If someone at Brti Tzedek or Peace Now were given that info I’m sure they would have done the same thing. As would anyone. Someone tells you they have information that someone is planning to attack and kill Americans and Israelis and hopes you can help get this info to people in the Administration. What do you do? I don’t see how I could ignore that.
Unlike AIPAC, however, the other orgs probably wouldn’t be so chickensh*t as to turn their backs on these guys.

I think it is accurate. What would be inaccurate would be to describe him as an Israeli spy. That he was not. He gave his secrets to very high-level AIPAC members. And they took them.
Unless you are presuming the innocence of Rosen and Weissman. If so, that is good for the courtroom, but would you personally care to take a bet on the verdict?

TM,
You asked,
“Did anybody from Israel recruit him?”
How dare you! See point four again. As I said before, Israel had nothing to do with this debacle. Certain NeoCons think they know best. For a change. But it will hurt Israel none the less. I think that is terribly unfortunate.
“Did AIPAC recruit him?”
No. Many of us get jobs or volunteer for organizations without being “recruited.” We still become workers or volunteers without an ad in the paper or a phone call or email inviting us to join. You don’t need to be “recruited” for it to be working for an organization.
Why are you defending these guys? They screwed up. It was subversion. How can you defend this sh-t?

ITS NOT PARANOIA, JUST READ WHAT SOME OF THE ARAB APOLOGISTS ARE SAYING. (SIC).

I dunno. Maybe I am being nit picky. But in order to be a spy, don’t you have to spy for someone? Look at any definition of spy anywhere:
Wordnet:
“a secret agent hired by a state to obtain information about its enemies or by a business to obtain industrial secrets from competitors”
Wikipedia:
“Espionage is the practice of obtaining secrets (spying) from rivals or enemies for military, political, or economic advantage. It is usually thought of as part of an organized effort (i.e., governmental or corporate). A spy is an agent employed to obtain such secrets. The definition has been restricted to a state spying on potential or actual enemies, primarily for military purposes, but this has been extended to spying involving corporations, known specifically as industrial espionage”
So uh… Dave, don’t get upset when people point out the lack of nuance in your title. I think nuance is going to have to be my word of the month.

Bupkes? You call “conspiracy to provide classified information to a foreign agent and to other unauthorized persons” bupkes? That’s apparently not bupkes. That’s apparently conspiracy. If you strike a deal and “cooperate.”

Charles, don’t sell your restraint short. I’m sure CK and TM appreciate the fact that you avoided the “S” word. It’s not like they will seek to minimize a crime committed just because it involves the most famous and powerful American Zionist lobby no matter how incontrovertible the evidence. They’re not like that. If it were a Muslim lobby (of an ally, like say Jordan or Pakistan) who had been involved in the same sort of crime, and I had called the criminal a “spy” (and I would most assuredly have made the same “mistake” if writing about it, you can rest assured of that! And don’t pretend I wouldn’t have minded, TM!) CK and TM would have been right there to correct me. Because it’s all about nuanced language for these guys. They wouldn’t want a corresponding Muslim “conspirator” who was guilty of passing “bupkes” to get hit too hard, nor would they want the Muslim lobby group to suffer from an “overzealous FBI.” investigation.”
Give some credit where it’s do, Charles.

Andyou, TM, as usual, try to pack me into some nice and neat radical left, anti-Israel package. Only now do you drop that part of it, refusing to discuss that specific part of your attack, even as you refuse to apologize for doing so. But you aren’t known to retract anything, no matter how off you are. Do you think you are fooling anyone by acting so boldly?
You wrote,
“However, you, for months now, have been attacking AIPAC and these two men as if they are not only evil but as if they are causing major harm to the Jewish community.”
This will, and already has, caused major harm to the Jewish community. It may get much worse. Why exactly are they being charged, according to you, since you are stillsuggesting they did nothing wrong? Isn’t that what you are suggsting?
You wrote,
“Those two AIPAC workers, under their own auspices and without any connection to AIPAC”
What are you talking about? These guys were high up. They were not exactly interns, were they? Do you think anything “workers” do in an organization or business usually have no effect on the reputation or responsibility of that business or organization? Cause that’s hardly the case generally. In fact, companies are libel for the actions of much, much lower level employees.
You wrote,
“Once again, your take on how Jews should be afraid to do anything lest it might anger the non-Jews is clouding your views.”
And your Zionism isn’t clouding yours? AIPAC was doing very, very well, according to their own goals. This changes things, and for the worse. Not just according to what I want, but according to what they want. It was a very bad risk.
You are probably going to have to accept that, TM. And that’s not my fault, nor my headlines fault.

