Slop.

Because it's not about him as a figure being infallible,far from it

It is a combination of the radicalization he helped incite in many who used him as a starting off point for their own journey left and the fact that he did things such as go to Cuba with the Nuestra America flotilla and have Palestinian voices on the program,as well as left figures with reasonable credentials such as Melanchon and Varoufakis

And I just simply don't buy the narrative that he's a Vaush or a Contrapoints type or that he's a grifter or a Fed or whatever

One,you can do all of those things for way less effort and way less backlash,so I don't get the argument that he's grifting off of what is a very small audience that would be receptive to said grift when there are much better cash cows to milk

And two, if he were any of those things, why would such figures agree to be on the same broadcast as he is and have their beliefs promoted? Are they that clueless or desperate that they can't sniff out something being off?

I think people like to slide into the comfortable narrative that he's insincere because it's easier to square that circle than admit that people have malleable morals and will bend and twist them in order to get what they think is a beneficial outcome. Basically,I think he's sincere about what he says,and that the true disagreement here is about the method rather than the moral character of the person.

You are perfectly well within your rights to lambast him for collaborating with liberal Zionists and attempting to do entryism into the Dems in the hopes that they do something drastic and implode, basically pushing back the formation of a socialist pole in American politics to a fuzzy and uncertain day when shit is hitting the fan rapidly right now and people getting stuck on a side quest of making the democrat party implode wastes time and progress that could have been made,but I do understand his logic for doing what he does,even if I disagree with it.

He has consistently represented anti-zionist and anti-imperialism, even when it was costly to him. He has serves a role in moving those views toward the political mainstream, of which he is on the cusp. He should be offered grace proportional to these actions. I do think his effect on the US left, which has badly needed an injection of anti-zionism and anti-imperialism, is measurable.

As a consequence he has been the target of a massive amount of personal and institutional harassment. As he communicates to his audience, it has been tough for him to be nearly driven away from his media career by the agents of Zionism (US institutions, Israeli institutions, dipshit online dramalords), yet he understands that this is incomparable to the vicitms of of genocide and other imperial violence that he intends to stand up for.

He ought to be offered grace in proportion to these activities.

He has also been soft on certain [liberal] Zionists he has interacted with. He is getting involved with electoral politics, which can send a mixed and undisciplined message that could lead to a dead end ( I don't personally strongly agree with this, but it is a concern). His intent is that the moment is now to use electoral politics to carve out a land for the anti-zionist/anti-imperial perspective, in the same way that the Bernie campaigns carved out a lane for ""socialism"" (domestic social democratic policies) in the US polticial sphere. At the same time, it is obviously concerning that the Democratic machine could subsume the anti-imperial energy in the way it has with the social democratic energy (they can't even do "kind imperialism" properly). I would say we dont know how it will paly out because it hasn't happened yet.

Nonetheless, he ought to be offered criticism in proportion to these activities.