The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Alison Weir Archive
The Origins of the Israel Lobby in the US
America's Role in the Creation of the State of Israel
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The immediate precursor to today’s pro-Israel lobby began in 1939[1] under the leadership of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, originally from Lithuania. He created the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), which by 1943 had acquired a budget of half a million dollars at a time when a nickel bought a loaf of bread.[2]

In addition to this money, Zionists [adherents of “political Zionism,” a movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine] had become influential in creating a fundraising umbrella organization, the United Jewish Appeal, in 1939[3], giving them access to the organization’s gargantuan financial resources: $14 million in 1941, $150 million by 1948. This was four times more than Americans contributed to the Red Cross and was the equivalent of approximately $1.5 billion today.[4]

With its extraordinary funding, AZEC embarked on a campaign to target every sector of American society, ordering that local committees be set up in every Jewish community in the nation [for decades the larger majority of Jewish Americans had been either non-Zionits or actively anti-Zionist]. In the words of AZEC organizer Sy Kenen, it launched “a political and public relations offensive to capture the support of Congressmen, clergy, editors, professors, business and labor.”[5]

AZEC instructed activists to “make direct contact with your local Congressman or Senator“ and to go after union members, wives and parents of servicemen, and Jewish war veterans. AZEC provided activists with form letters to use and schedules of anti-Zionist lecture tours to oppose and disrupt.

A measure of its power came in 1945 when Silver disliked a British move that would be harmful to Zionists. AZEC booked Madison Square Garden, ordered advertisements, and mailed 250,000 announcements – the first day. By the second day they had organized demonstrations in 30 cities, a letter-writing campaign, and convinced 27 U.S. Senators to give speeches.[6]

Grassroots Zionist action groups were organized with more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches. AZEC funded books, articles and academic studies; millions of pamphlets were distributed. There were massive petition and letter writing campaigns. AZEC targeted college presidents and deans, managing to get more than 150 to sign one petition.[7]

Rabbi Elmer Berger, executive director of the American Council for Judaism, which opposed Zionism in the 1940s and ‘50s, writes in his memoirs that there was a “ubiquitous propaganda campaign reaching just about every point of political leverage in the country.”[8]

The Zionist Organization of America bragged of the “immensity of our operations and their diversity” in its 48th Annual Report, stating, “We reach into every department of American life…”[9]

Berger and other anti-Zionist Jewish Americans tried to organize against “the deception and cynicism with which the Zionist machine operated,” but failed to obtain anywhere near their level of funding. Among other things, would-be dissenters were afraid of “the savagery of personal attacks” anti-Zionists endured.[10]

Berger writes that when he and a colleague opposed a Zionist resolution in Congress, Emanuel Celler, a New York Democrat who was to serve in Congress for almost 50 years, told them: “They ought to take you b…s out and shoot you.”[11]

When it was unclear that President Harry Truman would support Zionism, Cellar and a committee of Zionists told him that they had persuaded Dewey to support the Zionist policy and demanded that Truman also take this stand. Cellar reportedly pounded on Truman‘s table and said that if Truman did not do so, “We’ll run you out of town.[12]

Jacob Javits, another well-known senator, this time Republican, told a Zionist women’s group: “We’ll fight to death and make a Jewish State in Palestine if it’s the last thing that we do.”[13]

Richard Stevens, author of American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1942-1947, reports that Zionists infiltrated the boards of several Jewish schools that they felt didn’t sufficiently promote the Zionist cause. When this didn’t work, Stevens writes, they would start their own pro-Zionist schools.[14]

Stevens writes that in 1943-44 the ZOA distributed over a million leaflets and pamphlets to public libraries, chaplains, community centers, educators, ministers, writers and “others who might further the Zionist cause.”[15]

Alfred Lilienthal, who had worked in the State Department, served in the U.S. Army in the Middle East from 1943-45, and became a member of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, reports that Zionist monthly sales of books totaled between 3,000 and 4,000 throughout 1944-45.

Richard Stevens reports that Zionists subsidized books by non-Jewish authors that supported the Zionist agenda. They would then promote these books jointly with commercial publishers. Several of them became best sellers.[16]

Zionists manufacture Christian support

AZEC founder Silver and other Zionists played a significant role in creating Christian support for Zionism.

Secret Zionist funds, eventually reaching $150,000 in 1946, were used to revive an elitist Protestant group, the American Palestine Committee. This group had originally been founded in 1932 by Emanuel Neumann, a member of the Executive of the Zionist Organization. The objective was to organize a group of prominent (mainly non-Jewish) Americans in moral and political support of Zionism. Frankfurter was one of the main speakers at its launch.[17]

Silver‘s headquarters issued a directive saying, “In every community an American Christian Palestine Committee must be immediately organized.”[18]

Author Peter Grose reports that the Christian committee’s operations “were hardly autonomous. Zionist headquarters thought nothing of placing newspaper advertisements on the clergymen’s behalf without bothering to consult them in advance, until one of the committee’s leaders meekly asked at least for prior notice before public statements were made in their name.”[19]

AZEC formed another group among clergymen, the Christian Council on Palestine. An internal AZEC memo stated that the aim of both groups was to “crystallize the sympathy of Christian America for our cause.”[20]

By the end of World War II the Christian Council on Palestine had grown to 3,000 members and the American Palestine Committee boasted a membership of 6,500 public figures, including senators, congressmen, cabinet members, governors, state officers, mayors, jurists, clergymen, educators, writers, publishers, and civic and industrial leaders.

Historian Richard Stevens explains that Christian support was largely gained by exploiting their wish to help people in need. Steven writes that Zionists would proclaim “the tragic plight of refugees fleeing from persecution and finding no home,” thus linking the refugee problem with Palestine as allegedly the only solution.[21]

Stevens writes that the reason for this strategy was clear: “…while many Americans might not support the creation of a Jewish state, traditional American humanitarianism could be exploited in favor of the Zionist cause through the refugee problems.”[22]

Few if any of these Christian supporters had any idea that the creation of the Jewish state would entail a massive expulsion of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews, who made up the large majority of Palestine‘s population, creating a new and much longer lasting refugee problem.

