Ain’t no such thing as race, according to my anthropology textbook.

Confidence intervals around those estimated proportions would be helpful.

Giraldi misleadingly claims that Iran “has invaded no one and has threatened no one.” Iran is an active state sponsor of terrorism (Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc) and is intimately involved in the Syrian civil war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/gaza-islamic-jihad-and-iranian-arms.html
Historically, Iran has funded Hamas, though it’s unclear whether it continues to do so:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/18/us-palestinians-hamas-financing-idUSKBN0FN1RI20140718

And Iran has threatened Israel:
“Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari warned the US about severe consequences of any military intervention in Syria, and stressed that the possible war in Syria will result in imminent destruction of the Zionist regime of Israel.”
http://www.tasnimnews.com/english/Home/Single/128150

In addition, Giraldi made a number of dubious, unsupported assertions:
1. The Israeli government “has long believed that conditions approaching anarchy in neighboring Muslim states are in its interest.”

2. Iran “is threatened regularly by Israel’s nuclear arsenal.”
I’m not aware of any incident in which the Israeli government threatened to deploy nuclear weapons.

3. Israelis steal US “military and civilian technology which it then copies and sells worldwide to the detriment of US businesses and the taxpayer.”

NLG, I’m not paid by anyone. And I cited Wiki b/c it has a convenient list of violent conflicts in the British Mandate of Palestine that predate the establishment of Israel. But here’s a BBC story on the 1929 Hebron massacre if you want a non-Wiki source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8219864.stm

And I cited the polls about American support for Israel to disprove Giraldi’s patently false claim that “most Americans, finally recognize something called ethnic cleansing at a level approaching genocide when they see it.”

As usual, Giraldi attempts to counter what he perceives as pro-Israel propaganda with anti-Israel propaganda. A by no means compete list of false and/or misleading statements in Giraldi’s piece:
1. Giraldi: “most Americans, finally recognize something called ethnic cleansing at a level approaching genocide when they see it…”
Polling has consistently shown that more Americans think Israel’s military operation was justified than not:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/44-percent-say-israels-actions-gaza-are-justified-n173016
“44 percent of respondents said that they believe Israel is defending its interests and that its actions are justifiable. Twenty-four percent said that Israel’s military actions are not justified, while 32 percent said they don’t know enough to have an opinion.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/174305/middle-east-update-support-israel-hamas-stable.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2014/08/28/more-express-sympathy-for-israel-than-the-palestinians/
“the [American] public expresses more sympathy for Israel than the Palestinians”

2. Giraldi falsely claims that a congressional resolution “make[s] any criticism of Israel a hate crime.” The source he cites makes it clear that’s patently untrue; it condemns anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic rhetoric about Israel (which is not “any criticism” of Israel) — it most certainly does not criminalize such language, as that would violate the First Amendment:
http://www.timesofisrael.com/diverse-jewish-voices-converge-to-back-us-anti-semitism-bill/

3. It’s not just Israel that is disputing the UN’s figures on the % of civilians among those killed in Gaza:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/world/middleeast/civilian-or-not-new-fight-in-tallying-the-dead-from-the-gaza-conflict.html
The NYT notes that the casualties are disproportionately young men. Here are the latest UN figures:
http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_04_09_2014.pdf
The UN is claiming that 74% of the adult civilians killed were male, which is an implausible gender ratio. 12% of Gazans killed were women. In Ukraine, the UN reported that 11% of those killed were women, leading the UN to remark:
“A gender imbalance of casualties reported by these establishments (as of 11 August, women comprised 11% of killed and 13% of wounded in the Donetsk region) may indicate that members of the armed groups who are predominantly male constitute a considerable part of these casualties.”
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/UkraineReport28August2014.pdf

4. “the Israelis have rejected Arab offers for a comprehensive peace agreement”
This is misleading: yes, it’s true that Israel rejected the Arab Peace Initiative since it called for resolution of Palestinian right of return based on UNGA Res 194 (whereas UNSC Res 242 is actually binding international law), just as Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David offer b/c he regarded Israel’s offer to allow 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper as insufficient. And Abbas rejected Olmert’s peace offer as well.

5. “Israel started terrorism in the Middle East when it ethnically cleansed the Palestinians starting in 1948…”
This claim is risible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_conflicts_involving_the_Yishuv

Ron Unz, is that the best you can do to discredit me? You’ve never managed to refute my debunking of your anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Harvard discriminates against white Gentiles in favor of Jews, so I guess all you can do is resort to ad hominem arguments.

I must say, however, it seems a bit odd that you of all people would try to diagnose me with mental illness. What would motivate you to go through lists of over 30,000 names to count the number of Jews? btw, are you still living in squalor (despite your wealth) as described here?
http://www.laweekly.com/1999-12-02/news/being-ron-unz/

Gosh, I must look really bad if this guy is insulting the way I dress:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/01/time/prop.277.html
“No, Ron Unz says, it’s not true that he owns only two suits. He owns one. The other wore out weeks ago. And the one left ‘is on its last legs,’ he says. ‘I’ve patched the pants a couple of times.’ But it is true that he eats mostly at Burger Kings and pizza joints. And, yes, he lives in a house with no wife…”

As for this particular piece, your writer stated, “And just how many terrorists have slipped across from Gaza using the tunnels to kill Israelis? The answer insofar as I could determine it is ‘none.’ The tunnels being used by Hamas with some success to resist the Israeli army are all within Gaza…”
I presented multiple articles from reputable sources documenting not just Hamas tunnels opening into Israel, but also Hamas militants using said tunnels to infiltrate into Israel and kill Israelis. And, as usual, the replies I’ve gotten are all personal attacks.

Philip Giraldi rails against the House resolution that he describes as “the usual farrago of half-truths that one is used to hearing from Israel’s friends in congress.” I suppose that’s not as bad as Giraldi’s usual farrago of lies. Giraldi claims: “And just how many terrorists have slipped across from Gaza using the tunnels to kill Israelis? The answer insofar as I could determine it is ‘none.’” I’m curious how Giraldi determined this, given that a cursory Google search shows that at least 7 Israelis (IDF soldiers) have been killed by terrorists infiltrating into Israel via tunnels:
http://news.yahoo.com/gaza-militants-kill-five-israeli-soldiers-infiltrating-tunnel-033649910.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/hamas-fighters-cross-israel-through-tunnel-kill-2-soldiers-n160251
And far more terrorists have slipped across from Gaza via the tunnels (one of several such reports):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.605662

Giraldi ponders: “I would however note in passing recent media reports indicating that fully 94% of all Department of Homeland Security discretionary grants go to Jewish organizations and wonder how Elie would rationalize that.”
I’m guessing Elie would note that most victims of religious-based hate crimes in the US are Jewish:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/narratives/victims
And that an active participant on an anti-Semitic messageboard with a significant amount of overlapping content with unz.com is the alleged gunman behind the recent shootings at a Kansas City Jewish community center:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Park_Jewish_Community_Center_shooting

Giraldi continues: “It just might be part of knowing how to game the system and it goes hand-in-hand with holocaust survivors getting special benefits through Medicare…” (emphasis mine)
Googling “Jews game the system” gives few hits outside of sites like Stormfront.

“though it is all small potatoes compared to the manipulation that goes on to get the United States involved in Israel’s many wars ”
channeling Goebbels? A Nazi propaganda poster declared: “Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin bear the responsibility for the war; behind them stands the Jew.” “According to German wartime media…an insidious, belligerent Jewish clique, so crafty and powerful…managed to manipulate the actions of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin…”
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674027381

Note how Giraldi has dispensed with fingering merely AIPAC here — he is explicitly accusing “the wealthiest ethno-religious group in the nation” of gaming the system and manipulating the US government.

I’m not surprised to see that Giraldi’s readers now include Holocaust deniers and folks who refer to American Jews as “American” Jews, proclaiming that “the American media is totally controlled by you-know-who.” As such, I’m not going to waste much time replying to the folks trying to debunk my definitive demonstration that Giraldi lied in his piece, especially as Giraldi’s fanbois seem entirely unfazed that he explicitly lied. I will briefly respond to a few points:

1. Fran MacAdam, you asked me to respond to the following passage of Giraldi’s piece:
“[Boteach’s] article also plays fast and loose with the facts. He observes ‘In the wake of the Oslo Accords, in which Israel granted the PLO political autonomy in the West Bank, about 60,000 Americans were murdered in Israel.’”
In fact, Boteach stated, “In the wake of the Oslo Accords, in which Israel granted the PLO political autonomy in the West Bank, the equivalent of about 60,000 Americans were murdered in Israel.” (emphasis mine)
Perhaps it originally said what Giraldi claims, but as always, Giraldi proves it is he who plays fast and loose with the facts, as I assume Boteach corrected his error, something I’ve never seen Giraldi do.

2. Walk Tall Hang Loose, according to the UN, many of the civilian casualties are due to airstrikes on residential buildings, so your hypothesis that men, who comprise ~25% of Gaza’s population yet 55% of the reported civilian deaths, are killed because women stay at home does not survive scrutiny, esp since many, if not most, of the airstrikes take place at night.

The population of the Jewish partition of the UN Partition Plan was majority Jewish, meaning that the establishment of the state of Israel embodied the democratic will of its inhabitants. I find it odd that you would refer to Palestinians as helpless after I just cited a NYT article marking the first day of the Palestinian Jewish-Arab civil war, in which 7 Jews were murdered by Arabs. Your grasp of the history is awfully tenuous, much like Giraldi’s, so I suggest starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

3. KA, anyone can cherry-pick the NYT archives to support their narrative. In my first comment, I linked to a NYT article from the day after Arab leaders rejected the UN Partition Plan, in which Arab leaders called for a “holy war” and a “crusade against the Jews.” Here’s another NYT article:
“If the Jewish state becomes a fact, and this is realized by the Arab peoples, they will drive the Jews who live in their midst into the sea… Even if we are beaten now in Palestine, we will never submit. We will never accept the Jewish state… But for politics, the Egyptian army alone, or volunteers of the Muslim Brotherhood, could have destroyed the Jews.” – Hassan al-Banna, Muslim Brotherhood founder New York Times, August 2, 1948

Also, if the declaration of the state of Israel were illegal as you claim, the UN would not have admitted Israel. However, I’m pleased to see you’re noting that General Assembly resolutions have no legal power, as many pro-Palestinians folks typically cite UNGA resolutions to support their claim that Palestinians have a right to return to a state of which they were never citizens.

Giraldi claims, “It is a familiar scenario. Israeli is killing hundreds of civilians, mostly women and children…a conflict that has killed more than 1,000 Palestinians civilians”

Here’s another familiar scenario: Giraldi is lying. As of 7/29/14, the UN reported “1,118 Palestinians killed, including at least 827 civilians, of whom 243 are children and 131 are women.”
http://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/occupied-palestinian-territory-gaza-emergency-situation-rep-18
Among the 827 civilians, 45% are women and children. This means that 55% of the civilians who have been killed are men, even though men are roughly 1/4 of the population of Gaza. If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians, as Giraldi asserts, we would expect the civilian casualties to reflect the demographics of Gaza’s population, approximately half of which are children. Why does a demographic comprising ~25% of Gaza’s population that also happens to coincide with the demographic of combatants constitute 55% of the civilians killed?

This brings us to the question of where the UN is getting its figures: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/determining-the-body-count-in-gaza/
In large part, this data is from the Gaza Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas. The same Hamas that issued social media guidelines to always describe the dead as innocent civilians:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/21/world/middleeast/in-a-clash-between-israel-and-gaza-both-sides-use-social-media-to-fire-epithets-and-hide-behind-euphemisms.html?_r=0

Giraldi also claims, “But the Israel-Palestine problem truly began in 1948, when armed Jews deliberately terrorized and then drove more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes.” I’m not sure I can isolate a date when it began, but perhaps we could start with the 1834 Safed Pogrom?
The violence started long before 1948: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_conflicts_in_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine
Giraldi’s grasp of the history is clearly shaky, since the civil war between Palestinian Jews and Arabs actually started in 1947, following Arab leaders’ rejection of the UN Partition Plan two-state solution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
Here’s a NYT article from the day after Arab leaders rejected the UN Partition Plan:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F00E1EFC355E17738DDDA80894DA415B8788F1D3
“In a violent Arab retort to the United Nations decision on Palestine [the UN Partition Plan], seven Jews were killed by Arab ambushes in Palestine today. Five were slain in an attack on one bus and one in an assault on another bus…
The Arabs will wage a holy war if an attempt is made to enforce the partition plan, Dr. Hussein Khalidi, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, declared in an interview tonight…
Partition, Dr. Khalidi said, ‘is going to lead to a crusade against the Jews.’”

