2 thoughts on “Did Aipac Shill for Jane Harman? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I have also read that Harman and the Intel Committee Chair (whose name I can’t recall right now, a Republican of course) have been feuding over handling of the Randy Cunningham affair. Cunningham, a former Republican member of the Intel Committee has been sentenced to prison for improprieties involving contractors seeking CIA intelligence work. Harman published a copy of the committee report on Cunningham on her website, after her chairman refused to release it. This has not endeared her to other committee members and Republicans, to say the least. Might this have to do with either her being investigated by the FBI, or the leak of same?
    Also, I’d like to hear a more complete and detailed history/analysis of AIPAC. It’s called a “lobbyist” usually. But if so, then it would be a lobby for a foreign power. Wouldn’t it have to be registered as such? Is it? It seems to be much more than an organization hired to argue its client’s case in the US body politic if it’s passing information from Pentagon employees to it’s client. Other shadowy acts — including harrassment and intimidation of Americans deemed unfriendly to its client — have been attributed to AIPAC. However, the sources of these allegations are far from evenhanded; so I would like to inform myself from a reasonably disinterested source.

  2. That’s Peter Hoekstra you’re referring to. And yes, he’d love to see the FBI investigate Harman for releasing that report. But he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. She may’ve violated protocol, but I doubt she’s violated any law. And her violation of protocol may be easily explained by the fact that he was suppressing a report which the entire world wanted to see and which he had no right to suppress.

    But I think Harman’s use of Aipac allies to lobby for the committee chair assignment would be an entirely diff. investigation and has much more validity (though little likelihood of leading to any charge against her) than the leak investigation.

    Aipac most certainly IS a lobbyist for a foreign power. But it skirts the law by claiming that it only works the U.S. domestic system and that it is not fully directed by Israel. In other words, because it is supposedly an independent group and not funded by Israel, it claims it is not an agent of Israel. Which of course is a smokescreen. I don’t believe that Israel entirely directs & controls Aipac. But it doesn’t have to because the Aipac leadership is even more conservative and jingoistic than Israel itself.

    And wouldn’t you say that IF (again you are right in saying that this hasn’t been proven in a court of law YET) Aipac officials were attempting to pass U.S. government data to Israel that this would argue that Aipac IS an agent of Israel? Otherwise, why would it engage in such behavior?

    For the best analysis of Aipac, I urge you to do a Google search for Michael Massing’s NY Review of Books essay on the subject from last May, I believe. There are also links to it in this blog though I don’t have my hands on the link as I type.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link