Nor did they learn that during and after Israel’s founding 1947-49 war, Zionist forces attacked a number of Christian sites. Donald Neff, former Time Magazine Jerusalem bureau chief and author of five books on Israel-Palestine, reports in detail on Zionist attacks on Christian sites in May 1948, the month of Israel’s birth.alison weir book

Neff tells us that a group of Christian leaders complained that month that Zionists had killed and wounded hundreds of people, including children, refugees and clergy, at Christian churches and humanitarian institutions.

For example, the group charged that “‘many children were killed or wounded’ by Jewish shells on the Convent of Orthodox Copts…; eight refugees were killed and about 120 wounded at the Orthodox Armenian Convent…; and that Father Pierre Somi, secretary to the Bishop, had been killed and two wounded at the Orthodox Syrian Church of St. Mark.”

“The group’s statement said Arab forces had abided by their promise to respect Christian institutions, but that the Jews had forcefully occupied Christian structures and been indiscriminate in shelling churches,” reports Neff. He quotes a Catholic priest: “‘Jewish soldiers broke down the doors of my church and robbed many precious and sacred objects. Then they threw the statues of Christ down into a nearby garden.’ [The priest] added that Jewish leaders had reassured that religious buildings would be respected, ‘but their deeds do not correspond to their words.’”[23]

After Zionist soldiers invaded and looted a convent in Tiberias, the U.S. Consulate sent a bitter dispatch back to the State Department complaining of “the Jewish attitude in Jerusalem towards Christian institutions.”[24]

An American Christian Biblical scholar concurred, reporting that a friend in Jerusalem had been told, “When we get control you can take your dead Christ and go home.”[25]

Zionist Colonization Efforts in Palestine

In order to reach their goal of a Jewish state in Palestine, Zionists needed to clear the land of Muslim and Christian inhabitants and replace them with Jewish immigrants.

This was a tall order, as Muslims and Christians accounted for more than 95 percent of the population of Palestine.[26] Zionists planned to try first to buy up the land until the previous inhabitants had emigrated; failing this, they would use violence to force them out. This dual strategy was discussed in various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians.[27]

As this colonial project grew, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land.

When the buyout effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.[28]

By the eve of the creation of Israel, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent[29] and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6-7 percent.[30]

This was in 1947, when the British at last announced that they would end their control of Palestine. Britain turned the territory’s fate over to the United Nations.

Since a founding principle of the UN was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.[31]

Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution to give them a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine.[33] (While they rarely announced this publicly, their plan, stated in journal entries and letters, was to later take the rest of Palestine.[34])

U.S. Officials oppose creation of Israel

The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and U.S. interests.

For example, the director of the State Department‘s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs consistently recommended against supporting a Jewish state in Palestine. The director, named Loy Henderson, warned that the creation of such a state would go against locals’ wishes, imperil U.S. interests and violate democratic principles.

Henderson emphasized that the U.S. would lose moral standing in the world if it supported Zionism:

“At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the [second world] war.”[35]

When Zionists pushed the partition plan in the UN, Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal, saying that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and was “not based on any principle.” He warned that partition “would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future…”

Henderson elaborated further on how plans to partition Palestine would violate American and UN principles:

“…[Proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [UN] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race…”[36]

Zionists attacked Henderson virulently, calling him “anti-Semitic,” demanding his resignation, and threatening his family. They pressured the State Department to transfer him elsewhere; one analyst describes this as “the historic game of musical chairs” in which officials who recommended Middle East policies “consistent with the nation’s interests” were moved on.[37]

In 1948 Truman sent Henderson to the slopes of the Himalayas, as Ambassador to Nepal (then officially

under India).[38] (In recent years, at times virtually every State Department country desk has been directed by a Zionist.)[39]

But Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the [State] Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”[40]

He wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”[41]

Ambassador Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on U.S. national interests.

“I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had ended,” wrote Grady. “I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty…. [I]n the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.”[42]

Grady concluded that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the soviets.”[43]

Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson‘s biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another author, John Mulhall, records Acheson‘s warning of the danger for U.S. interests:

“…to transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.”[44]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported in late 1947, “A decision to partition Palestine, if the decision were supported by the United States, would prejudice United States strategic interests in the Near and Middle East” to the point that “United States influence in the area would be curtailed to that which could be maintained by military force.”[45]

The Joint Chiefs issued at least sixteen papers on the Palestine issue following World War II. They were particularly concerned that the Zionist goal was to involve the U.S.

One 1948 paper predicted that “the Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the United States] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”[46]

The CIA stated that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”[47]

The head of the State Department‘s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:

“U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter – a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of UN‘s own charter.”[48]

Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:

“…the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN.… In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”[49]

And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw one last outcome of the “partition“ plan: that no Arab state would actually ever come to be in Palestine.[50]

This essay is excerpted from Alison Weir’s Against Our Better Judgment: How the US was Used to Create Israel.

Alison Weir is the president of the Council for the National Interest and executive director of If Americans Knew.

Citations for this excerpt, which also contain additional information, are available in the book. Discounted bulk orders can be obtained by writing


[1] “American Zionist Movement (AZM),” Jewish Virtual Library, 2008,

[2] Neff, Pillars, 23.

The executive secretary of AZEC was a man named Isaiah Kenen, who went on to found today’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), rated as one of the most powerful lobbying organization in the U.S. Grant Smith, in his book Declassified Deceptions: the Secret History of Isaiah L. Kenen and the Rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2007) describes Kenen‘s activities in detail, particularly how he worked to elude U.S. legal requirements that he register as a foreign agent.

[3] Elmer Berger, Memoirs of an Anti-Zionist Jew (Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1978), 9.

