The other day the Washington Post editorial page–which I am harping on because it has been on the pro-neocon track at least since declaring that the Iraq war was "essential to American security"– ran an editorial urging the Justice Department to drop the "misguided" espionage case against former AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.
The editorial was followed by this statement: "Do you have a different view of this issue? Debate a member of the editorial board in the Editorial Judgment discussion group."
Grant Smith does have a different view. He is the director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy and a sharp critic of the Israel lobby. I like Smith because he has shown that back in the early '60s AIPAC's predecessor organization, the American Zionist Council, was being pursued by the Kennedy Justice Department to register under the Foreign Agents registration act. The lobbyists knew that having to register as foreign agents would hurt the effort to maintain Israel's necessary support from the superpower. So AIPAC was started, and it has always escaped such designation.
Smith, a lucid and forceful writer, put together an Op-Ed on the Rosen/Weissman case urging that it not be dropped. It was of course rejected by the Post. Wrote an editorial aide, "Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for your recent op-ed submission. The column was carefully reviewed, but unfortunately The Post is not able to publish this piece."
Smith has posted it at that link. Here are some excerpts:
Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman would harm the public interest. In 2005 the
two staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) were
indicted along with Colonel Lawrence Franklin for alleged violations of the 1917
Espionage Act. Franklin has since received a fine and prison sentence.
Important questions surrounding Rosen and Weissman's alleged involvement in
obtaining and distributing classified information are unresolved. The
Washington Post editorial board and many others have called for dismissal of the
charges as threats to freedom of the press and against government secrecy. This
is misguided. Dismissing the trial would actually contribute to government
secrecy while delaying critical questions about lobbying and freedom of speech.
The Department of Justice would be seen as granting a special backroom deal.
That perception is warranted since AIPAC partly owes its existence to
government secrets….
Shutting down the US v Rosen
and Weissman trial before it even begins would again short circuit AIPAC
accountability. Far from rolling back government secrets, it would create more
at a time public confidence is already in tatters. Did the AIPAC lobbyists
cross a red line in their advocacy activities? Is the Espionage Act obsolete?
Was there an improper effort to leverage classified information into US military
action against Iran? Does the US government over classify information? Are the
media and public manipulated by lobbyists selectively trafficking secrets?
These are important questions that only a long overdue public trial can
answer.
It looks like we're really going to debate the Israel lobby at last. americans have a right to know about these issues, which cost us billions and have distorted our foreign policy. Will it be a robust debate, or a controlled one?
#1 – There is no Israel lobby to debate.
#2 – Rosen did not commit espionage.
#3 – WPost is right to ask the gov't to end the waste of taxpayers money by stopping this useless case.
I've noticed that you have still refused to post the so-called secret information that Rosen freely gave away for which he is now being charged.
If Mr. Rosen didn't commit espionage, you should be happy that there will be a trial where his detractors can be publicly exposed as frauds.
Anti-semitism does not exist except as a figment of diseased minds.
Rosen is a traitor, as is his buddy.
WPost is an arm of AIPAC.
The information is classified. Whether or not it is over-classified is an issue in the indictment, you moron.
" I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel.
We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001
Audie –
I presume you are joking (or have a diseased mind).
If you don't believe anti-Jewish behaviour doesn't exist, try dressing as a religious Jew for a month and see if you change your mind.
And, so the WPost is an "arm of AIPAC"? Also hogwash. Any paper that has anything good to say about Jews or Israel in your mind is a tool of AIPAC. I presume that every other paper in the country is a tool of CAIR.
Isn't Audie an endearment for Adolph?
Should AIPAC Decide What's Classified?
by Grant F. Smith
http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/should-aipac-decide-whats-classified.html
Colin made the point: let it go to trial, let the jury decide on the case with the appropriate evidence.
PS Didn't Lawrence Franklin already get convicted and wasn't he involved with both Rosen and Weissman?
RabbiChosenOne wrote:
"" I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel.
We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it." Ariel Sharon October 3, 2001."