I’m getting my information from general articles that have been published in the American and Israeli press. Where are you getting your info from?
The FBI was apparently tapping and monitoring AIPAC for a couple of years before they did their sting. They obviously got nothing or there would have been no need for a set-up. And yet, folks, that’s what this was…a set-up. So use your heads and admit that if anybody had anything on AIPAC, it would be out there already.
As for the nature of the “crime,” that has also been spelled out. We know exactly what the information the FBI fed Franklin to feed the AIPAC guys was. We know its nature and we know what they did subsequently, including contacting the White House. Wow, super spies indeed calling the WH with this info.
As for AIPAC not doing as well as they were previously because of this incident. Hmmmm, that’s where I see the conspiracy and it’s funny that you don’t. This was a blatant set up after years of monitoring and somehow AIPAC gets caught up in a charge that suggests dual loyalty. Of course, there was nothing institutional or the organization would have been charged or information would have been leaked JUST AS IT WAS ABOUT FRANKLIN, ROSEN and WEISSMAN.
Oh, and what neat anti-Israel package do I wrap you into, Kelsey? I wrap you neatly into the weak-willed, afraid-of-showing-their-tzitzit, self-flagellating camp of shtetl Jew. What does that have to do with Israel? You attacked AIPAC as if it is an organization that is harmful to Jews, to Jewish interests and that should be weakened and removed from the scene. For months now you have tried to make a link – the same link that I see made on extreme Right and Jew hating sources – about AIPAC, this “spy” affair, and the negative impact organizations such as AIPAC have upon Jews in the USA. Then, when you post a bullshit headline that informs us clearly of YOUR bias and get called on it, suddenly you start weeping about how harsh and unfair it is that you are attacked for it.
Get this clear:
I have no idea how you feel about Israel. This is not about that.
I have a clear idea of how you feel about AIPAC because of your previous posts. This commentary is about that.
I don’t have a clue whether Rosen and Weissman are guilty or not. For all I know, they may be. The information in the media thus far suggests they were set up and their response may have been to some degree foolish but certainly understandable. It also seems that AIPAC as an institution was not involved at any level. If that is false, it will come out during the trial.
I’m waiting for the trial. I haven’t learned anything yet about Jews, Jewish organizations, lobbying, Israel or anything of the sort to be able to declare any of this an AIPAC spying affair. You, for some reason, feel very confident doing so. And so I challenged you. I notice that other than more innuendo, you really have no factual claims to back up your assertions. I’ll wait until the Rosen Weissman trials in April before I come to any conclusions.

TM,
You wrote,
“It also seems that AIPAC as an institution was not involved at any level. If that is false, it will come out during the trial.”
Wrong. It has already come out. The two men on trial were removed from AIPAC because of their links to AIPAC. They would not have been removed if they were working as cashiers for Walmart, because as cashiers for Walmart, they would not have implicated the company by their actions in any way, shape or form. I am not saying that the executive director for AIPAC was involved. I am saying that AIPAC is still on some level in the dog house, because contrary to what you are said, they were, in fact, working under AIPAC auspices, and so was their “work.”
You said,
“As for AIPAC not doing as well as they were previously because of this incident. Hmmmm, that’s where I see the conspiracy and it’s funny that you don’t.”
I don’t deny it. But I’m not the one who genuinely thinks that what is good for the U.S. is good for Israel, which leads to these problems in the first place. That would be guys like you, and Weisman and Rosen.
I could have told you it doesn’t work like that before. Oh wait, I did, and you called me very nasty names. So do you still want to tell me that I am a moron for believing that what is good for israel and what is good for the U.S. may not be the same on any given policy? Would you at least allow that not everyone in power, in say, the F.B.I. or the White House, will see it that way?
Or should we continue on the belief that Israel and the U.S. are one and the same, and rest comfortably that everyone else will also see it that way? By all means, don’t listen to me. Keep going, my proud Zionist.
How’s it working for you?