Originally there had been two organizations, the United Palestine Appeal (the main Zionist fund-raising effort in the U.S.) and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, which was dominated by non-Zionists and which raised more money. Its purpose was to “provide assistance to Jews in the countries in which they lived, hoping to facilitate their eventual integration into those societies.” Berger reports, “Never at a loss for maneuver – or dissembling– however, the Zionist manager persuaded the ‘big givers’ that a ‘united campaign’ would be more efficient than the competing, double campaigns,” and they managed to push through the creation of the United Jewish Appeal.

[4] Christison, Perceptions, 73; Wilson, Decision on Palestine, 134.

Wilson reports that Zionists, wishing to pressure the U.S. government to support partition and end its arms embargo, raised $35 million (the equivalent of $349 million today) in just two weeks for the United Jewish Appeal in just two weeks.

[5] Neff, Pillars, 23; Tivnan, The Lobby, 24.

[6] Tivnan, The Lobby, 24

[7] Neff, Pillars, 23.

[8] Berger, Memoirs, 11.

In 1947 the American Council for Judaism submitted a 27-page memorandum to the UN opposing Zionism. ACJ President Lessing J. Rosenwald railed against what he termed Zionists’ “anti-Semitic racialist lie that Jews the world over were a separate, national body.”

Smith, Declassified Deceptions, 29.

[9] Stevens, American Zionism, 101.

[10] Berger, Memoirs, 17.

[11] Berger, Memoirs, 22.

[12] Wright, Zionist Cover-up, 25.
Wright was General staff G-2 Middle East specialist, Washington, 1945-46; Bureau Near East-South Asian-African Affairs Department of State, since 1946, country specialist 1946-47, advisor U.N. affairs, 1947-50, advisor on intelligence 1950-55. He retired from the State Department in 1966.

[13] Lilienthal, What Price Israel, 63.

[14] Stevens, American Zionism, 24.

[15] Stevens, American Zionism, 22.

[16] Stevens, American Zionism, 22-23.

[17] Neff, Pillars, 23.

Herbert Hoover, “Message to the American Palestine Committee, January 17, 1932,” The American Presidency Project,

Patai, ed. “American Palestine Committee,” Encyclopaedia of Zionism and Israel, accessed January 1, 2014,

[18] Neff, Pillars, 23-24.

[19] Grose, Mind of America, 173.

[20] Neff, Pillars, 23-24.

[21] Stevens, American Zionism, 28.

[22] Stevens, American Zionism, 28.

Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2004).

Researchers may wish to explore an interesting though speculative discussion about what might have been an earlier effort by Zionists to influence Christians. Many years before AZEC targeted Christians, an annotated version of the bible known as the Scofield Reference Bible had been published, which pushed what was a previously somewhat fringe “dispensationalist“ theology calling for the Jewish “return” to Palestine.

Some analysts have raised questions about Cyrus Scofield and how and why the Oxford University Press published his book. Scofield, a Texas preacher who had been something of a shyster and criminal and had abandoned his first wife and children (when his wife then filed for divorce, the court ruled in her favor, noting that Scofield was “…not a fit person to have custody of the children”). (Canfield, Incredible Scofield, 113) He mysteriously became a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901. Biographer Joseph Canfield comments:

“The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C. I. Scofield.” (Canfield,Incredible Scofield, 220)

Canfield suggests that Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermyer, who was also a member of the Lotus Club, may have played a role in Scofield‘s project, writing that “Scofield‘s theology was most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermyer‘s pet projects – the Zionist Movement.” (Canfield, Incredible Scofield, 219)

Professor David Lutz, in “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” writes: “Untermyer used Scofield, a Kansas city lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

David Lutz, “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” in Neo-Conned! Again: Hypocrisy, Lawlessness, and the Rape of Iraq, ed. D. Liam O’Huallachain and J. Forrest Sharpe (Vienna, VA: Light in the Darkness Publications, 2005), 127-169.

According to the Untermyer Gardens Conservancy website, Untermyer “was a partner in the law firm of Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, and was the first lawyer in America to earn a one million dollar fee on a single case. He was also an astute investor, and became extremely wealthy.

He was instrumental in the establishment of the Federal Reserve System, was an influential Democrat and a close ally of Woodrow Wilson.

The bio continues: “Samuel Untermyer was one of the most prominent Jews of his day in America. He was a prominent Zionist, and was President of the Keren Hayesod. In addition, he was the national leader of an unsuccessful movement in the early 1930’s for a worldwide boycott of Germany, and called for the destruction of Hitler‘s regime.”

“Samuel Untermyer,” Untermyer Gardens Conservancy, accessed January 1, 2014,

Irish journalist Maidhc Ó Cathail suggests that “absent such powerful connections, it is hard to imagine ‘this peer among scalawags’ ever getting a contract with Oxford University Press to publish his bible.”

Maidhc O Cathail, “Zionism‘s Un-Christian Bible,” Middle East Online, November 25, 1999,

[23] Donald Neff, “Christians Discriminated Against By Israel,” in Fifty Years of Israel (Michigan: American Educational Trust, 1998).

[24] Stephen Green, Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (Brattleboro: Amana, 1988), 20.

[25] Millar Burrows, Palestine Is Our Business (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949), 116.

[26] See citation 7.

[27] Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007).

Masalha Nur, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer” in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948, 4th Ed. (Washington, DC: Inst. for Palestine Studies, 2001).

Mazin Qumsiyeh, Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle (London: Pluto, 2004).

Mazin Qumsiyeh, “Palestinian Refugees Right to Return and Repatriation” in Sharing the Land of Canaan (London: Pluto, 2004). Online at

[28] Russell Warren Howe, “Fighting the ‘soldiers of Occupation’ From WWII to the Intifada,” in Seeing the Light: Personal Encounters with the Middle East and Islam, Ed. Richard H. Curtiss and Janet McMahon (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Trust, 1997), 38-39.

