The blogosphere has taken up the Harman scandal and is following many angles of it including the surveillance of a congress member, the relationship to the Bush Administration's illegal wiretapping program and the timing of when the story broke. Another focus has been the identity of the "Israeli agent" in the story. There seems to be a consensus quickly forming that the agent may be Haim Saban, who was mentioned in the 2006 Time article that Phil posted earlier.
If in fact the agent is Saban, there seems to be a belief that this is just another "business as usual in Washington" story (with, of course, the salacious wiretapping angle). Ron Kampeas writes in his story for the JTA:
So, an interlocutor – and, if it was Saban, a major donor – asks Harman to see what she can do to intervene on behalf of [former AIPAC staffers Steve] Rosen and [Ken] Weissman. She says she doesn't think she can do much, but she'll do what she can. So far, congressional business as usual – not pretty, but not illegal.
This thought was hinted at in the original CQ story when Stein quotes someone close to the AIPAC investigation:
“It’s the deepest kind of corruption,” said a recently retired longtime national security official who was closely involved in AIPAC investigation, “which was years in the making.
“It’s a story about the corruption of government — not legal corruption necessarily, but ethical corruption.”
Although the legality of the scandal changes if the "agent" was simply an influential donor, I would argue the scandal is just as large. There is an ongoing debate about how the Israel lobby works in Washington. Even in the most benign version of this Harman story, it is a damning indictment of the intersection of money, influence and power that pro-Israel donors and organizations wield or attempt to wield in Congress. While I don't believe that Saban is following orders from the Israeli government, he is clearly an influential right-wing supporter of Israel who has intimate access in DC. This interview with Ha'aretz is one sign of where he's coming from:
"In matters relating to security, that moved me to the right. Very far to the right."
How far right?
"When there is a terrorist attack, I am [Yisrael Beiteinu party chair Avigdor] Lieberman. Sometimes to the right of Lieberman. For two days I really love Lieberman. But afterward I come back to reality. Look, I don't see a solution today."
The fact that someone with this view has this level of access and influence should be a scandal. It helps explain US policy in Israel/Palestine and is a part of this story regardless of legality.
Related posts:
- ‘CQ’ says Rep. Jane Harman caught on wiretap with suspected Israeli agent discussing AIPAC espionage scandal – and that’s just the beginning!
- Times implicates Saban in the Harman scandal, but not as the ‘Israeli agent’
- Stein calls Harman’s phone-mate ’suspected Israeli double agent’ (No wonder he wants to sell movie rights)
- Is Haim Saban the ’suspected Israeli agent’ scheming with Jane Harman?
- Pelosi enters the picture – new questions raised in Jane Harman scandal
{ 21 comments }
The story is huge no matter who the players are, and I would say that it is a worse situation when American members of an ethnic minority are acting on behalf of a foreign government without foreign agents being involved. An honest person understands that the situation with organized Jewry throws immigration, assimilation and multiculturalism into question.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/jane_harman_and_the_israeli_sp.php
Jane Harman and the Israeli Spy
20 Apr 2009 11:16 am
This story smells a bit funny, and Ron Kampeas points out why:
There are a lot of problems with how this story came about. Its sources seem to have it in for Harman, yet their supposedly damning leaks are rehash – and the story's major news is not about her alleged misdeeds, but that the National Security Agency was listening in on her call, and that the CIA boss wanted to get a tap on her.
Also, the timing, weeks before the trial, is supect, and looks a lot like a desperate late in the game bid to salvage what has become a dog of a case.
Also, Haim Saban is an Israeli spy? Really? He's Israeli, yes, but a spy? This is what is being intimated, at least.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/jane-harman-recorded-on-w_n_188795.html
Jane Harman Recorded On Wiretap Promising to Intervene for AIPAC, Say Sources
You see the source, Huffington Post. What does this say about your recent paranoia about the Huffington Post as an AIPAC dominated publication?
The only dog around the AIPAC spy case is the one sniffing at the smell of it wafting up, the smell
so rancid with how our government does not act in our best interest. And the MSM covers it up. Why hasn't this case ever reached a TV talking head debate on prime time? No other ethnic group
would be immune. Issues of document classification, of back-door intelligence theft, indirect bribery of our representatives, etc.
Witty, covering .01% of a massive, years old, ongoing scandal that has touched nearly the entire Washington political establishment and most of the mainstream media hardly exculpates any publication. Of course, you know this, but apparently consider Weiss and/or his readers to be stupid.