DK: Companies are only liable (not libel) for the acts of their employees if the acts at issue were done in the furtherance of their employment, ie if it was what they were hired to do. And that’s a standard used in tort law. In a criminal matter, the standard would be even harder to meet. As far as your notion that our insistence on nuance would only be of benefit to Jews and not to Muslims – that’s wild conjecture supported by no evidence. Also the two scenarios you compare and contrast are not similar. One involves a state that is America’s staunchest ally and the other involves a religion. If the facts were the same or even similar, I’d be more concerned about the civil rights implications of an over zealous FBI investigation than I would of the nationalities of the individuals involved. We get all hot and bothered, and rightly so, about the unprecedented powers given to the government by Homeland Security with agents extrajudiciously tapping phone lines etc. but then this comes along and all of a sudden you are singing the praises of the government position. At least I know that my position, uncolored by ideological perogatives, is consistent.
Oh and Charles? Give Cindy my sincerest apologies for causing her son’s death by mere dint of the fact that I exist here in Israel.

Take a look at Ha’aretz, in the diplomacy section: “AIPAC Spy Case” is what it says right next to the article.

Hey,
This all still started with Franklin, right? So how does it happen that Franklin is the patriot, but those to whom he leaked his classified information are the spies he gets to help prosecute in exchange for a reduced sentence? Mary full of grace! It’s like the Medellin cartel getting off light for helping bust the mules.

“In sentencing Franklin, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the facts of the case led him to believe that Franklin was motivated primarily by a desire to help the United States, not hurt it.”
Is Ellis a jew???

test

Betrayal: “Is Ellis a jew???”
Neither Larry Franklin nor Judge T.S. Ellis III are Jews (FYI, you won’t see many Roman numerals following Jewish names).

Great, let’s blame AIPAC for stuff and blame Israel or US support for Israel for the Iraq war. Hmmm, we must be having a progressive discussion.

all you young whippersnappers ought to use spell check or something–and as for going around and around and around. Rachmones, please. None of you is changing anyone’s mind about anything, and you are certainly not going to change what’s happening to Franklin, et al.
This whole thing was a set-up from start to finish. Period.
And Hubris is the cause of the downfall of the arrogant.
So, patience, everyone. There must be much more here than meets the eye and things will take time to play themselves out.

“one” not “once”

I don’t see any connection between Wolfowitz’s Zionism and his support for the war with Iraq. I haven’t seen it previously, and certainly even this skewed Wikipedia article with its mild but persistent dislike of this man, does not suggest to me a connection.
Just because somebody is a Zionist, I fail to see how that affects their perception of Iraq and its strategic implications within the larger Middle East. Look carefully at statements made prior to the war by the Israelis and you will see people like Mofaz clearly stating that Iraq is not a serious threat while Iran is a very serious threat. Halutz said the same thing yesterday and you consistently hear the Israeli leadership on this point. They were saying it ten years ago and five years ago and still do today. If Wolfowitz cared so much, why would he not listen to them. But he didn’t.
Why? Because he is driven by his views on America and its power and potential. Wolfowitz has focused on Iraq for many years and not on Iran as a centerpiece in a Mid-East strategy that would benefit the US and its allies. I hate to say it, but between the belief that a new Iraq could establish a new paradigm for the Middle East and would ensure stability of oil supplies while minimizing risks to Saudi Arabia, I don’t even see how Israel comes into the picture except as an afterthought.
I think it is possible to look at some link between the neo-Cons, the Jewish background of many of the movement’s leaders, and their geo-political views. However, their views have far more to do with America’s power and greatness than with Israel.