Giraldi blames AIPAC, Rahm Emanuel, Shmuley Boteach, and Sheldon Adelson for US support of Israel, insinuating that “the Jews” control the media. Funny how Giraldi failed to mention the owner of the most pro-Israel major news network and most pro-Israel major newspaper. but that doesn’t fit his narrative. nor do the polls showing a majority (or plurality) of Americans side with Israel in this conflict:
http://www.people-press.org/2014/07/15/as-mideast-violence-continues-a-wide-partisan-gap-in-israel-palestinian-sympathies/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/21/cnn-poll-americans-clearly-side-with-israel-in-gaza-fighting/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/174110/americans-reaction-middle-east-situation-similar-past.aspx
http://www.people-press.org/2014/07/28/hamas-seen-as-more-to-blame-than-israel-for-current-violence/

Johnny Ive, I’m assuming you wrote the reply by “Anonymous.” I apologize if I made an unfair accusation, but after skimming the comments, I didn’t see anyone offering a Likudnik justification of Israel’s latest military operation in Gaza, so I figured your comment was a reference to me.

Just so we’re clear, the same guy who says “Jewish control of Hollywood is a perfect example of a vector of Jewish power over the culture that needs a lot more scrutiny” also claims I’m a Jewish supremacist. lol. And where did I state or imply “the Jews” are the victims here? Hint: nowhere.

Johnny Ive, your mendacious, thinly veiled references to me would be libel if you actually named me. I’m not going to respond to most of what you say, but I’ll just note that I’ve called for a ceasefire from the start:
https://twitter.com/NuritBaytch/status/487007324200910848

Fadel remarks it would “take volumes to refute all the misleading comments in Krauthammer’s column.” Indeed, the same applies to Fadel’s reply to Krauthammer’s column. Fadel frequently cites pro-Hamas propagandist Ali Abunimah, whose risible claim that it was really Israel (not Hamas) who rejected the ceasefire is contradicted by, well, everyone. Oh, and the discovery of 20 rockets in a UN school was NOT an isolated incident as Fadel claims; it just happened again:
http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placeent-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools
Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I need to go to sleep…

btw, Thomas Meehan, in light of your claim that Americans favor Israel b/c of “Jewish influence in all forms of media here,” I suggest you look into who owns the most pro-Israel major TV news network and the most pro-Israel major newspaper.

Fadel’s piece is a standard radical leftist diatribe against Israel. Alluding to the mistreatment of Native Americans isn’t going to fly for Unz’s mostly right-wing audience, as you can see above, but Unz will publish anything anti-Israel, right-wing or left. A right-wing anti-Israel audience wants to hear about how The Jews are destroying America, not be reminded of American sins that can’t be pinned on The Jews.

Margolis claims: “So far, some 230 Palestinians have been killed, 70% women and children…”

The total of 230 is outdated, but the claim that 70% of those killed are women and children is backwards. Pro-Palestinian NGO Euromid has been reporting on the gender ratio of the casualties. On July 16th, they reported 217 deaths, including 48 children and 26 women; that is, women and children constituted 34% of those killed:
https://twitter.com/euromid/status/489549590547288064

The updated info is as follows: 338 deaths, including 83 children and 33 women; that is, women and children constitute 34% of those killed:
https://twitter.com/euromid/status/49064830688887193

I see that the Jew-baiting at unz.com never ceases with commenters echoing Nazi propaganda, which attributed Germany’s problems to the “machinations of a global Jewish conspiracy.”

“According to German wartime media, it was German citizens who were targeted for extinction by a vast international conspiracy. Leading the assault was an insidious, belligerent Jewish clique, so crafty and powerful that it managed to manipulate the actions of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin.”
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674027381
(emphasis added for both quotes)

D.K., lots of words, very little content as usual. And as usual, you didn’t even look at the sources I provided. You exclaim, “the notion that any student who is half-White and half-Asian is intentionally going to identify him- or herself on his or her college applications as “White” alone, rather than as “Biracial,” is so utterly preposterous, it takes one’s breath away!”
And yet I provided evidence of exactly such a phenomenon in my previous comment. That you thought it “utterly preposterous” speaks volumes about your understanding of the matter at hand.

D. K., a few things:
1. No foreign governments (or any Israel Lobby groups) pay me.

2. I haven’t kept flogging the Crimson survey; most of the critiques of my rebuttal here have focused on the Crimson survey rather than my statistical analysis, so I’ve been responding to those comments.

3. The conclusions you draw from the fact that the enrollment %ages add up to 114% (a fact which I discussed in my rebuttal) are unsupported. In fact, students who are half-white/half-Asian often identify as white rather than Asian or biracial on their college applications:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1
You also seem to assume that all Latinos identified as both white and Latino, which is a dubious assumption.

4. I provided a link to support my claim that most Jewish millenials identify as religiously Jewish, but rather than look at it, you decided to write a rant about your personal opinions on the matter when I provided an actual survey of American Jews to support my assertion. “religious disaffiliation is as common among all U.S. adults ages 18-29 as among Jewish Millennials (32% of each)”
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/

I provided a link to the Crimson survey in my rebuttal, which I had mistakenly assumed you had actually read. The mean SAT score of Latino Harvard respondents was 2167; for whites, it was 2233:
http://features.thecrimson.com/2013/frosh-survey/admissions.html#sat-ethnicity-tab

Most Jewish millenials identify as religiously Jewish, and I doubt the minority of Jewish students who are agnostic/atheist would depress the mean SAT score of Jews:
https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn12

In fact, in the Nyborg study Unz cited in his “meritocracy” piece, atheists and agnostics had higher mean IQs than all religious groups except Episcopalians/Anglicans and Jews, implying that atheist/agnostic Gentiles have higher IQs on average than religious Gentiles. So if you’re trying to argue that agnostic/atheist Jews would depress the mean SAT score of ethnic Jews, then you’d have to present some evidence to support your claim.

And, for the zillionth time, the Crimson’s survey data is NOT the argument I used to debunk Unz’s “statistical analysis,” so if you’re trying to claim that Unz is actually correct – that Harvard discriminates against white Gentiles in favor of Jews – you’re going to have to try harder.

D.K., the Crimson survey disaggregated whites and Latinos, so your claim that Latinos are somehow depressing the mean SAT score of white students is dubious. However, I must say, I’m amused that you describe the gap between the mean SAT score reported by students who identified as Jewish and the average SAT score of white respondents as a “mere 56-point gap” but then go on to say that most Hispanics at Harvard would have “markedly below-average SAT scores.” The gap between the mean reported score of Latino respondents and that of white respondents was 66 points, so…

In any case, my only interest was in demonstrating that Unz’s theory that Harvard discriminates against non-Jewish whites in favor of Jews is not plausible, so I’m not interested in debating the magnitude of the gap between the SAT scores of Jewish students and white Gentile students. And as I’ve said multiple times, the Crimson’s SAT score data isn’t even my actual argument – it’s just data that’s consistent with my argument.

While it’s true that not all Jews are white, the % of American Jews who are nonwhite is tiny and of little relevance to my argument. (If there were a lot of nonwhite Jews at Harvard, then shouldn’t you be arguing that the mean SAT score of Jews would be depressed by those “affirmative action beneficiaries”?)

quercus, I’ve never denied [Ashkenazi] Jews are an ethnicity [that is a subset of the white race].

quercus, as I recall, The Crimson did not report a breakdown by SAT section. Nothing I have said implies that Jews are a “race,” as I have made it quite clear that Jews are a subset of white people. For example, I stated in my rebuttal of Unz’s “Myth of Meritocracy” piece:
“the Class of 2017 survey conducted by The Harvard Crimson…found that both Jewish and Asian freshmen reported significantly higher mean SAT scores (2289 and 2299, respectively) than the average reported SAT score for white respondents (2233), implying that the mean SAT score of non-Jewish white Harvard freshmen is lower than 2233.”

The Harvard Crimson’s poll results were based on asking students’ religious affiliation. I don’t recall whether the SAT currently asks students to identify their religious affiliation, but it has in the past:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB102003890421804360

While it is certainly true students could’ve lied while answering the Crimson survey, there is no reason to suppose one ethnic/racial/religious group lied at a greater rate than any other. And as I said earlier, the Crimson survey results are data that are consistent with my argument; they are not the basis of my argument.

geokat, where did I say that I want to perpetuate the US-Israel special relationship as it is currently stands? Hint: I didn’t.

Interesting how you continue to focus on the 5 million American Jews who support the US-Israel special relationship and ignore the over 200 million non-Jewish Americans who support the US-Israel special relationship. Same way the folks at unz.com downplay or even ignore the role of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in agitating for the Iraq War and focus instead on Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith.

Saying most Jews are Zionists does not imply Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the US. In fact, the majority of Americans are evidently Zionists. If 66% of Americans think US support of Israel is about right or insufficient, clearly they accept Israel’s right to exist. geokat, you are distorting the actual poll question. It didn’t ask whether Americans support Israel vs Palestinians, like this Gallup poll that found that “Americans’ sympathies lean heavily toward the Israelis over the Palestinians, 64% vs. 12%.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161387/americans-sympathies-israel-match-time-high.aspx

The question Americans were asked was specifically about the US-Israel relationship:
“Now thinking about the relationship between the United States and Israel…
Is the U.S. [RANDOMIZE: too supportive of Israel, not supportive enough of Israel], or is U.S. support of Israel about right? ”
And 66% of Americans said that the US-Israel relationship is about right, or that the US should be moresupportive of Israel.

And I never said a thing about the Jewish “race.” Yet another example of how unz.com commenters misrepresent the truth.

Scott, I’m afraid you don’t understand basic concepts of genetics and Jewish law.

geokat62, it is indeed true that most Jews are Zionists, meaning one who supports Israel’s right to exist [as a/the Jewish state]. You then draw a series of deductions from this fact that are entirely unsupported.

According to the Pew Research Center, 54% of US Jews vs 41% of the US general public think US support for Israel is about right, 31% of Jews vs 25% of Americans think the US should be more supportive of Israel, and 11% of American Jews vs 22% of US general public think the US is too supportive of Israel:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
That is, 85% of US Jews vs 66% of US general public support the US-Israel special relationship. Given that the majority of Americans support the US-Israel special relationship, why do you focus only on the ~5 million Jewish Americans who support the US-Israel special relationship and not the over 200 million non-Jewish Americans who support the US-Israel special relationship? Why are Jews who support the US-Israel special relationship disloyal but not the over 200 million non-Jewish Americans?

Thomas, words have multiple meanings, and I in no way implied “dislike of Jews” is a crime. Thanks to our First Amendment, you are free to express your “dislike of Jews” and declare that American Jews are suspect (despite that 200 million non-Jewish Americans also support the US-Israel special relationship).

Do you really think that exculpates you? Your statement is incorrect: I have received NO push-back from ANY Jews regarding my rebuttal of Unz’s anti-Semitic conspiracy theory (except for Unz); in fact, I’ve received gratitude from many Jews that I took the time to debunk it. Given that most Jews are Zionists, I imagine they’d generally support my efforts to refute lies folks like to spread about Israel. Do you really think ANY Jews would support Giraldi begrudging Holocaust survivors aid that Congress unanimously approved?

Claims that the “problem” is only a small number of Jews do not acquit you of the charge of anti-Semitism. e.g. “Young, like LaRouche, depicts the Jewish masses as being pawns–and their faith, a tool–of a cynical elite…”
http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-british15.htm
That doesn’t exculpate Lyndon LaRouche, though unz.com readers probably don’t consider him an anti-Semite anyway.

Scott, how bizarre that you think that I should praise anyone who supports Israel no matter how loathsome. But I’m not surprised that you would characterize my implication that Derbyshire is a racist as a “smear.”