Warren and his film crew were filming an interview with Begin in 1974. “The red light had come on, under the lens. Without preamble, I turned my shoulder to the camera, stared straight into Begin’s eyes, and asked: ‘How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?’ ‘In the Middle East?’ he bellowed, in his thick, cartoon accent. ‘In all the world.’”

[29] McCarthy, Population of Palestine, 35.

[30] British Mandatory Commission, A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991), 243-267.

This gives Jewish ownership in 1945 as approximately six percent.

A UN map showing percentages of each district can be seen at

Israeli author Baruch Kimmerling gives the landownership in 1947 as seven percent.

Robert J. Brym, review of Zionism and Territory: The Socio-Territorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics, by Baruch Kimmerling, The Canadian Journal of Sociology 11, no. 1 (1986), 80.

It is interesting to note that the Arab position was largely based on democratic principles. At a British conference on Palestine in 1946, Arabs presented a proposal “calling for the termination of the Mandate and the independence of Palestine as a unitary state, with a provisional governing council composed of seven Arabs and three Jews.” (Wilson,Decision on Palestine, 97)

[31] “Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I, Purposes and Principles.” UN News Center, accessed January 1, 2014,

[32] “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181,” The Avalon Project, accessed January 1, 2014,

“UN Partition Plan,” BBC News, November 29, 2001,

For a US equivalent, see:

“UN Partition Applied To US,” Palestine Remembered, September 10, 2001,

[33] Neff, Pillars, 41.

[34] Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Boston: South End, 1983), 161.

“In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that ‘after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine.’”

[35] Neff, Pillars, 30-31.

[36] Neff, Pillars, 46-47.

[37] Berger, Memoirs, 21.

Berger writes that in a personal conversation with him, Henderson had said:

“I hope you and your associates will persevere. And my reason for wishing this is perhaps less related to what I consider American interests in the Middle East than what I fear I see on the domestic scene. The United States is a great power. Somehow it will surmount even its most foolish policy errors in the Middle East. But in the process there is a great danger of creating divisiveness and anti-Semitism among our own people. And if this danger materializes to a serious extent, we have seen in Germany and in Europe that the ability of a nation to survive the consequences is in serious question.”

[38] Richard D. McKinzie, “Oral History Interview with Edwin M. Wright,” Truman Library, Wooster, OH, July 26, 1974,

“Mr. Henderson was, therefore, told, ‘You’ve got to leave the State Department or the Zionists are going to keep after us.’ The State Department suggested he be sent as an ambassador to Turkey. The Zionists had a clearance process going and they said, ‘No, that’s too near the Middle East, we want to get him completely away from the Middle East.’ The result was that they sent him as ambassador to India to get him out of the area completely.”

[39] Revealed during conversation with State Department associate.

[40] Neff, Pillars, 46; Wilson, Decision, 117; Wright, Zionist Cover-up, 21.

[41] Green, Taking Sides, 20.

[42] Henry Grady, “Chapter 9,” Adventures in Diplomacy(unpublished manuscript), (Washington D.C.: Truman Library, n.d.), 170. Online at

Henry Francis Grady and John T. McNay, The Memoirs of Ambassador Henry F. Grady: from the Great War to the Cold War (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2009). Online at

[43] Grady, Adventures, 166.

Benzion Netanyahu, a Zionist who travelled to the US from Palestine to propagandize Americans and father of future Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, tried – unsuccessfully – to use the Cold War as a rationale for the U.S. to support Israel. Netanyahu believed that “arguments appealing to American fears of Soviet expansion” would be the best way to win over U.S. officials. He used this argument in 1947 in meetings with Loy Henderson and General Dwight Eisenhower, but found no takers, (though Eisenhower arranged for him to meet with someone else). (Medoff, Militant Zionism, 146)

[44] Mulhall, America, 130.

Robert L. Beisner, Dean Acheson: a Life in the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006), 215.

[45] Mark Perry, “Petraeus wasn’t the first,” Foreign Policy, April 2, 2010,

[46] Perry, “Petraeus wasn’t the first.”

The paper speculated that the eventual goal was sovereignty over “Eretz Israel,” which included Transjordan and parts of Lebanon and Syria.

[47] Green, Taking Sides, 20.

[48] Neff, Pillars, 42-43.

[49] Neff, Pillars, 65. Citation: “Draft Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett),” Secret, Washington May 4, 1948, FRUS 1948, pp. 894-95.

[50] Wilson, Decision on Palestine, 131.

(Republished from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel Lobby 
Hide 23 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. NB says: • Website

    I was wondering when would start publishing Philip Giraldi’s colleague Alison Weir (notorious for her promotion of the blood libel that Israelis harvest Palestinian organs, as well as her description of Judaism as a “ruthless and supremacist faith“).

    Weir claims: “As this colonial project grew, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land.
    The immigration of Jews (largely fleeing persecution in Europe) to the British Mandate for Palestine did not typically involve expulsion of Arabs from their land. One can read about the violence, which long predated the establishment of Israel, here:

    By the eve of the creation of Israel, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent [xxix] and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6-7 percent.
    This is correct, but in the context of this piece, the typical reader will infer that Arabs owned 93-94% of the land in the British Mandate for Palestine. This is incorrect, as much of the land was owned by the British government. I believe the majority was public land, but I don’t have the figures off the top of my head. You can see a map here:

    Note that most of the Negev was public land and is not shown. The Jewish partition, the population of which was majority Jewish (a salient fact omitted by Weir), included the sparsely populated Negev.

