Counter-Productive
Reader comment on item: Standing with Steven J. Rosen

Submitted by Sheldon Tyber (United States), May 5, 2009 at 12:46

I am an outspoken Zionist. I appreciate the work of the MEF, and Daniel Pipes in general. However, a mantra oft-repeated in Mr. Pipes' stated positions is that the U.S. must support Israel since it is in the best interests of the U.S. to do so. I agree with that position wholeheartedly. Nonetheless, the message is undercut by the MEF's employment of Mr. Rosen. I haven't seen any argument denying that Mr. Rosen provided U.S. state secrets to external bodies.

One can argue that providing those secrets posed no threat to U.S. security. Even assuming that (and that's a large assumption), the decision was not Mr. Rosen's to make unilaterally. Moreover, the case was dropped, but not because anybody suddenly feels Mr. Rosen's actions were in the best interests of the U.S. If we want to promote support of Israel for reasons of U.S. interests, we need to stick to that line. Despite the fact that Mr. Rosen has been a stalwart supporter of Israel, and my appreciation of that support, I think we need to recognize "the bigger picture". Don't worry for Mr. Rosen, he'll certainly be in demand. But his employment as a fellow of MEF has the potential to be very harmful to Israel's support in the U.S., esp. among moderate or weak supporters.

Sheldon Tyber
Toronto, CANADA

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Daniel Pipes replies:

"I haven't seen any argument denying that Mr. Rosen provided U.S. state secrets to external bodies."

You could not have been paying much attention to the case. The crux of the defense argument is that Rosen and Weissman (1) did not knowingly provide state secrets and (2) what they did is in complete comfority with what is done thousands of days in Washington - trade infomation.