And thanks for implying I’m responsible for the anti-Semitic and racist comments on unz.com. You’ve provided enough of your own, so I hardly need to post fake comments to make my point:
https://www.unz.com/item/death-of-the-israel-lobby/#comment-106505

Likewise, Thomas Meehan was totally unashamed to declare that American Jews are “suspect.” I’m sure neither of you thinks your comments are anti-Semitic either, just as you apparently think Derbyshire is not racist.

Glad to see the kind of audience Unz and Giraldi are attracting: Folks who say American Jews are “suspect” and that the Spanish Inquisition was the right idea (plus racism against African-Americans!). Of course, this is Unz’s intention, with his recent hiring of Israel Shamir and John Derbyshire.

Scott, the only one playing semantic games is you. Giraldi said “In January 2009, when Israel was pounding Gaza to rubble and killing over a thousand civilians…” Giraldi didn’t say non-combatants; he said civilians.

And I didn’t go searching for “some nonexistent link somewhere in the web archives.” It’s the link given on the Wiki page for Op Cast Lead. Here’s the active link:
http://www.pchrgaza.org/portal/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1073:confirmed-figures-reveal-the-true-extent-of-the-destructioninflicted-upon-the-gaza-strip-israels-offensive-resulted-in-1417-dead-including-926-civilians-255-police-officers-and-236-fighters&catid=36:pchrpressreleases&Itemid=194

And remember, PCHR reports the highest # of casualties, and not even HRW (not exactly a fan of Israel) cites a figure that high. Anyone who’s actually interested in the truth would cite the widely varying casualty figures reported by the relevant parties.

Scott, I’m not playing any semantic games. I cited exactly what the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights said:
“Confirmed figures reveal the true extent of the destruction inflicted upon the Gaza Strip; Israel’s offensive resulted in 1,417 dead, including 926 civilians, 255 police officers, and 236 fighters.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20090612193512/http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/36-2009.html

And, like I said, PCHR reports the highest number of casualties. The IDF claims 295 civilians were killed. I’m going to guess the truth is somewhere between those 2 figures. HRW sums it up as follows:
http://www.hrw.org/features/israel-gaza
“In Gaza, more than 700 civilians died in the fighting”

No one but Giraldi is claiming more than 1,000 Gaza civilians were killed.

TruthTeller, here is the paragraph to which I referred:
“Cantor also always made sure that he played the Israel card when traveling on congressional junkets. In January while on his way to Davos he stopped off in Auschwitz to celebrate Holocaust Remembrance Day and in April he urged the Chinese to permit more liberal access to synagogues in China. The list of bills that he has sponsored or co-sponsored is heavily weighted in favor of legislation relating to Israel or to Jewish issues. He has supported legislation giving Holocaust survivors extra Medicare benefits that other needy Americans do not receive, to include in home nursing services and the creation of a Special Envoy for US Holocaust Survivor Services.”

How did I mischaracterize the context?

It’s not some aberration that Unz is proud to be adding Israel Shamir as a columnist; this is exactly what I’ve come to expect from Unz.

To be clear, I disagree with your characterizations of Derbyshire and Sailer. (I don’t know who Sam Francis was.)

Fascinating that Giraldi considers visiting Auschwitz to observe Holocaust Remembrance Day and urging China to allow Jews to attend synagogue [not just during the High Holy Days] to be “playing the Israel card.” It speaks volumes about Giraldi’s “principled” anti-Israel position that he regards commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day and advocating that Jews should be able to practice their religion to be some sort of pro-Israel propaganda.

btw, Jews typically don’t “celebrate” Holocaust Remembrance Day.

oh, and as usual, Giraldi gets basic facts wrong. Israel didn’t kill over 1,000 civilians during Cast Lead. Not even the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, which typically reports the highest number of casualties, reported such a high figure:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090612193512/http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/36-2009.html
But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Giraldi’s “mistakes” always cast Israel in the most negative light possible, and I’m just nitpicking.

I’m not sure what the point of this piece was anyway. Giraldi acknowledges Cantor’s support for Israel likely did not contribute to his electoral defeat, but then spends most of the article complaining about Cantor’s support for Israel and Holocaust survivors, implying Cantor is a disloyal American who only cares about Jews. Oh, and that legislation that Giraldi disparagingly characterized as “playing the Israel card” and “giving Holocaust survivors extra Medicare benefits that other needy Americans do not receive”? It passed unanimously (according to Giraldi’s own link). But we can be sure that brave Philip Giraldi would have cast that lone dissenting vote if he could.

Also, DWBudd, to be clear, I anticipated the argument you are making (in the footnote to which I linked a few days ago):
https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn39
“Since Unz seems quite convinced that the Jewish provosts of Harvard are favoring their brethren seeking admission, perhaps he might claim that the overrepresentation of students from MA, NY, NJ, etc. is simply more evidence of this favoritism, as those states have high Jewish populations. However, if you look at the 2010 IPEDS data for any university, you are likely to find that the most overrepresented state is that where the university is located. At both Harvard and MIT, Massachusetts supplies the 2nd greatest number of students after California, meaning Massachusetts (which is allocated only 2% of NMS semifinalists) is the most overrepresented state at both institutions.”

DWBudd, indeed I meant that Harvard is seeking a student body with a diverse distribution of concentrations. I don’t know where you apparently viewed Harvard’s current application, but it is clear from both a link I provided in my critique and a recent Crimson story that Harvard does ask its applicants to indicate their intended concentration:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/3/27/regular-admissions-class-2018/

Are you implying that I was arguing the following? “Asians all major in STEM, so we better not let too many of them in.”
This is not the argument I made, and also I took no position on whether or not Harvard discriminates against Asians, although it is clear the evidence is far more suggestive that Harvard may discriminate against Asians than against non-Jewish whites (for which there exists no evidence).

The most over-represented state at Harvard is Massachusetts, not New York.

DWBudd claims, “instead of weighting by admissions, weight by applicants. The applications should reflect geographic preferences … Surely, these data are available.”
Surely Harvard has this data, but this info is not in fact public, and I do not have access to it. More broadly, you appear to have misunderstood my critique. I do not claim to have “proved” that Harvard does not discriminate in favor of Jews; I have simply shown there exists no evidence suggestive that Harvard discriminates in favor of Jews. It is Ron Unz who claimed that Harvard is discriminating against non-Jewish whites and Asians in favor of Jews, and I showed that he did not prove his claim. In particular, you have misinterpreted the conclusions I drew from my calculation of enrollment ratios weighted by the geographic distribution of Harvard students. I was demonstrating the importance of accounting for geography, as Harvard College students are disproportionately drawn from the Northeast, which supplies almost half of Harvard’s American undergraduates and is over twice as Jewish as the rest of the US (5% vs 2%). (For a graphic illustration of how “Jewish” the Northeast is, see this recent WaPo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/04/the-second-largest-religion-in-each-state/ ) I stated (emphasis added): “when we weight the NMS results by the geographic distribution of Harvard students, we obtain results that are opposite those of Unz: Jews are the most underrepresented group at Harvard (in comparison to their “academic merit”), followed by Asians, and then non-Jewish whites. Of course, it would be entirely inappropriate to deduce any bias from these results, just as it was invalid for Unz to deduce bias from his enrollment ratios.[41]” In footnote 41, I wrote: “I would like to emphasize that, like Unz, I’ve made no attempt to quantify the statistical significance of my enrollment ratios, and I am not actually claiming that Jews are the most underrepresented group at Harvard in comparison to their academic “merit.”…I’m sure one can quibble with my methodology, but I’m not drawing any conclusions from these numbers other than that there is no evidence that Harvard discriminates in favor of Jewish students as Unz claims.” i.e. I was aware of the issue you raise, and I was careful to limit my conclusions to those supported by the evidence. I realize that it’s possible that the geographic distribution of Harvard students could reflect an admissions bias, but I did what I could with publicly available data: I presented data indicating that the geographic distribution of Harvard students is consistent with the trend I saw at all the universities I looked at (i.e. the home state is typically the most over-represented state), and I showed that accounting for geography has a substantial impact on the calculation of enrollment ratios.

DWBudd states “the argument that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class vs., say, Cal-Tech, is a bit of a stretch. One typically selects a concentration AFTER enrollment, not before. So how does Harvard’s admissions team know who is going to the humanities vs. STEM?”
Applicants are supposed to indicate their intended major on their applications, and it should also be clear from the HS courses they take, their extracurricular activities, their SAT subject tests, etc. My claim that HYP select for a diverse, liberal arts class (as opposed to Caltech) is uncontroversial.

Regarding your second point, I addressed this objection here:
https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn39
Basically my point is that the geographic distribution of Harvard students is consistent with the trend I saw at all the universities I looked at – i.e. the home state is typically the most overrepresented, etc.

Truth Teller, you seem to be conflating my argument (that employing an objective methodology on the names of both NMS semifinalists and Harvard students indicates there is no evidence to support Unz’s claims) with data I presented that is consistent with my argument, i.e. the data from the Harvard Crimson survey. This data is not the basis of my argument.

However, I will still address the points you raised:
In response to the survey, which found that Harvard freshmen who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score that was 56 points higher than the average SAT score of white respondents, you stated, “It would only be relevant if it applied to total applicants, not admitted students.” For your objection to stand, you would have to address why Harvard would deliberately not admit the best qualified non-Jewish white applicants. Unless you have a plausible explanation, the most reasonable assumption is that Harvard admitted the best qualified non-Jewish white applicants, just as it admitted the best qualified Jewish applicants, etc.

I did not omit the fact that the Harvard Crimson survey was specifically about religious affiliation. In the summary, I did not clarify that point, but I specifically stated in section 1 that “according to The Harvard Crimson’s Class of 2017 Freshman Survey, only 9.5% of Harvard freshmen identify their religious affiliation as Jewish.” In footnote 12, I then explicitly addressed the objection you raised:
https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#_edn12
“It is likely that some ethnic Jews who are atheist or agnostic did not identify their religious affiliation as Jewish. According to The Crimson’s freshman survey, 29% of white Harvard students identified as atheist or agnostic, among whom we would expect to find both ethnic Jews and non-Jewish whites. Hence, it is reasonable to expect that ~29% of ethnic Jews identified as atheist or agnostic, meaning that ~13% of Harvard freshmen are ethnically Jewish. According to the Pew Research Center, “religious disaffiliation is as common among all U.S. adults ages 18-29 as among Jewish Millennials (32% of each),” which is consistent with The Crimson’s survey results.”

Recall that Unz assumed that non-Jewish whites constituted merely 19% of Harvard undergrads, while Jews comprised 25% of Harvard undergrads; that is, non-Jewish whites represent only 43% of white Harvard students, while Jews constitute a whopping 57% of white Harvard students. The Harvard Crimson survey found that 46% of white students identify their religious affiliation as Christian, while only 15% of white students identify their religious affiliation as Jewish. i.e. the % of white Harvard students who actually identify as Christian is higher than the % Unz assumed for all non-Jewish whites. And again, if you’re going to propose that the 29% of white Harvard students who identify as atheist or agnostic are disproportionately ethnically Jewish, you’ll have to present arguments to support such a claim in light of the fact that the Pew Research center found that religious disaffiliation is as common among young Jews as among all young Americans.

D.K., your reading comprehension skills call into question your ability to evaluate any argument. My tweet was obviously sarcastic (and was a continuation of my previous tweet), as Mein Kampf is nowhere to be seen in US bookstores, whereas the BBC reported on the “stacks of Mein Kampf in Arabic” at the Baghdad book market and then suggested that perhaps there were so many copies of Mein Kampf in Baghdad b/c sales are low – which I consider to be an attempt by the BBC to whitewash anti-Semitism:
https://twitter.com/NuritBaytch/status/470659971227856896
https://twitter.com/NuritBaytch/status/470660535331983361

The “evidence” Ron Unz presented was predicated on his subjective ability to identify Jews on the basis of their names, which proved spectacularly wrong for the one data set on which there exists confirmed, peer-reviewed data about the ethnic background of the students: US International Math Olympiad (IMO) team members since 2000, among whom Unz underestimated the percentage of Jewish students by a factor of 5+. I used an objective methodology (Weyl Analysis) to debunk Unz’s claims.