    Since a founding principle of the UN was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.
    Since Jews were the majority of the population in the Jewish partition, the majority of the inhabitants of the Jewish partition would have voted for partition. This would be consistent with the UN’s charter respecting “self-determination of peoples,” as two peoples lived in Mandatory Palestine, and thus the UN recommended partition into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

    I know almost nothing about the early history of the Zionist lobby in the US, but I’m assuming Weir’s presentation is similarly misleading. For a contrasting perspective, one can read these accounts:’s-decision-to-recognize-israel/

    “Judis overlooks the fact that at the time the majority of Americans in general and American Jews in particular supported the creation of Israel. Lobbying by the American public, a normal role in a democracy, is transformed by Judis into a sinister Zionist attempt to produce results not in the American national interest.”

    I’m not asserting these are correct or unbiased.

    Read More
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “Hiss became director of the institute in 1988. He said in the interview that the practice of harvesting organs without permission began in the “early 1990s.” Then he said it ended by 2000.

    I am not interested in the feud about how the feud started. It doesn’t change the fact that the US has been harmed by supporting Israel’s actions and the warmongering of Likudniks in the US in recent years. What I don’t understand though is why do you attack on the legitimate opposition that doesn’t blame Jews for everything wrong in the world? If people have to choose between Neocons and 9/11 conspiracy theories and the economy continues to tank they are going to go for the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Neocons wanted an event to drum up support for war. Which ethnic group has a stereotype about controlling the world’s wealth and banking? I have heard people blurt out 25% of the wealth? I have no idea how much. 25% is a stretch isn’t it? Which ethnic group is at war with Muslims and had the most to benefit from 9/11?

    Saddam was considered an adversary by Israel:
    “Peres said to Bush, “If the world had acted against Hitler the way you acted against Saddam Hussein, the lives of millions would have been saved.” The Israeli] president added, “You made a historic contribution to the entire world and to the Jewish people in particular. We will treasure this forever and will never forget it.“

    Thousands of Americans dead, trillions of dollars wasted, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions displaced and a wrecked country, but it worked out for the Jewish people according to Peres. I know you were against this war but Peres appears happy with it.

    There could be a third of Americans who think that 9/11 was inside job and guess which ethnic group comes up as being responsible? I know blame the bigot but that doesn’t mean they will quit does it?

    Here is another one: “11% of voters believe the US government allowed 9/11 to happen, 78% do not agree”

    Jews are being and going to scapegoated regarding the tanking economy:

    “28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order. A plurality of Romney voters (38%) believe in the New World Order compared to 35% who don’t”

    “A survey conducted by the Boston Review in its May/June issue shows that nearly 25% of American non-Jews blame “the Jews” a moderate amount or more for the financial crisis.”

    “They found that Democrats were significantly more prone to blaming Jews than Republicans: while 32% of Democrats accorded at least moderate blame, compared to only 18.4% of Republicans.”

    I wonder how long Christian Zionists are going to believe that they are going to gain anything from their support before going back to blaming the Jews? Yahweh, where is our money? If the Jews really did control the world’s wealth, and if I were them I wouldn’t let this group down.
    “The whole world is blessed when Israel is blessed,” the children sang, echoing the promise of Genesis 12:3 repeatedly referenced throughout the evening. The event celebrated the historic support in Alabama, both official and unofficial, for the peace and security of the country of Israel.”

    Seriously, they could use some blessings. Their support isn’t translating into results:
    “In the 2000 U.S. Census, for instance, Alabama was the seventh poorest state, with 16 percent of its residents living in poverty, as compared with a U.S. average of 12 percent. The state also contained eight of the nation’s 100 poorest counties.”

    If people have to choose between Likudniks who want wars that ultimately harm the US and conspiracy theorist who do you think they will go with in the end if the economy hits rock bottom? But by all means go ahead and support the Likudniks and their costly militarism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. KA says: • Website

    “Judis overlooks the fact that at the time the majority of Americans in general and American Jews in particular supported the creation of Israel. Lobbying by the American public, a normal role in a democracy, is transformed by Judis into a sinister Zionist attempt to produce results not in the American national interest.”

    According NB
    Fair enough. Lets look at how the opinion was shaped and let’s venture out to seek how every effort is mounted illegally ,through threat,through suppression,by distortion,by outright maligning and banishment, by removing,by denying,by labeling,by accusing,by not reporting ,by withholding and by using the state ,media,and financial apparatus with corrtion of the justice system to stop the facts and figures to reach the awareness of American .
    Tosday money of seldom forces Christi to apologize for referring to WB as occupied territory in Republican selection process in Las Vegas dirt bag . Check Huffington Post. This is despite him expressing the most pathetic endorsement of Sheldon and of Israel .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. KA says: • Website

    There is this book

    Israel in the Mind of America . By
    Peter Grose
    It is very informative and treasure trove for anyone trying to understand how Zionist flooded the media,publishing houses,politics,churches,labor movement and suppressed the truth ,harassed the dissenters,and used the guilt and shame of being same Christian as the Germans were to inflict mortal damages to the US interest to give the birth to Israel .
    Incidentally this book was praised by Shimon Peres .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. KA says: • Website

    What happens when the opinion start getting sour? The people with unfavorable views are termed antisemite. -
    That’s what is happening .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Mark Green says: • Website

    Alison Weir has outlined a very familiar pattern: powerful Jews in America using their money, influence, ethic networking to push America towards recognizing and sustaining a Jews Only country in Israel/Palestine. Meanwhile, Americans of all stripes are instructed to celebrate ethnic/religious/racial diversity here, along with ‘equal treatment under law’ and the ironclad separation of church and State. What a farce it all is. Here’s what the Chinese think:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. aletheia says:

    @NB quotes: «Since a founding principle of the UN was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.»
    [From headline article, based on UN Charter Chapter I, Purposes and Principles]

    Me: Sounds fair, but compare those fine words with this:

    «1919 Balfour to Curzon ‘in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country… The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism.»

    @NB: “Since Jews were the majority of the population in the Jewish partition, …”

    Me: Err, exactly what might this “Jewish partition” actually be, please?

    UNGA181 “… was approved by a vote of 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions on November 29, 1947″ and contains this text: “ensure that an area … shall be evacuated” (= cleared of ELO/Os = erstwhile legal owner/occupiers.)

