Reuven Koret, CEO of Koret Communications and interim editor-in-chief of Jewsweek magazine writes,

Dan, while you did a decent job summarizing my dispute with Jewcy, please look again at what you term the “editorial” and consider correcting that false claim. “An eye for an eye?” has a question mark! I do not take a position on a connection between Katrina and Katif, and I include plenty of dissenting points of view, including some that harshly ridicule the idea of a connection and those making it.
By the way, I do not claim such a link, but as an observer and writer I raise are some pretty striking parallels, as many many people (not just right wingers!) have observed and mused.
Thus it is NOT an editorial but a cover story introduction to the issue’s theme, which focuses on Jewish angles of the Katrina story, with diverse editorials and articles on this subject. I urge you to correct this mischaracterization.
I think you will agree that it is a provocative and interesting subject. Jewsweek has and will continue to tackle controversy, political and religious, not just celebrity tattooed Jewesses and hipster hiphop hebes. Although those too will be part of the mix.
As for Israel Insider, we regularly publish opinions from left-of-center folks (like M.J Rosenberg, David Dreilinger, Uri Avnery, David Grossman) even if in the last year — in response to Sharon’s turnabout and corruption — we have been more outspoken from a nationalist perspective, and at least in the last year the rightwingers definitely outnumber the lefties (partly because the rights have less access to mainstream mostly-left media).
Jewsweek has no plans to become a rightwing outlet, I assure you. And as you know, I welcome you and your readers to be regular contributors.

Fair enough, if that’s how he wants to spin it. I’ll give him this space to defend himself, because if I were in the same boat, I would hope for the same courtesy.
Just curious, though: When Koret refers to “mainstream mostly-left media” — apart from Haaretz and some Hebrew dailies (which, despite being pro-disengagement, still railed against the mistreatment of anti-disengagement protesters), what the heck is he referring to? The Jerusalem Post? The Wall Street Journal? The National Review? The Weekly Standard? WorldNet Daily? Arutz Sheva? The Jewish Press? Little Green Footballs and the lizardoid blogosphere? Fox News (the #1 cable news network)?
There have been just as many right-wing media sources espousing anti-disengagement sentiments as there have been liberal-centrist and left-wing media sources espousing pro-disengagement sentiments. The liberal-centrist sources portrayed anti-disengagement sentiments symphatetically as well — particularly The New Republic. Thus I find the “liberal media” canard is so hackneyed it’s hardly worth engaging. The marginalized radical press aside, where was the liberal media to oppose the Iraq War? Where was the liberal media following 9/11 and the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act? They say that in Israel, the left-wing is America’s right-of-center. They should say the same about the Israeli and American press!
The thing that gets me about all this, really, is Koret’s language. He proclaims to have an “iconoclastic agenda […] equally willing to knock down sacred cows right and left,” and defends the imbalance of views on his sites because he feels the views he is promoting are underrepresented.
You know who he sounds like, right?
Me. And it reeks of recuperation.