"http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/04/jane_harman_and_the_israeli_sp.php
Jane Harman and the Israeli Spy
20 Apr 2009 11:16 am
This story smells a bit funny, and Ron Kampeas points out why:
There are a lot of problems with how this story came about. Its sources seem to have it in for Harman, yet their supposedly damning leaks are rehash…"
****
"Comments on this entry have been closed."
I smell fear.
I'm not ready to put too much faith in details until this story has been more thoroughly investigated. There is a lot of speculation occurring before reliable data is available. We don't know if the 'Israeli agent' was Haim Saban. Even if he were, we do not know how the monitoring government entity actually designated him. 'Israeli agent' could merely be how the reporter or leaker chose to describe him.
It appears, hopefully accurately, that someone in counter-intelligence has the stones to trace Israel-firster espionage wherever the trail leads. AIPAC and other Lobby operatives are likely getting nervous when even a sitting Congresswoman is taped. It may hinder their illegal activities to some degree.
The issue of 'surveillance of a congress member' is a red herring. The only issue is whether it was done legally. There is no evidence thus far that it was Representative Harmon who was initially surveilled, rather than her interlocutor, or that anything illegal was done by anyone other than Rep. Harmon or the alleged 'Israeli spy'. Members of Congress are NOT above the law, even if they are Lobby operatives. If the details of this story released thus far are accurate, then she damn well better have become a surveillance target after her brazen offer to obstruct legal proceedings of the Department of Justice of the United States of American on behalf of a foreign power. If not, there is more wiretapping to be done.
********************************************
@ Richard Witty | April 20, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Also, the timing, weeks before the trial, is supect, …
The timing of the allegations is irrelevant, only their veracity.
… and looks a lot like a desperate late in the game bid to salvage what has become a dog of a case.
A dog of a case according to whom? I recall hearing myriad similar protestations of prosecutorial futility before 'Pooperscooper' Libby went to trial, and he was convicted by a jury of his peers without undue fuss. Propaganda and wishful thinking distributed by the punditry to the faithful to keep their spirits up before the moment of truth have no power once the gavel falls and actual evidence is upon the table. In spite of the staggering damage control and deference done and shown by Lobby operatives and sympathizers such as former United States Attorney Paul McNulty and Judge Ellis, the charges look very much alive. We'll see starting 28 May, assuming that yet another delay is not granted by Judge Ellis for yet another spurious reason.
USA v. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman ("The AIPAC Case"): Selected Case Files
"The lady (or actually the Z-team in this case) doth protest too much, methinks."
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let it shine!
RE: "In matters relating to security, that moved me [Saban] to the right. Very far to the right."
FROM MATTHEW IGLESIAS (06-10-07):
If you're interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there's no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with Haaretz:
"When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."
SOURCE – http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/06/haim_saban.php
HAARETZ INTERVIEW – http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
RE: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let it shine!"
In 1913 [future] Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, a forceful proponent for open government, stated "Sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman".
@ DICKERSON3870
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman".
–
Great quote, and so true.
"Of course, you know this, but apparently consider Weiss and/or his readers to be stupid."
Posted by: Ed | April 20, 2009 at 01:01 PM
I don't know about Weiss, but ED is living proof that many of his readers are stupid.
Quick, shine a light on LT. Is he dead?
Let's be specific shall we.
First it doesn't matter if it was Saban, the 'donor' or not.
Second…and interesting..is that all officials being quoted who heard the tape referred to the person on the other end as an Israel "AGENT".
Third..and obvious…is that if it was Saban they obviously have something on him that indicates they consider him a 'Israeli AGENT'.
Soooooo…the only thing about who was talking to Harman on that tape is that whoever it was now knows that the FBI,CIA,NSA consider him a "Agent for Israel"…if he didn't already know that.
You are going to have people like Josh Mashall throwing everything but the kitchen sink into this tale in an effort to deflect from the real story of US congresspeople once again conspiring to act for Israel and the lobby or their own political ambition in a quid pro quo for a foreign country 's or jewish interest.
That is the story. Period.
Every time we have a Jewish or Israeli traitor story pop up the jews get scared and go into hysterics trying to make the story abut something else.
Which begs the question…if the jews get so hysterical and afraid of the anti semitism their spies and/or agents cause every time one of them is outed why don't they just quit doing what they do?