Timothy, on what data are you basing your claim that “Jewish students are about 10% of high-performing whites who would be qualified to attend institutions like Harvard” and that the male:female ratio should be “roughly 70-30…by merit”? Unz quantified merit on the basis of SAT scores, and females represent ~47% of students scoring 2200+ on the SAT:
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/sat-percentile-ranks-composite-cr-m-w-2010.pdf
Also, you are not taking into account the geographic distribution of Harvard students, which is heavily weighted toward the Northeast, where a high proportion of American Jews live. I discuss how to account for this here:
https://sites.google.com/site/nuritbaytch/#geography

DK, there is no evidence that Jews are overrepresented at Harvard (in relation to academic “merit”) or that non-Hispanic white gentiles suffer discrimination. Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy. In addition, Unz’s arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher than the average SAT score of white respondents.

I have posted a critique of Unz’s article here:
http://alum.mit.edu/www/nurit

Columbia statistician Andrew Gelman discusses it here:
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/10/22/ivy-jew-update/

Well, I don’t know if this counts as official but here’s what the State Dept says:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm
“The United States is committed to realizing the vision of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: an independent, viable and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people, alongside the Jewish State of Israel.”

I am not aware that any of the extreme right-wingers in Bibi’s govt support the price-tag attacks that the US has now classified as terrorism. I’m aware of Shamir’s and Begin’s past activities, but funny how you omitted any mention of the late long-time President of the PA…

KA tries to blame the persecution of Christians in the Middle East on Western colonialism. Arguably the most severe persecution of Christians in the Middle East was the Armenian Genocide (not to mention the genocide of other Christian minorities living as dhimmis in the Ottoman Empire like the Assyrians). You want to blame that on Western imperialism too?

Giraldi appears to imply that it is not predominantly Muslim countries who persecute Christians but rather Israel:
Rand has also appealed to the evangelical crowd by labeling Muslim demonstrators as “haters of Christianity,” adding that “American taxpayer dollars are being used to enable a war on Christianity in the Middle East, and I believe that must end.” But a recent State Department report on religious persecution notes that it is the Israelis who are frequently hostile to non-Jews.
Open Doors is a Christian organization that documents persecution of Christians around the world. Curiously [well, actually entirely unsurprising if you’re vaguely informed about foreign affairs], Israel doesn’t even make its top 50 countries for most severe persecution of Christians:
http://www.worldwatchlist.us/world-watch-list-countries/
Iran, ever-defended by Giraldi, is in the top 10, and the Palestinian territories are rated #34.

Rand should also be made aware that the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel, has cooperated with Tel Aviv to repress terrorism, and has no ex-terrorists in its government (unlike the Israelis past and present).
This is risible, in light of the recent PA-Hamas unity agreement. And who are the ex-terrorists in Israel’s current government? not to mention the ex-terrorists, or rather active terrorists formerly in charge of the PA…

fyi, Obama already recognized Israel as a Jewish state:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/president-barack-obamas-state-union-address
and that doesn’t make Israel a theocracy.

Margolis claims: as Sharon used to boast, “don’t worry about the US. I control the US!”
This is widely considered a fake quote. It was originally reported in the US here:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-06-14/news/0206140099_1_jose-padilla-al-qaeda-young-men
and being a reputable news source, they retracted it, as there’s no evidence Sharon actually said that.
“Editor’s note: Georgie Anne Geyer’s May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, “I control America.” This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.”

Note how Margolis even worded his statement as though Sharon habitually said that.

As far as I know Golda Meir never said “Palestinians don’t exist” in the present tense. She said they didn’t exist in the past tense, which is technically true, as Palestinians did not identify as a people (distinct from other Levantine Arabs) a century ago. That does not change the fact that they do today and that they deserve the right of self-determination like all other peoples.

Any US official or politician deemed insufficiently pro-Israel has a short career.
Ron Paul served many years in Congress, so…

Thomas, I said, “To actually evaluate Israel Bonds as an investment, one has to compare them to other possible investments – credit rating, interest rate, liquidity, etc. This article does not do so (I’m assuming Israel Bonds pay significantly higher rates than US Treasury bonds) and simply fear-mongers about Israel Bonds.”

Israel Bonds pay higher interest rates than US Treasuries (due to their illiquidity and Israel’s lower credit rating). So when deciding on an investment, one has to evaluate whether the illiquidity justifies the higher interest rate. This article did not do so.

Fran, that the interests and posts of members of the forum frequented by the alleged shooter align so closely with unz.com should give one pause. Why don’t you check out what other sites fear-monger about Israel Bonds? You’ll find few, if any, reputable sites. You will, however, also find Stormfront sharing unz.com’s concerns about Israel Bonds.

You continue to be mistaken about S&P’s website, but here’s a news article discussing S&P’s rating of Israel:
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=16495

Fran, I have no subscriptions to any of the websites to which I linked, so all of the info in my post is publicly available. And I did not engage in misdirection – I included highly relevant info conveniently omitted in the original piece. Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme. Are you implying Israel is some sort of giant Ponzi scheme? If not, I fail to see the relevance.

Philip, I skimmed your source, and I do not see that it cites any reputable sources to substantiate its claims. In fact, this source appears to contradict your claim that “Israel’s positive credit rating is aided by the fact that some of its loans are backed by the US treasury”:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-cuts-israeli-bonds-guaranteed-by-us-to-aa-2011-08-08-1052370
(i.e. Israel’s US-guaranteed bonds have different credit ratings from Israel sovereign’s credit rating, so they appear to be treated differently)

Furthermore, the Reuters link I posted explains Fitch’s reasoning for its A/positive rating, and I did not see anything about the US-guaranteed bonds affecting Israel’s rating, nor anything about the likelihood the US would forgive Israel’s debt (though admittedly I only skimmed it). btw, when did the US last forgive Israel’s debt? I’m guessing not recently. Plus, it’s not uncommon for the US to forgive other nations’ debt – that’s hardly unique to Israel. Also, it appears that Israel has not issued US-guaranteed bonds since 2004:
http://ozar.mof.gov.il/debt/ext/funding.asp

So please cite S&P, Fitch, and/or Moody’s explicitly stating that any of those factors impact Israel’s sovereign credit rating, as they go into quite a bit of detail as to how they determine their credit ratings.

Furthermore, please cite a source for your claim that “purchasing Israel bonds is a tax deduction for American buyers.” If it were true, you should be able to cite something to that effect from irs.gov, as such a special dispensation would have to be clearly spelled out. This sources says Israel Bonds are not tax deductible, though I don’t know how reliable it is:
http://www.learnbonds.com/israel-bonds/
IsraelBonds.com says they “might” be:
http://www.israelbonds.com/invest/double-mitzvah-program.aspx
My guess is they’re not, at least federally. Maybe some states have a tax deduction.

To actually evaluate Israel Bonds as an investment, one has to compare them to other possible investments – credit rating, interest rate, liquidity, etc. This article does not do so (I’m assuming Israel Bonds pay significantly higher rates than US Treasury bonds) and simply fear-mongers about Israel Bonds.

Finally, I’d like to point out that the forum frequented by the alleged Kansas City shooter shares unz.com’s deep concern about Israel Bonds:
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=152946
I think many unz.com readers will enjoy much of the material on that site, so I hope you appreciate the recommendation.

Wow, now unz.com is fear-mongering about Israel bonds! Tellingly, the article omits mentioning Israel’s actual credit rating. And as you might guess, ratings agencies have determined that Israel Bonds are NOT a high risk investment, despite the article’s title.
Moody’s: A1/stable
https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Israel-Government-of-credit-rating-423305
Fitch: A/positive
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/29/idUSL2N0JE0WA20131129
Standard & Poor’s: A+/stable
http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/sovereigns/ratings-list/en/us/;jsessionid=8mvCP9QJRpZy1TydR4GnWF3L8TSH78jsdN0Rf11qw24CBsJjnS5t!1005972207?subSectorCode=39&start=50&range=50

Also, Ohio’s $80 million investment in Israel bonds constitutes under 1% of the state’s portfolio. This is clearly a matter of great urgency and concern.

I would humbly suggest that Jews look at their religious traditions and beliefs and root out the ugliness that exists there.
I can’t argue about that, but as you can see from my previous comment, the ADL has condemned Jews who spit on Christians, so it is clear that such intolerance is not tolerated by the broader Jewish community.

Johnny, regarding that poll, I’d like to emphasize the following sentence in the article: “An option combining a Jewish and democratic state was not offered to respondents.”

In any case, several prominent Israelis have suggested that Israel unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank if the peace process fails, so I see that as more likely than the one-state solution coming to be.

Oh, and Fran, here’s another Einstein quote (from 1952):
“my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world”
http://www.princetonhistory.org/collections/albert-einstein.cfm

So I guess Einstein was a “tribalist,” as Giraldi refers to me, like me.

Fran, the link I gave does not say Italy’s or Germany’s laws of return apply only to children or grandchildren of a subset of current citizens but rather apply much more broadly to ethnic Italians and Germans.

The Italian-American figure skater did not say, “I’m 100% for Italy.” She said, “I’m 100% Italian.” I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference. I also find it amusing that you thought I would question the patriotism of Iranian-Americans. Have you actually met any? [I’m guessing not, since you seem never to have encountered Americans who identify with their ethnic heritage, like Americans of Greek, Italian, Chinese, Korean, etc descent. It’s no coincidence that American cities have Greektowns, “Little Italy,” Chinatowns, Koreatowns, etc.] Every Iranian-American I’ve ever met has been strongly opposed to Iran’s theocratic regime and supported the Green Movement.

If your intent in citing Einstein quotes [from the 1930s, I believe] is to discredit my interest in dispelling falsehoods unz.com likes to spread about Israel and the Jewish people, then I’m afraid you must be unfamiliar with the fact that Einstein became a passionate defender of Israel after it came to be. In fact, he was troubled by the disproportionate criticism Israel received and planned to give a televised pro-Israel speech just before he died:
http://www.archives.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/91136F87-EB1E-4753-B4BD-8D304571EBD1/0/AlbertEinstein04.pdf
see point 4

Funny how I supposedly have zero intellectual integrity for citing a Tablet article in order to address the napkin quote, but no unz.com commenters seem the least bit troubled that Giraldi cited a fake quote “reported” by a Hamas organ. Or that Giraldi previously claimed those anonymous intelligence sources of his disputed the fact that there was a sarin attack in Syria (along with multiple other claims contradicted by the UN report I cited). Or that Giraldi somehow concocted a way to deceptively tie Pollard to the Rosenbergs and no other spies in American history in his recent Pollard piece.

Citing a fake quote from a Hamas mouthpiece is apparently undeserving of censure (in fact, I was attacked for pointing this out), while my linking to a Tablet article that cites reputable polls about how pro-Israel Americans are means I have “zero intellectual integrity.” lol

In any case, those polls serve as a welcome reminder that Giraldi and his lackeys represent a tiny minority of Americans.

Werner Cohn is a professor of sociology (specializing in studying the Jewish people) at the University of British Columbia, so I don’t see how he can be regarded as less credible than Israel Shahak, a former chemistry professor who has been widely accused of fabricating claims to defame Jews and Judaism:
http://www.edah.org/backend/document/jakobovits1.html
http://archive.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/the_talmud.pdf

quercus wrote: “However you wish to explain away spitting at the religious symbol of another person, it’s a very ugly thing to do.”
I would do no such thing. I’m sorry that happened to your daughter. There is no excuse for such behavior, and ADL has condemned it:
http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/israel-middle-east/adl-urges-israeli-chief.html

“However, hat I see, NB, is a hostility on the part of some Jews to Christianity, and it goes back a long, long, way, well before there were any Jewish persecutions”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament

I would never deny that some Jews are hostile to Christianity. However, do you deny that throughout history Christian persecution of Jews has far exceeded Jewish persecution of Christians? And that unz.com focuses on the latter even when there is no evidence to support it (e.g. that Harvard discriminates against white Gentiles in favor of Jews)?

KA, are you trying to say Jews control the US? Who are the people with “easy access to the media”? The most pro-Israel major news sources in the US are owned by Rupert Murdoch, so what is your point exactly?

Fran MacAdam, funny you ask, German-Americans and Italian-Americans do have a “right of return” to Germany and Italy, respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

Saying one is proud to be Italian doesn’t mean you are “for Italy” and not for the US. It means you take pride in your Italian heritage (like Italians’ cultural contributions to the world).

