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.