Again, I see no connection. Iraq had little perceptible impact on Israel. Mofaz is no brighter than Bibi, nor is he brighter than Wolfowitz. Halutz, for example, strikes me as far brighter. The issue for the neo-Cons and for Wolfowitz is not Israel or taking the US down a path where somehow everything the US does is also good for Israel. I think that’s an absurd viewpoint and as I’ve told you in the past, it is most consistently seen among the extreme Right, staunch Left or antisemites.
While it is true that at times there are those, including many at AIPAC, who argue that the US and Israel are allies not only from a political and diplomatic standpoint but also in values, the idea that they propose that either nation should act against its own self interest is simply false.
If you look at the manner in which AIPAC or other groups have lobbied on behalf of Israel, it is primarily on the basis of American interests, not Israeli interests. They make a case that in certain instances, the goals and objectives of Israel are aligned with those of the US. Guess what? They often are. That doesn’t mean they are always aligned or that they are never aligned. They are aligned at times and when they are, people point it out…just as people at CAIR and numerous other groups point out that America’s interests may not be aligned with those of Israel’s.
There may be some people who are cynical enough to go out there and try to manipulate American policies because it serves their goal to improve the circumstances of other nations. I have met enough neo-Cons to know that this is an absolutely false accusation with respect to their views. They are hyper-Americans, not pro-American-Israel-advocates. They see a much larger world and Israel is a small part of it. As for those who represent AIPAC, etc., they may have some interest in seeing the US in a fashion favorable to Israel and, say, antithetical to Syria, but that does not mean they place one over the other or that they are in any way confused or confusing about whose interests comes first – America’s.
We disagree on this and certainly on your characterization of neo-Cons or pro-Israel lobbyists as ALWAYS choosing this line where somehow America’s actions are aligned with Israel’s interests. As a simple example, consider that this Administration has taken many actions that have shocked and even harmed Israel. Israel was literally cut out of any pentagon interaction for months, as well as from numerous military projects where it would have normally been a partner to the US. A mini-arms embargo was also in the works. Would an Administration driven by these neo-Cons and their supposed pro-Israel bias take these steps? No. They took them because they perceive arms sales to China as a threat to the US. So they took the natural course of action which was in America’s best interests and antithetical to Israel’s. Simple.

Why do you say that? On what authority? Oh wait, I know, they’re Jewish and Zionists and therefore would never do anything to harm Israel. Right, is that what made you make the claim you did? The issue is whether Israeli arms sales somehow harm the US, especially when China is a client. Why would you think that a high ranking American administration official who is concerned about the potential of a strong Chinese military wouldn’t want to affect these sales from Israel. Jewish or not, the point I’m trying to make to you is that they are American, and hyper-Americans at that.

Really? $1 billion in sales plus a future revenue stream from a huge country seeking to beef up its military? Developing an intimate and working relationship with an almost-superpower on the verge of becoming a superpower? Don’t forget that once upon a time, Israel’s primary sponsor was Russia. They fell away and for a while it fell to the French. However, the US has not always been a primary supporter and if it chooses not to be a supporter again in the future, wouldn’t it make sense for Israel to attempt to develop other partners, particularly if they sit on the security council? By the way, I am sure those same thoughts went through the heads of the people recommending quashing Israel’s recent arms deals. I’m also sure some of the defense contractors had a hand in it.
As for your first comment, I have to reject it. When John Sununu or his son decide to fall on one side of an issue or another, I don’t think of them as Lebanese descendants with a bias. When General Abizaid in Iraq decides to take certain steps, I don’t think of him as a descendant of Arabs.
Let’s take it a step further since this discussion is about AIPAC and your strong hints at dual and conflicting loyalties. When CAIR decides to do something, I consider their constituency and believe it impacts their lobbying, but unless they are directly or indirectly funded by a foreign source like Saudi Arabia, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and simply accept that a large block of Muslim Americans who believe that America’s interest coincide with their views want to have a voice in DC. That voice is no less legitimate than that of a born and bred mid-Western blond and blue-eyes Baptist. That is the nature (and strength) of the USA. I don’t sit there and think that the current Governor of California is considering Austrian interests when he makes decisions that affect lives in his state. Why should the Jews suffer a different perception and why do you continue to make these accusations without any basis in fact?