Einstein called Israel “the fulfillment of our dreams,” so I’m not sure why you’re citing him.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6UV0wMmnrIUC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144

As for the claim that I’m a Jewish supremacist, I have pointed out previously that it is evident from the articles that unz.com choose to publish that it is unz.com’s position that most of the people destroying the US/world are Jewish. Unz.com has published numerous 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 the group of people who control the Fed and the media). If unz.com believes the incidence of racism and other bad traits are the same among Jews as among other religions/peoples, where are the unz.com pieces praising Judaism/Jewish values? b/c Unz has definitely published pieces praising Christianity/Christian values.

but apparently combatting anti-Semitism = Jewish supremacy.

just as racists claim anti-racist = anti-white.

quercus, I already posted a link to an article explaining that Israel Shahak indulged in both fabrications and willful misinterpretations:
http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html
He also discusses the “ugly bits” of the Talmud but correctly points out that “rabbis have never allowed the immoral Talmudic interpretations which Eisenmenger and his followers attribute to Judaism.” (Shahak’s “work” is based on Eisenmenger, and I already gave a link about him in my first post)

KA, I know that some prominent American Islamophobes are Jewish, but it’s not a synagogue or Jewish sect putting up those Islamophobic posters.

Johnny Ive, I haven’t updated my research on Iran’s nuclear program since January when I posted this:
https://www.unz.com/article/a-new-year-just-like-the-old-year/#comment-61495

I did not know Giraldi was claiming a 5 year breakout time. lol
Well, I’ve cited two reputable sources (i.e. Kerry, who knows the CIA’s current position, and ISIS), but I didn’t see Giraldi cite anything but his usual array of anonymous intelligence sources.

And I’ve pointed out previously when Giraldi’s anonymous intelligence sources contradict other public sources. e.g. his claim that his anonymous sources in the intelligence community “agreed on several points, namely that Pollard was the most damaging spy bar none since the Rosenberg espionage ring betrayed US nuclear secrets to the Soviets in the 1940s.”
https://www.unz.com/article/jonathan-pollard-again/#comment-99985

Or that “whether the victims of the attack suffered symptoms of Sarin was also disputed.”
https://www.unz.com/article/quitting-over-syria/
(re: Seymour Hersh, I haven’t read his article yet, but I’ve seen it widely criticized)

I’m starting to wonder if Giraldi is a mouthpiece for Iran b/c he seemed to imply previously that he doesn’t consider Hamas or Hezbollah terrorist groups and falsely claimed that Iran has never threatened Israel. (see first link above)

For example, the source for Giraldi’s claim that Sharon said “We, the Jewish people, control America” appears to have been the Islamic Association for Palestine, a Hamas organ.

I don’t have a clearly defined opinion on what should be done about Iran’s nuclear program other than that I hope the current negotiations result in an agreement that will ensure Iran does not build a nuclear weapon. I think a slightly modified version of the current agreement would suffice, though again, I haven’t researched this recently.

geokat, I would like the US to take a tougher stance against Israel’s settlement policies, and I believe doing so would benefit all parties. re: the napkin quote, this article offers some thoughts:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/164223/why-american-policy-is-pro-israel

Philip, pointing out that you report a quote widely regarded as fake is not nit-picking. It speaks to your credibility, but as many of the replies show, unz.com readers don’t actually care that you report fake quotes. The Chicago Tribune retracted a less nefarious version of the quote, but clearly neither unz.com nor you are constrained by journalistic ethics.

Fran MacAdam, as is clear from the Pew poll to which I linked, most Jewish Americans regard ourselves as part of the Jewish people, just as for example, Italian-American figure skater Marissa Castelli can say “I am 100-percent Italian and proud” and not have her loyalty to the US questioned. Your understanding of Israel’s Law of Return is flawed, so I suggest further reading.

Johnny Ive, John Kerry knows the CIA’s current position on the state of Iran’s nuclear program; Giraldi does not.

And by the way, despite the claims Scott Locklin makes in his crazy diatribe, my husband is a Gentile.

When I saw that Giraldi’s source for the Ariel Sharon quote about the Jews controlling America was rense.com, I immediately knew it was fake. It was originally reported in the US here:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-06-14/news/0206140099_1_jose-padilla-al-qaeda-young-men
and being a reputable news source, they retracted it, as there’s no evidence Sharon actually said that.
“Editor’s note: Georgie Anne Geyer’s May 10 column included a quote from Ariel Sharon, “I control America.” This quote was widely reported in the Palestinian press but cannot be confirmed in independent sources. Geyer and Universal Press Syndicate regret not having attributed the quote more specifically.”
And the disputed quote was never about the Jewish people controlling America, but Giraldi went all out to distort the disputed quote to make it sound as nefarious as possible. bravo!

And despite what Brownfeld says, most Jews regard ourselves as a people, not merely a religious group. In fact, 43% of European Jews even consider it anti-Semitic to assert that Jews are only a religious group and not a nation!
http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013-discrimination-hate-crime-against-jews-eu-member-states_en.pdf
Furthermore, 62% of Jewish Americans say being Jewish is mainly a matter of ancestry and culture, while just 15% say it is mainly a matter of religion. 23% say it’s all 3.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/10/jewish-american-full-report-for-web.pdf

Regarding Giraldi’s oft-repeated yet misleading assertion that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, here’s what Kerry had to say this week:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/08/us-iran-nuclear-usa-breakout-idUSBREA3719I20140408
Iran can produce fissile material for an atomic weapon in two months, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday told a Senate hearing in which he faced tough questions from lawmakers about negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

“I think it’s public knowledge today that we’re operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months. That’s been in the public domain,” Kerry testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

KA, criminals of every creed and color engage in organ harvesting (though of course in these parts, only the Jewish ones are discussed). Weir suggested Israelis are killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs – a totally unsupported claim. And it’s not a synagogue or a Jewish sect putting up those Islamophobic posters.

geokat, if a reputable source actually corroborates Shahak’s claims about Schneerson, then I do not think he should be honored.

LOL at the accusation that I’m disseminating anti-Gentile hate. that’s rich. I guess that’s like saying anti-racist is a code-word for anti-white. ha ha ha

anyway, y’all will be pleased to know I’m probably going to stop posting here soon enough, but not for the reasons you think. It’s becoming increasingly clear Unz is actively trying to attract anti-Semitic readers, so posting here makes almost as much sense as posting on Stormfront, which happens to be quite a fan of Weir’s article.

Johnny Ive, the source for the racist quote you cited is Israel Shahak. If any of these racist quotes are actually substantiated by reputable sources, that would be a different story (which is the point quercus seemed to have missed).

That quote about fighting a war “the Jewish way” is authentic, though after that was published, there was an outcry (including by the ADL), and the rabbi quasi-retracted his remarks:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/chabad-rabbi-jews-should-kill-arab-men-women-and-children-during-war-1.277616
Weir omitted the fact that the extremist rabbis she cites are widely denounced in the broader Jewish community (when the crazy statements they make are actually well-attested) and overstated the reach of the Chabad movement. She repeated wiki’s statement that “up to a million people attend Chabad services at least once a year” but conveniently omitted the preceding phrase about Chabad having only 40,000-200,000 adherents (worldwide).

I don’t know whether Israeli Jews know about this kind of stuff, but I can assure you that whenever extremist rabbis say crazy things (and yes, that does happen), they are widely condemned. That isn’t to say Jewish extremism isn’t a problem, but Weir is grossly distorting the extent of it and the extent to which it’s condoned in the broader Jewish community.

quercus, I don’t know of any Jewish groups that parade around the US putting their crazy on display the way that the Westboro Baptists have. The Jewish Defense League is classified as a terrorist group by the US government, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that Jewish fringe groups get a pass.

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.

It’s not surprising that Philip Giraldi’s colleague Alison Weir, who promotes the blood libel that Israelis harvest Palestinian organs would cite as her primary source fellow blood libel-promoter Israel Shahak. Despite Weir’s characterization of Shahak (who is the primary source of many, if not most, of the claims Weir makes) as a respected Jewish professor, he in fact has no credibility among scholars of Judaism and is widely regarded as a fraud among said scholars:
http://www.wernercohn.com/Shahak.html

Weir also paints a highly misleading, if not false, depiction of the Chabad movement, which is a fringe movement with an estimated 40,000-200,000 adherents (out of 15 million Jews worldwide). I have no idea if most of what she says about the Chabad movement is actually true since it’s a fringe movement (though given Shahak is her primary source, much is probably misleading or fabricated), and most Jews know little to nothing about it, nor any of the other nonsense published here, which bears no resemblance to the Judaism practiced by most Jews.

One example among many of Weir’s dubious claims: that Israeli settlers threatened peace activists: “We killed Jesus, we’ll kill you too!” Jews generally don’t consider themselves to have killed Jesus, so it beggars belief Jews would actually say this. Sounds more like what an anti-Semite might think Jews would say.

Alison Weir is following in the grand anti-Semitic tradition (going back to the 13th century) of fabricating or misinterpreting passages from the Talmud:
http://books.google.com/books?id=8ZnFAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5277-donin-nicholas-of-la-rochelle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Eisenmenger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Talmud_Unmasked

It’s not true that the Israelis demanded Pollard’s release in exchange for continuing the talks or releasing the Palestinian prisoners. Since the talks were faltering, the US dangled the idea of releasing Pollard as a sweetener; the reason Israel didn’t release the prisoners is that Israel conditioned the release on Abbas agreeing to extend the negotiations past April 29th:
http://www.dw.de/israel-puts-off-prisoner-releases-unless-peace-talks-continue/a-17531112
“A fourth and final set of Palestinian prisoners held in Israel were scheduled to be released on Saturday (29.03.2014)…The release, however, was placed on hold in fear Palestinian negotiators would walk out on peace talks after the prisoners were released.”

More info here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/world/middleeast/mideast-peace-talks.html
“But Israel sought to condition the release of the final batch on an extension of the negotiations beyond the current deadline of April 29.”

And here is an article on the Pollard brouhaha:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/world/middleeast/jonathan-pollard.html

Also, it’s the Israeli settlements in the West Bank that are widely regarded as illegal, not the actual occupation itself, although the actions Israel has taken in East Jerusalem could be regarded as effectively annexing East Jerusalem, which would be illegal.

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:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/03/gessen-in-slate-bombing-moscow-does-not.html
(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).

Unz.com 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 unz.com acted as though Jews have as many faults and failings as other folks, but but that’s clearly not the position of unz.com, 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.”
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/10/22/ivy-jew-update/

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!

geokat, you quoted the Weinberger statement as though it were the definitive last word, so I pointed out that it’s not. I’m not having it both ways, just presenting the other side of the story that you and Giraldi omitted. I’m not advocating for Pollard’s release, as I’ve made clear.

The interviewer clearly found it noteworthy that Weinberger omitted the Pollard incident from his memoirs, as did Korb.

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 “Unz.com 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 unz.com 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, unz.com 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.”
https://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/whose-side-is-god-on-now/
“Hollywood values” is obviously a code-word for Jewish values.

Johnny Ive, I certainly don’t read weeklystandard.com. 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.

Fran, I quoted Bibi saying that he’s working for Bibi’s release, so I never denied that. Giraldi claimed that Bibi “declared an unofficial holiday in [Pollard’s] honor,” and I maintain Giraldi’s source does not support this contention. If you google mayor+declared+holiday+in+his+honor, the top links are things like MLK Day, Mistah F.A.B. Day in Oakland, Bob Marley Day in Toronto, Shahid Afridi Day in Port Arthur, TX, etc. That is what it means to declare a holiday in an individual’s honor, and Bibi never declared a Jonathan Pollard Day. He simply said Pollard should be freed, like the Jews were freed from bondage in Egypt, an event commemorated during Passover.

An important element of Giraldi’s piece is his claim that anonymous sources in the intelligence community say that Pollard should never be released b/c of the damage he inflicted and that “Pollard was the most damaging spy bar none since the Rosenberg espionage ring betrayed US nuclear secrets to the Soviets in the 1940s.” except I posted an article from the US Naval Institute explicitly contradicting Giraldi’s claim, so I’d like to see a similarly reputable source corroborate Giraldi’s contention. And also, I find it curious that Giraldi felt the need to mention the Rosenbergs, as they have no connection to this case (except their religion/ethnicity) whereas Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are indirectly connected (and inflicted more damage on the US) b/c it is now believed that Pollard may have been blamed for their actions.