    Me, 1: Kindly evaluate this “shall be evacuated” with a view to suggesting which agency if any, either on this planet or in any religious fantasy-space, could ever have valid authority to declare any such injustice.

    Me, 2: In any case, UNGA181 was rejected for action by the UNSC, so it never became ‘the law’ = there is no ‘formal’ partitioning.

    Me, 3: But in a subsequent development, agreement to abide by the UN Charter in general and UNGA181 (partition, two states) and UNGA194 (right of return) in particular was ‘promised’ by Israel via UNGA273. Q1: Where then, is the Z-promised 2nd state? Q2: Why are the refugees created by Z-ethnic cleansing *still waiting* for their Z-promised return?

    Also, this:

    “All through those 30 years, Britain (admitted) into Palestine, year by year, a quota of Jewish immigrants that varied according to the strength of the respective pressures of the Arabs and Jews at the time. These immigrants could not have come in if they had not been shielded by a British chevaux-de-frise. If Palestine had remained under Ottoman Turkish rule, or if it had become an independent Arab state in 1918, Jewish immigrants would never have been admitted into Palestine in large enough numbers to enable them to overwhelm the Palestinian Arabs in this Arab people’s own country. The reason why the State of Israel exists today and why today 1,500,000 Palestinian Arabs are refugees is that, for 30 years, Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well-armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the world, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the world’s peace.”

    Me: Following the 1st para quote, the very least that could have been done was to ask the natives – but they never did, ignoring any/all natives’ protests, thus deliberately pre-programming the Nakba.

    The Zs forced their way in as undesired aliens, when they tried to buy their way in they were rebuffed, so they chose violence à la Jabotinsky = permanent, aggressive war = supreme international crime. They occupy via violence most of the ~94% they could not buy = they illegally squat on stolen land/property, continually telling lies as attempted disguise = the I-resident members of the I/J/Z-plex live in Z-crimes and IF g*d-botherers THEN in sin.

    I leave it to the reader to evaluate the relevance, accuracy and integrity of NB’s assertion re Jews, majority & partition, which is yet another attempt at claiming *illegally/immorally* established ‘facts on the ground’ as an argument to continue the very crimes that created the so-called facts in the 1st place = continuing to deny justice to the hapless natives, thus continuing the crime/injustice spiral-down.

    Just how clever is that? IF the so-called ‘world leaders’ won’t fix it, THEN the world’s people must – BDS *all* of the I/J/Z-plex, say.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. NB says: • Website

    Johnny Ive, that news story discusses how an Israeli forensic research lab removed organs from 125 corpses without proper authorization in the 1990s. That is completely different from Alison Weir’s allegation that Israel kills Palestinians in order to harvest their organs.

    I’m confused about the rest of your post…I’m not sure what you’re getting at in your discussion of how some Americans believe anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and I’m not sure why you appear to pose a false dilemma that either neocons or some sort of far-fetched conspiracy must be blamed. Certainly neocons (many of whom are Jewish) played a significant role in agitating for the Iraq War, but I object to how some folks over-emphasize the role these neocons played and under-emphasize the role Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld played, as though the Wolfowitz, Feith, and Perle cabal manipulated Bush, Cheney, and Rumseld into invading Iraq, when in fact, Bush needed little convincing to invade Iraq, as he sought vengeance for Saddam’s attempt to assassinate his father. not to mention Cheney’s links to Halliburton…

    You ask, “Which ethnic group is at war with Muslims and had the most to benefit from 9/11?” Um, what is that supposed to mean?

    While it’s true that Saddam posed a threat to Israel, Iran arguably posed more of a threat in 2003 and certainly today, so even if Peres viewed ousting Saddam as a benefit to Israel, that does not imply that the neocons advocated the invasion of Iraq specifically to benefit Israel (in which case it would’ve made more “sense” to target Iran). Peter Beinart discusses that here:

    KA, are you saying you don’t regard it as anti-Semitic to have an unfavorable opinion of Jews? I do, just as I would regard having an unfavorable opinion of Muslims as Islamophobic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. NB says: • Website

    aletheia, I’m not going to respond to most of your post, as it has little relevance to my comment, but if you read the link I supplied on the UN Partition Plan, you will see the proposed borders for the Jewish state, as well as the population data indicating that Jews constituted the majority of the population in the proposed Jewish partition.

    Furthermore, if you read the actual text of UNGA Res 273, you will see that Israel’s admission to the UN was not conditioned on Israel’s acceptance of UNGA Res 194:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. I’m sorry but I haven’t seen any counter policies provided by you NB. I have a good idea who you hate, but I have no clue what you are for. I do not know your beliefs on anything except that you were against the Iraq war. I don’t see a counter narrative regarding what should happen with Israel and Palestine, or how you think Iran should be dealt with. I don’t see why I should support Likud (or whoever) over non-interventionist.

    I’m not saying that anyone must be blamed but that is what Americans are going to gravitate towards as their country continues to decline because the US is unable to have a honest discussion concerning foreign policy and economics. The ADL sees it too:
    “When the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) first released its 2003 report Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, we said then that these conspiracy theories were likely to form the basis of a new anti-Semitic canard that would linger for decades and be used to demonize Jews and Israel. Three years later, this prediction has proven to be true, as these theories gain more currency around the world, particularly in Muslim and Arab countries.”

    “According to the ADL, the most prominent promoters of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories today are members of anti-Israel groups who suggest the September 11 attacks were a “false flag” operation that served as part of an ongoing attempt by Israel to wage a war against its Muslim “enemies”.

    If I Google 9/11 blowback I receive around 400,000 results. The term Islamofascist receives 1,260,000 results. If I Google 9/11 inside job I receive around 33 million results. If I Google 9/11 mossad I get around 2 million results. I think the popularity of these ideas should be analyzed more.

