If “the blending of opinion with news and the promotion of… propaganda” was actually considered just cause for a low credibility rating, the Jerusalem Post would have one too.
Curiously enough though, it doesn’t.
One would suspect then that MBFC somehow fails to recognize Jerusalem Post’s brazen bias, but in fact they do recognize it, and point it out on their page, though they do notably only sort of mention it in passing, as if it’s not all that important. They also note two failed fact checks, yet still rate it High Credibility and Mostly Factual.
Mondoweiss, meanwhile, receives on its page a highly emotive and hectoring account of what only really amounts to the same bias as the Jerusalem Post but in the opposite direction - pro-Palestinian and anti-zionist instead of anti-Palestinian and pro-zionist - and in spite of no failed fact checks, is ranked as Low Credibility and Mixed Factual.
The only reasonable conclusion is that MBFC is itself biased. Which is, of course, the exact risk one invites when one entrusts a third party to purportedly rate bias.
I can of course block it and likely will, but that doesn’t really go far enough. A purported bias watchdog that is itself biased is rather obviously an abuse of the bot system, and should therefore be banned.