It's Called "The Atlantic" Because It Belongs at the Bottom of the Ocean.

Babe, wake up. New genocide apologia just dropped.

Of all America’s mainstream publications, none fulfills a more pervasive space than The Atlantic. Originally founded as an abolitionist magazine in pre-Civil War Boston, the outlet has long abandoned its commitment to social justice in favor of a more lucrative content strategy. In an age of frustration and desire for political change, especially from the younger generations, The Atlantic exists to assuage the social anxieties of high-income Americans, reassuring them that, despite what young people, workers, minorities, and immigrants say, Everything Is Good, Actually. Perusing the publication’s backlog is like entering the mind of an aging reactionary who can’t move past the Cold War. Each article follows a similar structure. After acknowledging a social fault, be it police brutality or chronic poverty, The Atlantic always returns to conservative talking points: welfare causes poverty, American militarism is a force for global good, and poor people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. While its writers acknowledge there are blemishes on the American project, every article concludes with a reminder that America is The Best Government Ever, reassuring the audience that any necessary change can be achieved by politely asking your Senators to make it so.

Perhaps you should tell Israel to build bridges instead of walls through Occupied Palestine.

It truly is the mouthpiece of the reactionary mind, which acknowledges systemic problems pointed out by the liberal/left, then minimizes, manipulates, and ultimately dismisses the problem by telling Americans they should try and convince Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConnell to change their minds. In essence, its if Principal Skinner had an editorial staff.

Naturally, The Atlantic has become a leader in running genocide apologia for Israel’s assault on Gaza. Owned by Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs, and run by a former Israeli Army soldier, The Atlantic has countless articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict, all of them propaganda for the Zionist regime. As Ta-Nehisis Coates pointed out, the magazine has never once commissioned a Palestinian writer to speak on the issue. Ever since the October 7th attacks, it has run non-stop articles insisting Israel’s crusade is just, and those who say otherwise are uninformed and/or secret Hamas militants. Every discussion of the “war” (their term) operates under the disproven narrative that Israel is only defending itself and the lack of a ceasefire is due to political miscalculation. In reality, Israel is a perpetual aggressor, and we know Netanyahu’s government denied an offer to release all the hostages in the Fall of 2023.

Writing for their predominantly North American audience, The Atlantic has primarily focused on the home front, talking down to anyone who boycotts Israel and aggressively disputing the notion that Israel is a settler colonial state. As you can see below, The Atlantic has taken charge of settler-colonialism head-on, even arguing that those who advocate for the decolonization of Palestine are worse than the “aristocratic sympathizers and peace activists who excused Hitler.”¹

The Atlantic doth protest too much.

The problem with this argument is that early Zionists repeatedly boasted Israel would be a colonial-settler state. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, sold the idea of Israel to the British, specifically on its colonial nature. He approached the U.K. government only after being rejected by the King of Italy, who did not support Israel because “It is the home of other people.” Writing to a British official, Herzl said:

“The idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea, should be easily and quickly understood in England.”²

The 1920s British governor of Jerusalem even compared the future state of Israel to Ulster, the British stronghold in occupied Ireland.

“Even though the land could not yet absorb sixteen million, nor even eight, enough could return... to prove that the enterprise was one that blessed him that gave as well as him that took by forming for England a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.” — Ronald Storrs, Military Governor of Jerusalem, 1937³

As the historical record of Israel’s colonial-settler character can no longer be disputed, earlier this week, The Atlantic unveiled a new strategy. From the mind of Iraq War architect David Frum, here comes the next defense of Israeli settler-colonialism: “Are genocide and colonization really that bad? After all, they might be good for everyone!”*

(*some exceptions apply)

Buckle up, folks. This is one jaw-dropper of an essay.

Let He Who Has Not Slaughtered An Indigenous Nation Cast The First Stone