I think it's been pretty clearly shown that Sharon never said that, with its initial U.S. popularizer, the journalist Georgie Anne Geyer, having even admitted same if I'm not mistaken, and apologized for disseminating it so widely. She seems to have picked it up from some arab-language media in the Middle-East as a reported exchange between Sharon and some other Israeli in a Knesset debate. And my clear recollection is that it has absolutely and clearly been shown to have never been uttered, nor even any minor variation of it. Made up out of whole cloth.
It was allegedly said in the Israeli form of congress, so, given our MSM, we will never know anyway. Similarly, the AIPAC guy who said he could jot down the name of most of our congressmen who are in AIPAC's pocket on a napkin. Did the gas chambers really exist?
"I think it's been pretty clearly shown that Sharon never said that, with its initial U.S. popularizer, the journalist Georgie Anne Geyer, having even admitted same if I'm not mistaken, and apologized for disseminating it so widely. She seems to have picked it up from some arab-language media in the Middle-East as a reported exchange between Sharon and some other Israeli in a Knesset debate. And my clear recollection is that it has absolutely and clearly been shown to have never been uttered, nor even any minor variation of it. Made up out of whole cloth."
My guess is that you're picking and chosing things like this. I'm sure when Ahmedinejad was quoted as saying that he wanted to push Israel to the sea, you did your research and discovered that the English interpretation was incorrect and he never uttered those words. Or will you to choose to ignore this fact as it does not fit your argument.
My guess is the person who quoted Sharon was pressured to recant this statement by somebody with the ability to strong arm her. I however yet to see anyone recant the fact that the Iranian president never said what he was misquoted as saying.
Yes, let it go to trial.
Regarding Sharon … Didn't talk about controlling America … simply pretty much did control government actions with respect to Israel and the Middle East. As does Israel, with its tools in America, to this day.
Oh, and let us not forget that Sharon was a significant war criminal. The victims of the holocaust grew up to be just like their abusers.
"A federal court this week ruled that J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office, may testify for the defense in the long-running prosecution of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) who are charged with illicitly receiving and transmitting classified information that prosecutors say is protected from disclosure."
link to fas.org
With Leonard testifying it's over.
What Phil neglected to mention is Grant Smith is an Anti Israel nut.
I'm not surprised that an Israel hater like Phil would be a supporter of Grant Smith.
Sharon's family and the Begin family came from the same village in Poland. Sharon was born in palestine and joined the Irgun in 1942. In fact I read that Sharon's grandmother was Menachem Begin's midwife.
one unexpected thing that has happened is that as newspapers lose money they are actually getting LAMER, desperately trying to bring back the past or satisfy the few backers they still have. why else would the boston globe continue to run jeff jacoby's horrible column? you figure they would be doing everything they can to stay alive but it's like they just can't bring themselves to do it
Rick, initially I thought it was only an internet hoax, when I first came accross it. I expect to be given precise checkable sources, and this tale is both long-living and usually the source is missing. The story was allegedly reported on Kol Yisrael radio, but only the day but not the broadcast was given. Which made me slightly suspicious.
But it seems much more part of the info-war between Israel and Palestine. If it is deliberately planted, its well chosen, we can't trace the source. I wrote an email to Kol Yisrael radio, who supposedly broadcast it. It would have helped, had they answered e.g.: We had no broadcast from the Knesset that day. But they ignored my question. I traced a couple of Israel related hoaxes, mainly when they concerned people, but with this I wasn't lucky, since Kol Yisrael never answered my mail.
Here it is the version, that give an incomplete source, as I found at the time, still on the net:
Here's Camera's report, which concentrates only on Geyer:
Bottom line, I would use it, simply since I can't check the source. Which makes me very, very suspicious in spite of the non-reply from Israel. And one careful distinguish between info and disinfo in this field.
This catches my attention in leaving, second to last line:
,I would use it,
correction: I wouldn't use it, neither would I distribute it. I can't check the source.
"In 1942 at the age of 14, Sharon joined the Gadna, a paramilitary youth battalion, and later the Haganah, the underground paramilitary force and the Jewish military precursor to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)."
Byers,
Sharon joined the Haganah, which was NOT a terrorist organization. Its not necessary to lie about the man.