But Kelsey, you are wrong about that as well. It should be a priority for us to protect other democracies. It should be a priority for us to defend an ally who was our key ally in the Mid-East during the Cold War. It should be a priority for a predominantly Christian nation to see the right and importance of Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel. The passion and concern stem from many reasons, some of them historical, some military and some faith-based. Your view that when Jews do it, it’s somehow wrong but when other do it – like Sununu who had a very powerful role and yet was never questioned about his motives vis a vis his heritage – it’s fine is simply showing YOUR bias, not theirs. You should stop ascribing your personal biases to others and doing it in a manner that provides for what is essentially a collective accusation. You should stop doing it because, as I said earlier, there is no basis in fact for your accusations, they are merely your projections.

Oh, I see, so we discard old allies. Great, that should breed a new generation of allies.
As for most Christian nations and their views, you may wish to revisit your history of Israel, the League of Nations and the UN. You may also wish to revisit Israel’s supporting countries in its early days.
Oh, and “moderate” Muslim allies should be fine with Israel. No?

Canada is a lousy friend to Israel. In fact, I wouldn’t call it a friend to Israel and its telling that your comment mentions a country that has not voted on Israel’s behalf at the UN for decades. I mentioned the Christian base of the USA and you pooh poohed that as a reason for support of Israel by bringing up other Christian nations.
I then mentioned the League of Nations, the early UN and Israel’s early history as being affected directly by Christianity. Why don’t you read up on who was PM of England when the Balfour Declaration was made? That’ll be good for your education, I’m sure.
While we’re on the topic, your callous disregard for the Israeli support of the US during the Cold War when all of the Arab regimes were allies of Russia is heartwarming and ensures that from now on when we discuss Israel and you cry about how I perceive you as anti-Israel, we’ll call them crocodile tears.
As for your ignorant comment regarding Israel and its concerns about moderate Muslim countries, you obviously have no clue. I mean, you have no clue.
Let’s let this one die, Kelsey. Your false and egregious headline remains and that’s my real concern here.

Excuse me while I roll my eyes. Your threats are meaningless, Kelsey, and I misread nothing.
You are right on one point, I wanted to tell Ha’aretz about it, but for some reason that article had no comments section. Maybe Amira Hass reported that one for them.

xisntox,
Interesting, thanks!
TM,
You wrote,
“I misread nothing.”
You lie shamelessly.

jury not hury

Well Kelsey, just as you were wrong about most claims you made in this discussion, and particularly in the title you chose, you are wrong about me lying.
However, I understand that sometimes it’s hard to accept that almost every idea you have about a situation or topic is wrong and somebody points out your mistakes in the very same public forum you call home. It must be hard on the fragile ego, so you do have my sympathy that as a consequence you have been reduced to making false accusations of lying.
Let me know when you have something substantive to add to the discussion. Until then (or until you publish another egregiously false headline or post), adieu mon petite ami. I’ll be over at Jewlicious.

looks like the new Canadian gov’t that TM is so worried about will be even more pro-Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605912923&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
an. 25, 2006 13:13 | Updated Jan. 25, 2006 13:20
Jews look for pro-Israel turn as Conservatives win Canadian vote
By ADAM MICHAEL SEGAL / JTA
With Canada’s Conservative Party poised to take power for the first time in 12 years, Jewish leaders anticipate that the new government will take a firmer stance against Israel-bashing at the United Nations and play a larger role in fostering Israeli-Palestinian peace.
“There is an expectation that a Conservative government will take a somewhat more aggressive posture in encouraging the kind of reforms that would allow the UN to fulfill the objectives it was initially designed to address,” said Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee. That includes moves to “end the annual cycle of Israel-bashing at the UN.”
Under the Liberal government, which was defeated in Monday’s election, Canada supported some UN resolutions unfavorable to Israel, though it had shown a slight change in voting patterns recently.
Statistics on Jewish voting patterns are not available, but the community’s customary support for the Liberals is believed to have eroded somewhat in recent years.