passersby and media crowded around the sign, whose holder identified himself to me as David Smith from upstate.

Occupy Wall Street has been accused of being anti-Semitic by conservative blogs, and David Brooks suggested as much in his column this week, in a swipe at the magazine Adbusters, which originally called for the protests. So Rogouski’s concerns seem well-founded.

Smith, for his part, said, “God told me to make the sign. … This is divine inspiration. I feel that God, the son and the holy spirit want me out here to call out this group.”

UPDATE: Rogouski sends along more pictures of other protesters confronting Smith.