Excuse me, Mr pseudo 'Fenton', but there is an obvious error of logic in this statement:
If you don't believe anti-Jewish behaviour doesn't exist, try dressing as a religious Jew for a month and see if you change your mind.
Since you appear to be a victim of what I called a few days ago 'learned stupidity', I shall explain it to you: not only are you assuming that dislike of all Jews can be inferred from dislike of 'religious Jews'; you are even assuming that all 'religious Jews' wear the penguin garb ('pinguinim' is the Israeli hebrew slang)
so witty, you admit that the irgun was a bunch of bad guys. that's progress. begin was irgun and so was emanuel rahm's father. bad guys, maybe even war criminals!!
witty, by the way, arik Sharon was possibly the most despicable human on the planet for some time. let's talk blood on the hands……
dear witty. i liked your comment on the ha'aretz article re: unity palesinian govt.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1070949.html
Regarding Sharon's quote to his fellow Knesset members: the fact is that Georgie Anne Geyer has always explicity stood by her quote, even in the face of a massive CAMERA campaign to pressure the publishers of her columns. Knowing how CAMERA works, this is good enough evidence for me.
(Besides, anyone who needs this quotation to know how Israelis feel about their U.S. benefactors will probably never understand the situation anyway.)
Looking a little further into the business of this alleged Sharon quote my recollection turns out right that Geyer first reported it in the Chicago Tribune, but she is syndicated I think so it went broader. Anyway, per Wikipedia when the quote came out complaints were made to the Tribune saying that while the story went that Sharon's words were broadcast on Kol Israel radio, Kol Israel said that they hadn't had any such broadcast that day, which as I understand it has yet to be refuted.
Anyway in the end the Tribune said that Geyer had gotten the story from the Islamic Association for Palestine. And from there the Tribune issued a statement saying that while Sharon's statement had been reported in the arab media, it could not be verified. I still seem to recall seeing or hearing Geyer essentially withdrawing the claim and apologizing for using it, but I can't find any cite to same so perhaps I was wrong and she still stands by it. Or maybe she feels that her paper's response saying that it can't be stood by is her response too; I don't know.
In any event I wasn't trying to grind any axe when I raised this initially; just interested in accuracy and didn't care which way it cut.
It reminds me of the long interview Amos Oz did with an anonymous right-wing leader who came over exactly like an Afrikaner; it was widely rumoured that this was none other than Arik himself, but Oz eventually denied this, without saying who it really was.
"Kol Israel said that they hadn't had any such broadcast that day, which as I understand it has yet to be refuted."
Yes, Kol Israel claimed that their prime minister did not insult the United States. But they would say that wouldn't they?
"Anyway in the end the Tribune said that Geyer had gotten the story from the Islamic Association for Palestine."
I'm afriad this is not true either. Please provide links for your assertions when you can.
"… her paper's response saying that it can't be stood by"
I'm not aware of any of her papers ever saying this. Are you just making this stuff up on the spot?
If one is encouraged to say that the police should not be investigating possible police wrongdoings, the evidence is tenfold that Jews shouldn't be allowed to investigate Jews.
In response to my last post D wrote:
"I'm afriad [sic] this [the assertion that the Tribune said that Geyer had gotten the story from the IAP] isn't true either. Please provide links for your assertions when you can."
Well I did cite Wikipedia, but didn't provide the link so here it is if you don't know what Wikipedia is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgie_Anne_Geyer
That said, I'll even admit that I still don't know for a verity that this is what the Trib said, only that this is what Wiki says it said. Good enough?
And in the same vein that Wiki article also expressly says that the Trib did later say that the quote could not be verified, so no, I'm not making this stuff up. Nor on the other hand am I saying that either Wiki or the Trib are beyond question. I was just relaying what they said.
Again, I don't have any axe here; I just saw the initial post quoting Sharon as if everyone accepted that same was indeed uttered when I knew it had been vigorously contested. I admit I don't know if Kol Israel lied or would have lied, or whether Geyer is an alien from Mars or whatever. But I do know that it's more than a little paranoid to suspect every statement by every poster that seems to go against one's political inclinations as being deviously, falsely made. Yeesh.