    I am wondering why you are spending your time attacking people who are eclipsed by 9/11 conspiracy theorist and mainstream militarist regarding influence on the public. I do not understand why you consider supporters of the blowback theory a significant threat to Israel. The blowback theory supporters are shouting out in the wilderness trying to get someone to pay attention to their narrative because it isn’t accepted in the national media nor the conspiracy theorist on the internet who think Israel or the US government did 9/11. I have shown statistical evidence that a significant minority of Americans have anti-Semitic beliefs regarding 9/11 and the economic problems in the US. The US has not had an open and honest discussion regarding what motivates people to attack the US so people adopt narratives they find on the internet that explain the whole thing in great detail if the official one doesn’t work on them.

    These wars cost a lot of money and Likud supporters are openly advocating the US to be more aggressive towards other countries like Syria and Iran when the US economy needs to be straightened out. 4-6 Trillion dollars down the drain because of militarism and the response to blowback. “The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.”

    One of the reasons Christians support Israel is because God will bless them. They believe they are going to get rewarded for their support. Why do you think that Americans are being punished instead of rewarded? What can people do so God will bestow on them divine blessing like he promised in Genesis 12:3? I really want to know the answer to this question.

    Bush is also a Christian Zionist who thought he was doing God’s work by attacking Iraq. Christians and Islamist are brought under scrutiny and blamed for their support for militarism so why should Jewish Likud supporters be treated any differently? Neocons, big oil, the military industrial complex, and right wing Christians were blamed for Iraq. It wasn’t just the cabal of Neocons who were attacked. If I recall correctly Ariel Sharon wanted the US to attack Iran instead of Iraq. Iraq was one of many countries on the to do list which included Iran and Syria. I remember reading that the Bush administration thought that Iraq would go down easy and be a stepping stone toward regime change in other countries in the region. “General Wesley Clark, who commanded the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing campaign in the Kosovo war, recalls in his 2003 book Winning Modern Wars being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November 2001 that the list of states that Rumsfeld and deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz wanted to take down included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan and Somalia.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. “I have a good idea who you hate, but I have no clue what you are for.”

    If you click on NB’s profile, you’ll find out she’s some kind of loopy witch hunter by the name of “Nurit Baytch” who spends all her time being butthurt about the idea that Jewish people may actually be human beings and have as many failings and faults as any other tribe of people.

    She seems to have discovered her rage at all things Unz when he pointed out that members of her tribe statistically do not deserve their memberships in the Ivy League. It is not real chivalrous of me to point out that it looks like a guilty conscience on her part, but I figure such people should be reminded of their inadequacies. She probably sees her online activities as “fighting anti-semitism,” rather than “embodying a bad ethnic stereotype a la WaPo’s Jennifer Rubin” in between changing diapers or whatever she does with the rest of her time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. NB says: • Website

    Johnny Ive, I can’t imagine that anyone here actually cares about my personal opinions, and most of my positions are not as clear-cut as my opposition to the Iraq War. e.g. I’m to the left of the Likud, and I think the US should take a harder line on Israel’s settlement building and the occupation in general, but I don’t have any specific proposals. In any case, perhaps when I have more time, I can respond more fully to your comment.

    Scott Locklin, are you suggesting that I was admitted to Harvard b/c I’m Jewish? I have nothing to feel guilty about, but I can see you’re apparently convinced by Unz’s argument despite that I conclusively debunked it. My rebuttal was never targeted at folks like you. And it would be great if acted as though Jews have as many faults and failings as other folks, but that’s clearly not the position of, which is that most of the people destroying the US/world are Jewish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Yeah, I’m sure your rebuttal was targeted at “people like me:” unfortunately for “people like you,” your essay and your subsequent online antics ended up loaning credence to Unz’s original article.

    I don’t think has any kind of position that the destroyers of the world are “mostly Jewish.” I don’t read things like that, because they’re almost as foolish as people like you who seem to believe that no Jewish person has ever done anything wrong in all of human history, and that anyone who implies that Jews may be human beings like anyone else is an evil bigot. does, in fact, seem to take the opinion that Jewish people are people, who may do good things, and may do bad things.
    What, exactly, do you have against broader knowledge of the origins of the Israel Lobby in the US? Are there any facts here which are in question? And no, it doesn’t matter if you call the author of the piece, or me, or Ron Unz, or Phil Giraldi or Stephen Walt an “anti-semite” because they have noticed that Israel is made up of people rather than cartoon saints.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. NB, I would appreciate that. I have no idea where you are coming from on these issues. I’m looking for more general than specific like what should Israel’s borders be based on, and what should be done about the settlements that are already there? I know you at least suspect Iran is seeking nuclear weapons but I don’t know what you want the US to do about it. I don’t know what you would do if you were a Palestinian. What options do they have that you would support? What do you think motivates Salafist to want to harm Americans?

    I think people on here, including myself don’t really know what you want, and just jump to conclusions in absents of information. I see challenges regarding specific facts but not to the narrative that America’s policy towards Israel harms the US which is prevalent on Where do you get your information at? Are there any commentators, politicians, magazines or websites which you agree with regarding policy? If I’m stuck with and the weeklystandard then wins hands down. There is Uri Avnery, MJ Rosenberg, and Mondo Weiss who discuss Israel from a left wing perspective.

    I personally think Saudi Arabia, casino capitalism, and corporate welfare to the arms industry is the source of all evil. I think money would be better spent on figuring out how to efficiently collect, store, and use solar energy. I don’t understand why people want the US to take out Saudi Arabia’s enemies in Iran and Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. NB says: • Website

    Scott Locklin, I said my rebuttal was NOT targeted at people like you. You have not made a single criticism of my statistical methodology but have simply personally attacked me. I have never stated or implied that “no Jewish person has ever done anything wrong in all of human history, and that anyone who implies that Jews may be human beings like anyone else is an evil bigot.” If it were true that “ does, in fact, seem to take the opinion that Jewish people are people, who may do good things, and may do bad things,” then please post the pieces that praise Judaism and Jewish people b/c there are plenty of pieces complaining about Jews (or implicitly complaining about Jews like the articles claiming the Fed engages in all sorts of nefarious activities that inevitably elicit comments about that group of people who “control” the Fed and the media). In fact, just featured Pat Buchanan’s piece praising Christian values, bemoaning the “West’s capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide — the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.”