I find it fascinating that you accuse me of outright obfuscation when I have exposed numerous outright lies or at best highly misleading and/or unsupported assertions Giraldi has made. Please name one statement I have made that constitutes “outright obfuscation.” And I have no idea what Holocaust denial has anything to do with this.

Geokat, regarding Caspar Weinberger’s statement:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/28/opinion/la-oe-korb-pollard-20101028
“The question is why Pollard received such a harsh sentence…First is the victim impact statement of my former boss, Caspar Weinberger, the secretary of Defense at the time of Pollard’s arrest. The statement, much of which remains classified, implied that some of the information that Pollard had supplied to Israel made its way to the Soviet Union. Weinberger argued that Pollard was no different from spies who provided information to the Soviets and was guilty of treason…

Weinberger’s contention has been debunked. Information that Pollard gave to Israel did not make its way to the USSR. Instead, the information that the Soviets received during the 18 months Pollard was spying for Israel most likely came from Ames and Robert Hanssen, a onetime FBI agent who spied for the USSR and Russia from 1979 to 2001.

R. James Woolsey, the CIA director from 1993 to 1995, stated after examining the Pollard case file that none of Pollard’s information went to the Soviet Union. Moreover, Woolsey now believes that Pollard has served long enough and should be released.”

http://hnn.us/article/778
“Ironically, one major episode omitted from Weinberger’s life story, is his pivotal involvement with the Jonathan Pollard spy case. Weinberger was called upon by the Judge to assess the damage Pollard did to national security. In our interview, Weinberger was asked why he skipped the incident. Weinberger casually replied,”Because it was, in a sense, a very minor matter, but made very important.” Asked to elaborate, Weinberger repeated,”As I say, the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance.” Pressed on why the case was made far bigger than its actual importance, Weinberger replied,”I don’t know why-it just was.””
sounds like Weinberger might have had some regrets…

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 unz.com acted as though Jews have as many faults and failings as other folks, but that’s clearly not the position of unz.com, which is that most of the people destroying the US/world are Jewish.

Giraldi claims that his anonymous sources in the intelligence community “agreed on several points, namely that Pollard was the most damaging spy bar none since the Rosenberg espionage ring betrayed US nuclear secrets to the Soviets in the 1940s.” This contradicts the US Naval Institute’s own claim:
http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2010-06/navys-biggest-betrayal
“Twenty-five years ago the FBI finally shut off the biggest espionage leak in U.S. Navy history when it arrested former senior warrant officer John A. Walker…Jonathan Pollard, another naval spy apprehended during 1985, the Year of the Spy, gave Israel a greater quantity of documents (estimated at 1.2 million pages), but the Walker material, with its cryptographic secrets, has to be judged as the worse loss.”
I’m fascinated that Giraldi somehow figured out a way to mention the Rosenbergs b/c Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen are generally regarded as the most damaging spies in modern US history, as far as I understand. But according to the USNI, Giraldi’s claim is not even true since John Walker inflicted greater damage than Pollard, and his arrest preceded Pollard’s. Anyway, I’m not surprised, as Giraldi has a history of making dubious claims about what the intelligence community supposedly thinks:
https://www.unz.com/article/quitting-over-syria/

Fran MacAdam, Giraldi claimed that “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared an unofficial holiday in [Pollard’s] honor.” An unofficial holiday declared in an individual’s honor is typically named after said individual, just as Robert E Lee Day is an unofficial Southern holiday in his, um, honor. Bibi did nothing of the sort.

geokat, there are a range of opinions among [former] government officials who are cognizant of the nature of the crimes Pollard committed; some, like George Schultz, Secretary of State when Pollard was caught, and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey have called for his release:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/mar/31/ap-sources-us-considers-release-spy-pollard/
To be clear, I have no opinion on whether Pollard should be released, as I have no information on the full extent of his crimes; nor do I know anything about typical sentences for espionage. However, I oppose his potential release as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

As for Jeff Davis’ post, I haven’t been reading the comments on unz.com particularly closely but I don’t recall that Davis had any particular point to make about anything I stated regarding the fact that the West Bank was not sovereign territory prior to Israel’s occupation while Crimea was part of a sovereign state. Any specific point you think I’m “evading”?

Readers need only follow the last link, Giraldi’s source for his claim that Bibi “has declared an unofficial holiday in [Pollard’s] honor,” to see that this piece is the same old misleading innuendo that characterizes most of his other pieces on Israel.

During Passover, the Jewish holiday that celebrates the Jews’ freedom from slavery in Egypt, Bibi remarked, “The Jewish holiday of freedom [i.e. Passover -NB] should become Pollard’s private holiday of freedom. I will continue working toward his release.”

All Bibi said was that Pollard should be freed (just as Jews were freed from bondage in Egypt, which was being commemorated at the time); he in no way “declared an unofficial holiday in Pollard’s honor,” as Giraldi claimed.

That Giraldi would distort such a statement should lead any fair-minded reader to regard as dubious any of his claims based on anonymous sources regarding the nature of Pollard’s crimes. Likewise, I regard as dubious the claims of those advocating for his release [i.e. that Pollard’s crimes were relatively minor], as the nature of Pollard’s crimes is not a matter of public record.

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_273

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:
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.582095

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.

I was wondering when unz.com 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_conflicts_in_the_British_Mandate_for_Palestine

“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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
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:
http://jcpa.org/article/president-truman’s-decision-to-recognize-israel/
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/How-writers-question-the-legitimacy-of-Israel-341840
“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.

Giraldi wrote: I guess the repeated Saudi brokered offer for all the Arab states to recognize Israel within “secure borders” was not serious.
The Arab Peace Initiative was a non-starter for Israel since it called for resolution of right of return based on UNGA Res 194 (whereas UNSC Res 242 is actually binding international law), just as Arafat rejected the 2000 Camp David offer b/c he regarded Israel’s offer to allow 100,000 Palestinian refugees to return to Israel proper as insufficient.

Of course, for Israel secure borders mean all of Jerusalem and continuously expanding into most of the West Bank.
That is clearly not the case based on Barak’s offer at the 2000 Camp David Summit.

Funny how you rise to the bait whenever you feel your tribe is being dumped upon
Are you denying that Israel Shamir is an anti-Semite and/or that his Putin’s Triumph piece, featured on unz.com, is anti-Semitic?

and you rarely seem to mention any US national interest.
I rarely state my opinions and just focus on disputing the “facts” you put forth (or in this case the facts you omitted). However, that’s an interesting accusation in light of the fact that you advised Palestinians to walk away from the peace negotiations and even appeared to call for a Third Intifada:
https://www.unz.com/article/such-a-deal/
How would Palestinians walking away from a US-brokered peace proposal (based on mere rumors of what it entails) and greatly escalated violence in Israel/West Bank serve the US national interest?

Or your description of Hamas and Hezbollah as “groups that are resistance to Israeli occupation. Whether or not they are terrorists is a judgement call and many countries do not consider them to be terrorists.”
https://www.unz.com/article/a-new-year-just-like-the-old-year/#comment-61454
If you think that a militant group that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans is not a terrorist group, then I have to wonder how you define the US national interest.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

Makes me wonder if your concern is truly the US national interest.

geokat62, I suggested that one compare US/international reaction to Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara and to Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus. Based on your reply, apparently you did not do so. The Western Sahara was occupied by Spain prior to Morocco becoming the occupying power, and I’m not aware of any sanctions on Morocco/Western Sahara. Turkey invaded the sovereign nation of Cyprus, and its occupation of Northern Cyprus is subject to sanctions.

Fran Macadam asks, “Why is Israel so special that it should be granted a waiver for behavior not allowed to others?” Actually, it’s been argued that Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara is the one receiving special waivers:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/eu-holds-contradictory-view-settlements-west-bank-and-western

I noticed today that you left this comment here claiming that a false flag operation was responsible for the antisemitic comments left on unz.com:
https://www.unz.com/article/such-a-deal/#comment-68894
Were you insinuating that I left those comments in order to discredit unz.com?
Unz.com discredits itself – esp by publishing Israel Shamir, which is an entirely predictable editorial decision from my perspective.

And obviously the Matalin/Carville marriage is an extreme example, but I certainly know married couples who had different opinions on the Iraq invasion, so just b/c Nuland’s husband is a neocon, that does not imply she is. And the fact that she’s worked for both the Clinton and Obama administrations is significant evidence arguing against the conclusion that she’s a neocon. Giraldi asserted that she is a neocon, so I am asking for the evidence to support his contention.

I forgot to note the title of Giraldi’s piece in my original comment: The West Bank was not a sovereign entity prior to its occupation by Israel; Jordan was previously the occupying power. Crimea was part of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. This is a significant distinction and is another explanatory factor behind the contrasting US/international reaction to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Russia’s occupation/annexation of Crimea (also compare US/international reaction to Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara, Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus, etc).

Re: Victoria Nuland. Of course I know who her husband is. I fail to see the relevance; after all, James Carville and Mary Matalin are married too. Nuland’s career started in the Clinton administration, so it’s not clear to me why she is being called a neocon. [to be clear, I’m not asserting that she’s not a neocon.]

I don’t have time to respond to Giraldi’s comment at the moment. perhaps tomorrow, or later today I suppose.

It’s fascinating how almost all the pieces unz.com features about Ukraine/Crimea can’t help mentioning Israel and/or “the Jews” even though these subjects are minimally relevant to Russia’s invasion and subsequent annexation of Ukraine. As for the critical detail that Giraldi conveniently omits, I’ll quote neocon war-monger Nelson Mandela:
“I understand completely well why Israel occupies these lands. There was a war.”

Lest I be accused of quoting Mandela out of context, here are two other sentences from the rest of his speech:
“But if there is going to be peace, there must be complete withdrawal from all of these areas…I cannot conceive of Israel withdrawing if Arab states do not recognize Israel, within secure borders”

I can’t argue with that.

The US and the international community have responded differently to different occupations depending on the relevant facts – one can also compare and contrast US/international reaction to Morocco’s occupation of the Western Sahara, which, like the West Bank, had been under occupation by a foreign power when its current occupier assumed control.

Anyway, it’s not a mystery why unz.com continually tries to tie Ukraine/Crimea to Israel/”the Jews,” as Unz demonstrated by publishing this anti-Semitic piece (yesterday’s featured piece) by notorious anti-Semite Israel Shamir:
https://www.unz.com/article/putins-triumph/

I also enjoyed this piece by 9/11 truther Eric Margolis, which claims that “the US neocons who have played a key role in engineering the coup in Kiev and this crisis…want to see Russia punished for supporting Syria and the Palestinians.” Yeah, that’s definitely what this is about.

btw, how do we know Victoria Nuland is a neocon?

Giraldi, your piece claims “Congress is meanwhile advancing legislation that would commit the United States to intervene militarily in support of a unilateral Israeli attack.” present tense. you linked to a story about the Kirk-Menendez bill, which has been shelved (exactly as I predicted here, despite your fear-mongering):
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/bill-clinton-iran-sanctions-103219.html
(Harry Reid has also repeatedly stated that he will not allow a vote on the bill.)

You have also repeatedly mischaracterized the nature of the bill:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/18/exclusive_top_senate_democrats_break_with_white_house_and_circulate_new_iran_sancti
“The bill includes a NON-BINDING provision that states that if Israel takes “military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” the U.S. “should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with the law of the United States and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.” ” (emphasis mine)

Philip Giraldi, I have consistently shown that you have no problem distorting or even fabricating the truth. Any fair-minded individual would be able to see that (esp if they read your Quitting over Syria piece and read my comment). Congress is not and never was advancing any legislation that commits the US to intervene militarily in the event of an Israeli unilateral attack.

I call into question your integrity by showing this pattern. It is not simply nitpicking – obviously Giraldi is presenting a one-sided narrative selectively including whatever facts (and not-facts) fit his agenda. I’m not going to forward the argument that Israel is our ally; I’m merely showing that you are not a credible source.

And Ron Unz continues to provide evidence that unz.com is, indeed, to a significant degree, an anti-Semitic enterprise by twice publishing Israel Shamir, who is considered a pariah by most fair-minded individuals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir#Views

It’s also not a coincidence that Unz publishes conspiracy theory pieces about the Fed that inevitably elicit comments about how “the Federal Reserve is privately owned by the same group that owns the Congress and the Federal government as well as the media.”

