Continuing to provide a shelter to neocons, The Washington Post publishes a foolish piece of disinformation by Gary Wasserman saying that there is no such thing as the Israel lobby, and that American Jews don’t feel loyalty to Israel. The author argues that the government’s case against the AIPAC lobbyists, now dropped, reflected anti-Semitism. And the Israel lobby– which the Post continues to fail to describe to its readers honestly (I’m sure they’re bashing the health insurers as a powerful lobby this week)– is a conspiracy theory.
Wasserman’s argument is precisely reminiscent of the claim by Communists and their sympathizers that the federal cases against various Communists in the 30s-50s were baseless. It represents ideological blindness.
After years and millions of dollars spent investigating the nefarious "Israel Lobby," the case produced no stolen secrets, no money changing hands, no covert meetings, no high-level, dual-loyal officials, no harm to the national interest and no spies. Pardon me, but where’s the corned beef?
If a powerful lobby threatens national security, shouldn’t the patriotic supporters of that organization be informed of the evidence? Or if government officials have allowed prejudice to covertly victimize innocent people shouldn’t that behavior be made transparent? Or, if an important ally is using ethnic ties to turn supporters into spies, shouldn’t the public know?
Of course the case hasn’t been all bad for conspirators. The same year AIPAC fired its lobbyists, it used the troubles to raise a record $45 million. And having opponents exaggerate a lobby’s power ends up enhancing that power.
Both the FBI and AIPAC have to be pleased to see this case go away; one to conceal mistakes and biases, the other to hide weakness and disloyalty to its own.
I like that last phrase. Disloyalty to its own? What does that mean? Disloyalty to who? To AIPAC? Rosen was passing along supposed information about an Iranian threat to the Israelis. Wasn’t he being perfectly loyal?
Oh, apparently my IQ has dropped already; Mark explains it to me:
the obvious meaning is "disloyalty to Rosen and the other guy, whats-his-name." AIPAC, in a legal sense, abandoned Rosen and what’s-his-name, and Wasserman sees that as "disloyalty." Rosen and what’s-his-name, of course, were loyal to AIPAC, including in his actions in passing info to Israel–that’s what AIPAC pretty much paid them to do. Therefore, Wasserman says AIPAC was disloyal in failing to support them legally and financially when they got in trouble for doing what AIPAC wanted and paid them to do. AIPAC, of course, saw the issue as one of survival for AIPAC, thus, better that one (or two) should be tossed overboard than that the whole org should perish. In a manner of speaking.