    “Hollywood values” is obviously a code-word for Jewish values.

    Johnny Ive, I certainly don’t read I wouldn’t say there’s one particular commentator I recommend, but you might want to check out Peter Beinart. He eschews anti-Semitic tropes and is critical of both Israel and AIPAC.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. NB:
    “In fact, just featured Pat Buchanan’s piece praising Christian values, bemoaning the “West’s capitulation to a sexual revolution of easy divorce, rampant promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, feminism, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, assisted suicide — the displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.”

    “Hollywood values” is obviously a code-word for Jewish values.”

    So, what you’re telling me is:

    1) Jews run Hollywood
    2) Hollywood pumps out a never ending stream of culturally corrosive filth
    3) You evil goyim better not criticize Hollywood, or culturally corrosive filth, because that would be anti-semitic

    You, madame, are a barking loony. And yes, that kind of thinking is why it isn’t even worth *noticing* your pathetic attempts at statistical reasoning. Nor is it worth taking seriously your cries for “balance” -which seem to translate into “you had better not be insufficiently reverent to my tribe.”

    A friend of mine has pointed out the fact that, if actual anti-semitism ever comes to America, it will be through the efforts of crusading would-be-Judith numskulls like yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. NB says: • Website

    I was implicitly referring to the anti-Semitic trope that Jews run Hollywood, not endorsing it. Buchanan explicitly contrasted Christian values with Hollywood values, complaining about the “displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values.” He then mentioned Anne Applebaum’s and Masha Gessen’s criticisms of Russian/Putin’s homophobia and anti-Western orientation. In these parts of the internet, bringing up Masha Gessen unleashes a storm of anti-Semitic remarks:

    (see the comment section)

    I never stated or implied that one should not criticize Hollywood, but in the context of Buchanan railing against the “displacement of Christian values by Hollywood values,” he’s complaining about “the Jews,” particularly as he then goes on to cite two Jewish journalists who promote gay rights (which is, of course, a bad thing in Buchanan’s world). has published pieces praising Christianity/Christian values; there are likely none praising Judaism/Jewish values, yet there are many pieces complaining about Jews. So, like I said, it would be great if acted as though Jews have as many faults and failings as other folks, but but that’s clearly not the position of, which is that most of the people destroying the US/world are Jewish.

    You have no valid criticisms of my statistical methodology debunking Unz’s conspiracy theory; you’re just hurling random personal attacks at me. Andrew Gelman, a statistician at Columbia University, promoted my statistical analysis on his blog, concluding that “the story that Jewish students are underperforming was plausible (to Unz, Cowen, Brooks, and myself) but is unsupported by the data.”

    But surely you know better than a professional statistician.

    Oh, and your last statement is classic: the Jews are the ones who cause anti-Semitism!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Now you’re trying to tell us that any negative mention of any Jewish person is anti-semitic? I, for one, didn’t recognize Masha Gessen as being of the tribe, and I always thought Applebaum was a Polack. Certainly, nitwits like you who complain about … anyone mentioning any jewish person with anything but complete reverence: yes, clearly, you do contribute to anti-semitism. You are a walking, talking stereotype of a crazy Jewish supremacist who thinks all the goyim are evil cossacks coming to raid your village.

    Your stats are a joke, lady: a great reason to never hire anyone who graduates from Harvard.

    I repeat: what do you have against a discussion of the history of the Zionist movement in America? What is the Jewish supremacist view on what we filthy goyim are allowed to think?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    "and I always thought Applebaum was a Polack."

    Not the best kind of language to use when you're defending yourself against charges of bigotry.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. NB says: • Website

    I never said or implied “any negative mention of any Jewish person is anti-semitic.” You are clearly missing my point. And the comments section on Steve Sailer’s Masha Gessen post speaks for itself.

    You’re going to have to refrain from hiring MIT alumni too. Somehow I doubt you’re actually in a position to hire Harvard or MIT alumni.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. We’re supposed to be discussing the origins of the Israel lobby in the US; we’re not discussing Steve Sailer’s comment section. But then, everything is an anti-semitic conspiracy to fruitbats like yourself. Maybe Steve Sailer’s comment section is actually the sinister force behind

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Hibernian says:
    @Scott Locklin
    Now you're trying to tell us that any negative mention of any Jewish person is anti-semitic? I, for one, didn't recognize Masha Gessen as being of the tribe, and I always thought Applebaum was a Polack. Certainly, nitwits like you who complain about ... anyone mentioning any jewish person with anything but complete reverence: yes, clearly, you do contribute to anti-semitism. You are a walking, talking stereotype of a crazy Jewish supremacist who thinks all the goyim are evil cossacks coming to raid your village.

    Your stats are a joke, lady: a great reason to never hire anyone who graduates from Harvard.

    I repeat: what do you have against a discussion of the history of the Zionist movement in America? What is the Jewish supremacist view on what we filthy goyim are allowed to think?

    “and I always thought Applebaum was a Polack.”

    Not the best kind of language to use when you’re defending yourself against charges of bigotry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. OutWest says:

    Truman made a serious blunder in setting up the last European colony in Palestine. I would guess that a prime motive was the understandably brutalized but marauding displaced people that Stalin didn’t want back. The better present course would be for the U.S. to disengage. I don’t often agree with Obama but he seems to be on the right track here. Time to stop digging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    long live Palestine, I do support Palestine and wish the Palestinian to be free as soon as possible from the Israeli brutal occupation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?