| |
WHY THE SILENCE ON THE AIPAC TRIAL?
By Gil Troy
The Jewish Week
April 6, 2006
Unless U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis rules sensibly on April 25, two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee are scheduled to be tried May 23. The Washington Post correctly fears this “Dangerous prosecution … criminalize[s] discussions among people who do not work … for the government.”
Yet most journalists, academics, lobbyists, civil libertarians and pro-Israel activists who should be howling about this assault on American civil liberties are strangely silent.
Are progressives unwilling to defend Zionists, even to protect wronged constitutional fundamentals? Are American Jewish leaders still too afraid of rocking the boat when the waters get choppy? Alas, our American Jewish organizational lions are timid lambs collecting high salaries as two Jewish public servants twist in the wind.
By contrast, The Washington Post has been one of the lonely voices for justice in this case, heroically trying to keep information flowing freely and reasonably.
The two former lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, allegedly passed secret information to Israeli officials, reporters and others. The FBI had been wiretapping them for two years, but had to deploy Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin in a sting operation to snarl the two. Franklin claimed Iran was plotting to kidnap and kill Americans and Israelis in Iraq. Trying to save lives, Rosen and Weissman allegedly passed on the warnings.
Rosen and Weissman are not being prosecuted for spying. They did not uncover the information, nor did they handle any documents. Instead, the government is using an obscure, never-before-used provision from the 1917 Espionage Act basically charging these private citizens with illegal gossip. Judge Ellis recently warned that by invoking this statute in this way, the prosecution entered “new, uncharted waters” that might threaten free speech.
The Washington Post concurred, warning in an article that “the experts, lobbyists and journalists who in the normal routines of their jobs discuss confidential information could now become criminals.”
This important constitutional threat to free speech and vigorous debate represents only half the problem. The other half concerns prosecutorial discretion and allocation of resources. Deciding to mount a sting operation in a white-collar case reflects governmental priorities — in this case twisted ones.
Why did the FBI waste at least two years wiretapping AIPAC? Why did agents concoct a sting after the wiretaps presumably failed to bear fruit? And why did prosecutors decide to pursue this case so creatively and aggressively?
Let’s be frank: AIPAC and Israel are not the enemy. The FBI failed miserably on Sept. 11, 2001 to protect Americans from a real threat, the al-Qaida terrorists. Its resources would be better spent on fixing computer systems, improving interagency cooperation and targeting the real bad guys rather than demonizing loyal American citizens and America’s ally in fighting terror.
This institutional and prosecutorial animus does not pass the smell test. It seems like the governmental equivalent of the flawed, one-sided, unprofessional, propagandizing paper demonizing the “Israel Lobby” co-authored by a dean at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Similarly, the muffled response to the case seems connected to fears of defending the so-called “Israel Lobby” too ardently.
Gabriel Schoenfeld, writing in Commentary, wonders correctly why Rosen and Weissman are being prosecuted, while The New York Times reporters who disclosed the government’s secret eavesdropping program against terrorists are hailed as heroes.
Jews should not be penalized or demonized for exercising democratic rights, no matter how effectively. Support for Israel in the U.S. has soared in recent weeks as a result of the Hamas victory for fanaticism, not Jewish “lobbying.” It is legitimate — and essential — to promote the friendship between these two democracies, especially in an age of terrorism where Iranian mullahs, al-Qaida maniacs, Islamicist annihilationists and Palestinian terrorists target America and Israel together.
Twenty years ago, unlike the AIPAC two, Jonathan Pollard spied for Israel while working for the American government. Pollard behaved despicably, but so did prosecutors who trampled Pollard’s rights by breaking his plea bargain, adding on secret — and apparently exaggerated — allegations, and punishing Pollard for aiding an American ally with a sentence that ended up being far harsher than punishment for spies aiding American enemies.
Yet in Pollard’s case, too, civil libertarians who blithely defend constitutional procedures even if it frees mass murderers remain quiet, while the American Jewish establishment squirms in silence, hoping the case will fade away.
Jonathan Pollard is not fading away — but the Rosen-Weissman prosecution might. Judge Ellis is pondering whether the prosecution violates the First Amendment, and while we are not supposed to admit it, the fact is that judges notice public opinion.
Legal experts and First Amendment champions must shout “yes,” this prosecution is ill advised and unconstitutional; “no,” Israel, Rosen, Weissman, and AIPAC are not the enemy; and “maybe” it is time for the FBI to stop harassing our friends while redoubling efforts against our Islamicist enemies, who are no doubt enjoying this sorry sideshow. n
Gil Troy is a professor of history at McGill University in Montreal. His book Why I Am A Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today will be released in a revised and expanded edition next month.
Comment on this article using the "Post Reply" button
|
|
View previous topic • View next topic 