You knew that the Post went off the deep end into Neocon waters when it published Teaching Arabic and Propaganda.
The Post nonsense probably relates to need for credit.
Rupert Murdoch veered into extremist Zionism when he found that he would get the credit he needed to build his media empire if it would strongly support the State of Israel.
so witty, you admit that the irgun was a bunch of bad guys. that's progress. begin was irgun and so was emanuel rahm's father. bad
This crosses my personal red lines. The Nazis had a practice of collective punishment, kind liability or Sippenhaft the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to respective women.
I cut a longer note, but maybe I should leave part of it:
My best friend in schooldays was the daughter of a Nazi party member. Her mother distributed the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to respective women. A real law and order women, a tyrant in the house with careful attention on surfaces: decorum and rules about fit behavior.
The bottom line is: There are two people that shape you and not always there is a straight line.
OK, I return to my book. Seems a bad day: kin liability
something got confused here. Nentally delete: the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to respective women. in the first paragraph.
Gone for good!
Sin: my starting assumption is that any assertions made by CAMERA are indeed deviously, falsely made.
Since you apparently did not read the link I provided, I'll quote a little of it here:
… But according to CAMERA, Kol Yisrael broadcast nothing of the sort. CAMERA E-mailed Dold the cell phone number of the Kol Yisrael political correspondent who would say so and E-mailed its members (it claims 45,000) instructions to write Geyer and her Universal Press Syndicate editor and demand either substantiation or a correction.
CAMERA got neither. At the urging of Dold, Universal Press did release an "editor's note" that the Tribune published on June 14. It said the "I control America" quote had been "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."
This was too weasel worded for CAMERA. Again it told its members to write Geyer and the syndicate, this time "to protest their refusal to candidly and honestly set the record straight." And if members had time, they should also tell the editors of the handful of papers that had carried Geyer's column that she'd lost her credibility on the Middle East. …
"I spent at least two full days checking it out," she says. "I found a number of Israeli diplomats — foreign diplomats in Israel — who said they'd read it in Ha'aretz. But the fact is, I could not pin down the event. I can't get the original sources. I don't have the right kind of inner-sanctum contacts in the cabinet. So that's why we decided to run the clarification."
No retraction, no "not standing by", from either Geyer or the Tribune, despite the standard CAMERA pressure campaign.
Be careful using Wikipedia for any subject relating to Israel.
In Re: "'so witty, you admit that the irgun was a bunch of bad guys. that's progress. begin was irgun and so was emanuel rahm's father. bad.
This crosses my personal red lines. The Nazis had a practice of collective punishment, kind liability or Sippenhaft the Cross of Honor of the German Mother to respective women.:"
LeaNder, please clarify. What does the Cross of the German Mother have to do with the terror organization irgun and rahm's daddy?
RE: "If you don't believe anti-Jewish behaviour doesn't exist, try dressing as a religious Jew for a month and see if you change your mind."
Try coexisting in Postville Iowa with orthodox jews. Check out what living kosher means by reading that book about the kosher plant there, written by a jew;he ended up finding the penquins unbearable as neighbors. The feds have found them a bit distasteful too. Read Clash Of Cultures In The Heartland.
I read the book citizen is referring to, by Bloom. My take is similar to this one I found at Amazon: "The Lubavitchers, with their unconcealed attitudes of superiority, their rufusal to moderate even some of their behaviors in deference to local custom (even behaviors that don't infringe at all on their beliefs, such as keeping their yards neat or refraining from attempting to bargain prices at the stores, which the townsfolk see as insulting) and their complete disinterest in having any sort of relationship with the people they are living alongside, consistently show no inclination at all to try to get along. And Bloom, as a Jew and an outsider, ultimately chooses the path of trying to fit in over that of flaunting his difference. He chooses as his role model Doc Wolf, the legendary doctor of Postville and surrounding areas who for over 60 years doctored the locals, delivered babies and made housecalls, with most people unaware that he was Jewish and those who did not caring."