According to Wikipedia, a false flag attack is a covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Even if it were true that the Israeli aircraft were unmarked, that is not the same as a false flag attack, which would mean Israel was trying to pass off some other country as the attackers. In any case, the commander of the USS Liberty testified that he believed the torpedo boats to be carrying an Israeli flag:
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/uss_liberty/attack_sigint.pdf

There are also reports that the Star of David was seen on the fuselage of the planes:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-liberty_tuesoct02,0,3721192,full.story

That some crew members did not see any markings is not inconsistent – in the fog of war, it is easy to miss such markings.

Two hours after the attack, Israel informed the US embassy in Tel Aviv that it had attacked a US ship. How does this square with the attack being a false flag attack, as Giraldi alleged?

Also, the ABC news story I posted does not “pretty much” confirm Giraldi’s account, which was: “Five Israelis from one of the companies were observed celebrating against the backdrop of the twin towers going down, the so-called “Dancing Shlomos.” Did Israel know in advance about 9/11? Many in the intelligence community believe that it certainly had knowledge of some aspects relating to the terrorist attack.”
1. The ABC witness did not report that they were dancing but rather smiling.
2. ABC reports: “Despite the denials, sources tell ABCNEWS there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies. Many U.S. government officials still believe that some of them were on a mission for Israeli intelligence. But the FBI told ABCNEWS, “To date, this investigation has not identified anybody who in this country had pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11.” Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11,” Cannistraro noted.”
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1&singlePage=true

This is precisely the opposite of what Giraldi was insinuating. This is typical of Giraldi’s conspiracy-mongering about Israel, most notably his “Quitting over Syria” piece, in which he makes the likewise dubious claim that “it was widely believed that the information might have been fabricated by Tel Aviv.”
https://www.unz.com/article/quitting-over-syria/
(see my comment below demonstrating how deceptive that piece is)

KA – you have the Odigo story garbled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odigo_Messenger
Also, it is unsurprising that the Israelis blamed Arabs for the terrorist attack. Americans tend to automatically do that too…remember the Oklahoma City bombings?

Norman, how does Israel control the Fed? I see that you’re being more explicit now than you were before:
https://www.unz.com/item/the-greatest-propaganda-coup-of-our-time/#comment-81299

But you’re still not being entirely forthright as to the group you believe “controls” the Fed, media, etc.

Philip, your source in your own article on the USS Liberty incident is Wiki, so now you’re criticizing me for citing it? Where can I find the testimony to which you’re referring?

I see that you’ve declined to post a link to the aforementioned legislation…

Philip, which legislation is currently being advanced in Congress that requires the United States to intervene militarily in support of a unilateral Israeli attack? Post a link to the bill.

Re: The USS Liberty incident. I freely admit that I’m not an expert on that. Does it say in the wiki page that the Israeli markings were covered up? I only skimmed it, and it actually said that a US Captain “noticed that the boats appeared to be flying an Israeli flag.” Can you post a link to a credible source reporting that their Israeli markings were covered up?

Philip Giraldi continues to falsely claim that “Congress is meanwhile advancing legislation that would commit the United States to intervene militarily in support of a unilateral Israeli attack,” when the legislation has been shelved, and the relevant provision is non-binding.

The USS Liberty incident was not a false flag attack, as Israel never denied responsibility for the attack and immediately offered compensation.

And Giraldi’s description of the “dancing Israelis” is misleading:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1&singlePage=true

Nice to see that Ron Unz is now attracting the white nationalist/Occidental Observer crowd. That was, after all, the point, just some are more willing to admit it than others.

Gosh, nobody answered my questions, so I briefly looked at the members of the Federal Reserve board, as well as the presidents of the regional banks, and it appears everyone is white, with one man who is half Indian. Most are male. So white people who are disproportionately male “control” the Fed?

Also, the publishers of the 3 most influential newspapers in the US (NYT, WSJ, and WaPo) are all white men too.

Norman, who controls the media and the Fed?

Fran MacAdam, where I have said or implied anything about Israelis and Palestinians not being equal?

Glad to see Ron Unz showing his true colors with the authors he’s been publishing.

Rather than random Lincoln quotes (surely one could find far worse from, say, Jefferson Davis), it is possible to quantify the incidence of racism by state, and as a proud Yankee (well, actually I’m a member of the Red Sox nation, to be clear), I’m happy to present the results:
http://www.princeton.edu/~amas/papers/Mas_Moretti_AEA.pdf
“The GSS asks whether the respondent supports laws against anti-interracial-marriage. We build an index of racial bias that equals the proportion of white respondents in each state who answers affirmatively to this question.3 When we aggregate states depending on the value of the index to show how states differ based on this index4, we find that while Southern states are overrepresented in the group with high values of the index, there seem to be some variation even within the South.”
see p. 10 for the graph with the racism prevalence data for each state.

Eugene Costa claims, “the Federal Reserve is privately owned by the same group that owns the Congress and the Federal government as well as the media.”

What group owns the Federal Reserve, Congress, the federal government, and the media?

Therapsid, you stated, “It’s really been astonishing how rapidly [Unz’s] ballot initiative has made an impact by fueling a national debate over raising the minimum wage.” This is a rather dubious claim for the reasons I stated in my comment; had you limited your remark to Unz’s impact on conservatives, I’d not have challenged your statement.

You describe my critique of Unz’s “Myth of American Meritocracy” article as an “attack,” implying that my rebuttal is somehow unjustified or untoward. Can you please note any erroneous statements or flawed methodologies in my critique?

Therapsid, I doubt Unz’s ballot initiative is fueling the national debate. Obama recommended raising the minimum wage in his 2013 State of the Union address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address
And shortly before Unz submitted his ballot initiative, Obama endorsed a $10 minimum wage:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/business/10-minimum-wage-proposal-has-obamas-backing.html

So Ron Unz is now publishing Israel Shamir, huh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir#Views

Based on rumors about what Kerry’s framework proposal looks like (rumors which are likely false, as I doubt Israel will annex settlements that would bisect the West Bank), Giraldi advises Palestinians to walk away and appears to call for a Third Intifada. Giraldi is director of the Council for the National Interest, which states that it “advocates for Middle East policies that serve the national interest.” How would Palestinians walking away from a US-brokered peace proposal (based on mere rumors of what it entails) and greatly escalated violence in Israel/West Bank serve the US national interest?

Rex in Aust asks, “I wonder where the sympathies of people in the US lie.”
“Americans’ sympathies lean heavily toward the Israelis over the Palestinians, 64% vs. 12%.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161387/americans-sympathies-israel-match-time-high.aspx

Nowrasteh claimed that Unz’s minimum wage proposal aims to curb illegal immigration. Readers can judge for themselves from Unz’s own past statements:
“The automatic rejoinder to proposals for hiking the minimum wage is that ‘jobs will be lost.’ But in today’s America a huge fraction of jobs at or near the minimum wage are held by immigrants, often illegal ones. Eliminating those jobs is a central goal of the plan, a feature not a bug.”
http://bit.ly/1ifavYE

“…economist Bruce Bartlett highlighted the immigration aspects of my initiative proposal for the New York Times and reminded readers that several years earlier former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis had similarly proposed a large hike in the minimum wage as the logical solution to our immigration problems.

The reason a much higher minimum wage would drastically reduce illegal immigration is obvious and simple to state. The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come to America for jobs and just as business lobbyists endlessly claim, they are hired ‘because they take the jobs that Americans just won’t do.’ But the reason Americans won’t do those jobs is because the wages are too low. Raise the wages to a more liveable figure of $12 per hour or higher and millions of Americans would eagerly fill the positions, allowing employers to comply with immigration requirements…”
https://www.unz.com/item/the-minimum-wage-and-illegal-immigration/

geokat62, you are justifying anti-Semitism by saying it is the fault of Jews, and thus, to combat anti-Semitism, one must change the behavior of Jews. see “Blaming the Victim” by William Ryan for further discussion of such ways of thinking. You have a lot of chutzpah to tell me how I should combat anti-Semitism. MJ Rosenberg was not absolving anti-Semites of blame for their bigotry, as far as I can tell; he’s worried that anti-Semites will blame Jews as a collective for the actions of a small number of Jews (i.e. AIPAC).

Furthermore, I am the only person who discovered the fatal flaws in Ron Unz’s statistical methodology in his “Myth of American Meritocracy” piece, in which he argued that Jewish students are preferentially admitted to Harvard (b/c their brethren “control” Harvard); I am also the only person who has pointed out the specious nature of Philip Giraldi’s “Quitting over Syria” piece. There are plenty of Jews who criticize AIPAC without the use of anti-Semitic tropes (like J Street and Peter Beinart), so adding my voice to the chorus would have no impact (not that I’m arguing my comments on unz.com have any impact; however, my rebuttal of Unz’s meritocracy piece has had some impact).

I have also stated that I don’t support Netanyahu’s policies, that I opposed the Iraq War from day 1 (and participated in an anti-war protest on 3/20/03), that I oppose the Kirk-Menendez bill, etc. Hence, I’ve made it clear that Netanyahu and AIPAC don’t speak for me.

Fran stated: “if the accusation is confined to those individuals that can reasonably be proven to be doing so, it is not an accusation against Jewish people as a group, nor does it represent a libel against world Jewry.”
The accusation was made against me, and it cannot reasonably be proven that I place the interests of Jews and/or Israel above those of my country. Also, you said earlier that we should keep the conversation on addressing the facts rather than diverting off into accusations of anti-Semitism; why not apply the same standard when discussing, say, Sheldon Adelson? Instead of smearing him with anti-Semitic slurs, one can criticize his arguments and actions on their merit. For example, last night, the football player Richard Sherman went on a bizarre postgame rant; many racists on Twitter then attributed his behavior to his race. One can legitimately criticize Sherman’s behavior w/o resorting to racist tropes, just as one can legitimately criticize Adelson w/o the use of anti-Semitic tropes.

Oscar Peterson, I’m only responding to the part that’s actually relevant to Giraldi’s article (and not your repetitive personal attacks based on unfounded assumptions): “You expended much effort in attacking Giraldi’s assessment that Iran has ended any nuclear weapons work. But how is attacking an assessment of the Iranian nuclear program consistent with your stated mission of “pointing out misleading and/or false statements about Israel and the Jewish people?””
b/c Giraldi is implying that Rubin and AIPAC are engaging in warmongering over nothing, which was actually the case wrt the Iraq War but is not the case wrt Iran since Iran’s nuclear program is far more advanced than, well, Saddam’s nonexistent nuclear program, for which there was no credible evidence according to the IAEA in 2003. Simply declaring that “Iran has no nuclear weapons program full stop” is not a credible rebuttal of Rubin’s arguments in support of the Kirk-Mendendez bill. To be clear, there are plenty of valid reasons to oppose the bill, and she did overstate the evidence for Iran’s [alleged] nuclear weapons program.

Johnny Ive, I haven’t seen any “breakout” estimates from the US intelligence community; can you post a link? I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Albright over-hypes threats. In fact, he was skeptical of the evidence Bush presented in support of invading Iraq:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/09/iraq.usa

As a side note, I do agree with Ritter (who is a controversial figure, I might add) that individuals with only an MS in physics (including, coincidentally, Ron Unz and me!) should not call themselves physicists.

geokat – if the Israel Lobby is perceived as comprised of both Jews and Gentiles, as you claim, then why should its actions cause anti-Semitism any more than anti-“Gentilism”? More to the point, why should a small number of members of a minority group be blamed for those who harbor bigotry against said group? The blame rests on the bigot.

Fran, I accused Giraldi of leveling an anti-Semitic personal attack against me. He claimed: “Your fundamental problem is that you place your tribal interests above the broader national interests that most of the rest of us hold dear. The people you are attacking on this site are loyal to the United States while you define yourself in terms of your ethnicity and are passionately attached to a foreign interest.” According to the US State Dept’s definition of anti-Semitism, it is anti-Semitic to accuse “Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.” Giraldi had no basis on which to accuse me of placing the interests of Jews above the interests of my country, and my interest in combatting anti-Semitism in no way suggests that.