Seems like a simple solution to me.
Kampeas's paraphasing of the tape is a joke….
"So, an interlocutor – and, if it was Saban, a major donor – asks Harman to see what she can do to intervene on behalf of [former AIPAC staffers Steve] Rosen and [Ken] Weissman. She says she doesn't think she can do much, but she'll do what she can. So far, congressional business as usual – not pretty, but not illegal."
Because I can guarentee you Kampeas isn't privy to the tape and hasn't heard it.
Of course it's "a dog of a case."
The President of the United States has just announced that you can waterboard someone 183 times–so long as they are Arab–and this is not a crime.
Todd: IMO an honest person starts by understanding that one can't deny legitimacy to organizations based on the identity of their members. One can deny legitimacy to the message, to the actions and to the ideals of an organization. Go back to basic principles: your position appears to be that you wish to deny people who are Jewish the freedom to organize and speak out on issues. The lack of balance in such a view complicates an issue not easily understood from the outside, in any event, which is the problem of lobby influence within the US government.
Those of you who find it so easy to use 'jews' as a subject need to consider how valuable it would be for your ability to persuade if time was spent defining what is being protested, rather than succumbing to the ease of such slothful habits.
As others have noted, the pro-militant Israel lobby is but one of a number that influence US policy to the detriment of the people in the US and in the world. If skillfully developed, this could provide not just a crack in the Likud Lobby's power, but in the system that supports lobbying of the US government.
Margaret, you didn't really address what I posted. Instead, you rely on generalizations and accusations of bigotry and stupidity. If that's your opinion, fine. But don't call me slothful and bigoted.
Of course Jews organize themselves politicaly along ethinc lines, and as a group, they have largely support what is good for Israel, no matter what the consequences are for the United States. Good luck debating otherwise. My point is that the ethinc lobbying, whether it is Jewish, Chinese, Mexican, or otherwise should be watched closely, and should put the issue of immigration under a microscope.
Disagree if you want, but recent Chinese spying, Israeli/Jewish influence peddling, and Mexican/Latino illegal immigration (along with the crime and societal rot it brings)are more than the generalizations of a slothful and uninformed bigot.
@Margaret
This is positively wrong for most commenters here, myself included. Any other ethic entity would have been addressed far more unambiguous if exerting similar pressure on members of congress.
Zogby Poll shows that the overwhelming majority of US say that AIPAC should be asked to register as an agent of a foreign government and lose its tax-exempt status. You see: preferential treatment of AIPAC and rich Zionist donors might yield short term gain for Israel but over time cause resentment in the American public.
Actually, Todd the perspective you add was not clear, and answers the question of apparently specifying Jewish lobbying to the exclusion of other groups: "My point is that the ethinc lobbying, whether it is Jewish, Chinese, Mexican, or otherwise should be watched closely, and should put the issue of immigration under a microscope."
I don't agree that this necessarily means that "that the situation with organized Jewry throws immigration, assimilation and multiculturalism into question." However, I agree the question of ethnic interests uniting to motivate public policy in a way not necessarily beneficial to the State is one to keep an eye on.
I note with concern that people from many of the countries in which there is unrest do urge action by the US on the part of one or another interest in those other countries, which I consider highly problematic, even though understanding that it is current US state policy to choose one side or the other and act, either covertly or overtly. It is something I consider problematic enough to question in other forums; developing one's presentation takes some thought and greater familiarity with the subject matter than I yet have.
Yet still I would consider the problem to be one of lobbying in general, rather than one of ethnic lobbying in particular. The influence of other home grown lobbies have warped public policy severely over the last growth period. What is going on with the economy is lobby driven. Revision of public and private health provision and insurance is going to get very nasty; the addition of pharmaceutical interests pretty much guarantee severe stress to all parties concerned including the tax payers. I don't see ethnic influence as a singular issue, while still considering it important.
It is my humble opinion that you have not proven your conclusion that multiculturalism, immigration and assimilation are brought into question by lobbying, even of powerful ethnic groups.
Dom, I'm going to let all the contradictions colliding in my mind settle down before I respond to you. Mutters …issues of ethnicity are so d*mn complicated, particularly if one is on the outside, and should have the sense, but does not, to keep foot out of mouth.
I wish I hadn't already used Alex's quote.
Comments on this entry are closed.