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?