I first started reading The American Conservative when I learned of Ron Unz’s “Myth of American Meritocracy” piece in the NYT a bit over a year ago. I saw Giraldi’s anti-Israel [Lobby] articles, and I rarely, if ever, commented on them b/c he did not employ anti-Semitic tropes (as opposed to, say, Scott McConnell), and I did not notice any obvious misinformation in them. I have no problem with legitimate and proportionate criticism of Israel, and I certainly encourage it. However, my opinion of Giraldi changed when I read his “Quitting over Syria” piece. Giraldi claimed that “whether the victims of the attack [in Ghouta, Syria] suffered symptoms of Sarin was also disputed” when, in fact, the UN “confirmed, unequivocally and objectively, that chemical weapons have been used in Syria,” as the UN team “had been able to determine objectively that Sarin was used.” Giraldi mentioned that “no autopsies were performed to confirm the presence of the chemical [sarin],” which sounds suspicious, but in actual fact, “85 per cent of blood samples from the sites in Ghouta tested positive for Sarin” according to the UN. So why did Giraldi mention that no autopsies had been performed? Obviously there was no need to perform autopsies when multiple survivors had blood tests to confirm sarin exposure. Giraldi also claimed that “traces of Sarin were not found in most of the areas being investigated, nor on one of the two rockets identified” when sarin was actually “recovered from a majority of the rockets or rocket fragments,” and sarin and its byproducts “were observed in the majority of the [environmental] samples” according to the UN.

Giraldi was trying to sow doubts that a sarin attack had occurred (when the UN unequivocally confirmed it had); if a sarin attack had indeed occurred, Giraldi then suggested that the notion that Assad’s regime perpetrated it was based on intelligence “widely believed [to] have been fabricated by Tel Aviv.” This led me to conclude that Giraldi’s apparent goal was to lead readers to believe that the notion that Assad’s regime ordered a chemical weapons attack on his people is a fabrication of the Mossad. I have asked Giraldi to explain his intentions, why he would mention that deceptively suspicious fact that no autopsies had been performed, etc, but he has never addressed this. Obviously he’d rather take the time to accuse me of placing my “tribal interests” above the interests of my country – which is deeply offensive.

Hence, I regard Giraldi’s intentions as suspect.

LOL at geokat’s comment: anti-Semitism is the Jews’ fault.

in any case, I already said that I predict that a veto override of the Kirk-Menendez bill won’t happen. i.e. I’m not concerned that AIPAC is going to prevail on this issue.

Fran MacAdam, I agree with you that we should keep the conversation on addressing the facts rather than diverting off into accusations of anti-Semitism; however, let the record show that my original responses to Giraldi’s pieces on unz.com have done exactly that, while Giraldi, Oscar Peterson, et al have replied to me with anti-Semitic personal attacks, smearing me as a hasbarist and Israel-firster (when I have never advocated policies that harm the US in order to benefit Israel). What’s good for the goose is good for the gander…
(Also, to be clear, my remark about Thomas Meehan was in reference to our interactions on other unz.com stories; he did not post any anti-Semitic comments on this piece.)

Oscar Peterson, here are a few examples of false accusations you’ve made about me based on various anti-Semitic assumptions:
You claimed that I’m on an “obsessive jihad to further Israel’s unrighteous and iniquitous campaign against the Iranians,” when I explicitly stated that I oppose the Kirk-Menendez bill and Netanyahu’s warmongering. Quoting the IAEA in no way implies I’m advocating war against Iran. (In fact, Netanyahu has been dismissive of the IAEA’s findings as insufficiently harsh on Iran.)

You stated: “YOU are the successor of those Zionist Jews whom Truman had to deal with and who led Truman in frustration to make the remarks that he did…” i.e.
“The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered…”
It is outrageous for you to suggest that I don’t care about the lives of non-Jews. Nothing I have posted has even remotely implied that.

“Your true loyalties are entirely transparent.”
Pointing out misleading and/or false statements made about Israel and Jewish people on unz.com in no way implies I’m more loyal to Israel (or to my “tribal interests,” as Giraldi put it) than the US.

Also, my discussion with Fran regarding Zionism started in response to her comment on your approving citation of Truman’s explicitly anti-Semitic remark. Also, note that my replies to her were very brief, whereas you are interrogating me about my opinions on a slew of unrelated issues that would require a significant time expenditure for me to detail.

I will also briefly respond to another misleading statement you made: “The problem is that as of c. 1900 90% of the population of Israel-Palestine was Arab, not Jewish and so an ethnic cleansing project had to be initiated in order to create a Jewish state”
The Jewish partition in the 1947 UN Partition Plan two-state solution, which was rejected by the Arab leadership, was majority Jewish.

Johnny Ive stated: “It would take years for Iran to produce a weapon if it chose to from my understanding, and during this time it will be monitored by the IAEA”
I just wanted to clarify something: I’ve noticed that the discussion of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program has often not made clear the distinction between Iran’s ability to assemble a crude nuclear bomb and Iran’s ability to assemble a nuclear missile. The latter would take at least a year; the former could take as little as a few months:
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Albright_Testimony.pdf

My “bold” html tags did not work in my previous comment, so it’s a bit screwed up.

Fran MacAdam – yes, I agree that Israel is the/a Jewish homeland in the same sense that Japan is the homeland of the Japanese or Italy is the homeland of Italians, etc.

Johnny Ive – the National Interest piece that you cite does not strike me as credible; the author clearly has an agenda, as should be obvious from reading his discussion of Meme 8 and his references to “Iran’s allegedly ‘covert’ behavior,” which he even seems to justify! (see here) Also, he does not appear to cite any IAEA reports, which detail credible concerns of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.

Oscar Peterson, I have no interest in engaging with you on issues unrelated to Giraldi’s article; needless to say, you’ve made a number of false accusations about me based on various anti-Semitic assumptions. Anti-Semites rarely acknowledge that they’re anti-Semitic, so your reaction is entirely predictable, despite that you’ve made several statements that are clearly anti-Semitic according to the US State Dept’s definition of anti-Semitism.

Thomas Meehan, by [sarcastically?] implying that I would consider Postol and Lloyd anti-Semitic, you are engaging in the disingenuous argumentation tactic of attributing false arguments to your adversary. According to the State Dept’s definition of anti-Semitism, it is abundantly clear that there is nothing remotely anti-Semitic in the report published by Postol and Lloyd (and, unsurprisingly, that you have made anti-Semitic statements). btw, here is some commentary on their research, which has been mis-characterized by some media sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world/middleeast/new-study-refines-view-of-sarin-attack-in-syria.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/15/214656/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html
““I honestly have no idea what happened,” Postol said. “My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I’m not sure of anything”…Both said they were not making a case that the rebels were behind the attack, just that a case for military action was made without even a basic understanding of what might have happened.”

Philip Giraldi claims: “Iran has no weapons program. Period.”
See, the problem is your full stop, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Anyone seeking to accurately characterize Iran’s nuclear program would not end that statement with a full stop. “Mr. Panetta said: ‘Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability. And that’s what concerns us.’…In saying that the United States did not have any evidence that Iran was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, Mr. Panetta was hewing closely to the conclusions the often fractious American intelligence agencies agreed upon in 2007 and again in 2010. Two National Intelligence Estimates, designed to reflect the consensus of the intelligence community, concluded that Iranian leaders had made no political decision yet to build an actual weapon. Instead, they described a series of steps that would take Iran right up to that line — and position it to assemble a weapon fairly quickly if a decision to do so were made.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-will-soon-move-uranium-work-underground-official-says.html
“Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb”
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-01-08/iran-nuclear-weapons/52451620/1
I will now repeat the same statement that I’ve made twice, which strings together almost verbatim the two phrases I bolded: US intelligence consensus in early 2012 was that Iran is laying the groundwork for building nuclear weapons in order to give Iran the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon fairly quickly if the Iranian govt decides to do so. My statement is correct, and nothing that you or other unz.com commenters have posted refutes my contention.

“Not wanting to go to war for Israel is not anti-Semitism, it is pro-Americanism.”
Ah, the straw man fallacy. I have not only never expressed support for war in Iran, I explicitly stated above that I oppose the Kirk-Menendez bill but that one’s opposition to it should not be based on misinformation. There are credible concerns that Iran’s nuclear program has military dimensions, as opposed to your misleading, unsupported assertion that “Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Period.”

But you must be challenged when you refer to us as an anti-Semitic enterprise. …Unz.com has a great deal of material posted on it that has nothing to do with Israel or the Middle East
I’m well-aware that unz.com publishes material not relating to Israel or the Middle East, which is why I was careful to say that “unz.com is, to a significant degree, an anti-Semitic enterprise designed to attract anti-Semitic readers.” Interestingly how you omitted any reference to one of Unz’s signature writings: his Myth of American Meritocracy piece, which indeed has nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with “the Jews.” And I wouldn’t know who Ron Unz is (or even The American Conservative!) if it weren’t for that piece.

so I have to believe that you are using the anti-Semite label to discredit the site, an all too typical response from the Netanyahu/neoconservative crowd which you presumably adhere to.
Straw man, once again, especially ironic given that I stated that I don’t support Netanyahu’s policies in the previous comment. And if you think I’m a neoconservative, then I suspect that would make me the only neocon who opposed the Iraq War from day one and even participated in the Cambridge/MIT anti-war protest on March 20, 2003.

Despite my staunch opposition to the Iraq War from day one, I find odious the attempts to blame the war on “the Jews,” by focusing only on the role played by, say, Feith, Perle, and Wolfowitz and not the many other non-Jewish agitators for war (esp since American Jews opposed the war to a greater degree than Americans in general).

I should also have pointed out that many of the most effective and vocal critics of Israel and its policies, to include its criminal treatment of the Palestinians and its incitement to war with Iran, are themselves Jewish. Do you consider them to be anti-Semites or are they self-hating Jews?
According to the US State Dept’s definition of anti-Semitism, “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic,” and I certainly agree with that. Surely, there is much to criticize about Israel and Netanyahu’s war-mongering, settlement expansion, etc.

In any case, I knew that my reference to unz.com as an anti-Semitic enterprise would elicit censure and accusations that I’m pulling the anti-Semitic card in order to discredit unz.com. Of course, the first time* you (Philip) ever responded to my criticism of your writing was with anti-Semitic personal attacks, claiming that “Your fundamental problem is that you place your tribal interests above the broader national interests that most of the rest of us hold dear. The people you are attacking on this site are loyal to the United States while you define yourself in terms of your ethnicity and are passionately attached to a foreign interest.” (See the last item under “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” in the State Dept’s definition of anti-Semitism.) You had no basis on which to accuse me of placing the interests of Jews above the interests of my country, and my interest in combating anti-Semitism in no way suggests that.

*At least, I believe that was the first time.

Fran MacAdam – Zionism is simply the belief that Israel has the right to exist as the Jewish homeland; being a Zionist in no way implies that one supports all of Netanyahu’s policies, the occupation of the West Bank, etc (I, for one, do not).

Oscar Peterson – nothing you have posted contradicts my argument that it is misleading for Giraldi to simply declare that Iran “does not currently have a program to develop nuclear weapons” full stop. Once again, you are citing 2 year old reports – there’s a reason things have come to a head now and not 2 years ago; I’m not going to countenance your choice to ignore the most credible source on the matter – the IAEA’s updated reports on Iran’s nuclear program – simply b/c the current IAEA director happens to be in greater agreement with the US than ElBaradei.

However, both articles you cited buttress my argument that the US intelligence consensus in early 2012 was that Iran is laying the groundwork for building nuclear weapons in order to give Iran the capability to assemble a nuclear weapon fairly quickly if the Iranian govt decides to do so (despite your claims otherwise). The NYT article you cited includes the following quote: “James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon.” It also details criticism of the US intelligence assessment, as well as gaps in our intelligence capabilities in Iran, so it is certainly a helpful source for this discussion. In addition, the LA Times article you cited states: “The most recent report, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, indicates that Iran is pursuing research that could put it in a position to build a weapon, but that it has not sought to do so.” The LA Times article also notes that “some developments have bolstered the view that Iran is secretly pursuing a weapon” and quotes Michael Hayden, the former CIA director: “They are doing everything they can to put themselves in a position so that they have a clear and fairly quick route to a nuclear weapon.”

Oscar, I’m not going to engage with you on a number of diversionary points that you raise that are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is Giraldi’s article that makes the unsupported and misleading assertion that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, as well as my interest in demonstrating that unz.com is, to a significant degree, an anti-Semitic enterprise designed to attract anti-Semitic readers (like you!).