No. It was stuffed with carefully selected quotes expressing fringe anti-semitism from a select few people who Frum identifies as paleo-cons (i.e. the Francis types from "American Renaissance"). Based upon those quotes, Frum extended the attribute of anti-semitism to all the people he identified as "paleo-cons" - a list that included mainstream conservatives such as Novak, factional conservatives, and libertarians, as well as the Sam Francis types. It was an exercise in guilt-by-association tactics, only even the association Frum made was largely fabricated.
The usual definition of "intellectual lightweight" is one who can't back up his statements with facts, and Frum took care to do just that.
No he didn't. Go re-read the thing and see who those blocked quotes are all from. They're practically all Sam Francis, Fleming, and other American Rennaissancer types. The main exception is Lew Rockwell, and he is not a paleo-con but a libertarian who heads up a think tank that advocates the theories of a Jewish economist.
However, in the last decade or so, he has become consistently anti-Israel to the point of opposing any government action, warlike or peaceful, that might help Israel in any way.
So what's your point? As a conservative who fully supports Israel, I have no problem agreeing to disagree with Novak and neither should Frum. That was the point of David Keene's article.
his attitude on the Middle East is that of a paleocon--and he shares their worst traits.
So he's an anti-semite just because he believes in non-intervention on Israel, and even though he is ethnically Jewish himself? The broad leaps of logic you and Frum engage in by making such implications are bizarre at best.