The Festering Problem of Our Time

You've seen those news items. I just know you have. Someone is arrested for spying, but the authorities decline to reveal which country the person was spying for. Now, we know that there is never any hesitation about identifying Russia or China as the source of spy activity, so that pretty much leaves, as the "mystery guest" who manages to penetrate our security time and time again, none other than our staunch ally for time and eternity, Israel. Jonathan Pollard, perhaps the most famous Israeli spy to date, rots in an American jail while our politicians line up to pledge undying support for the country he was working for. And now we have another case in the news. A guy named Ben-ami Kadish -- who bears a remarkable resemblance to Uncle Fester of the Addams Family -- has been picked up for providing "classified documents about nuclear weapons to an employee of the Israeli Consulate". In other words, he provided information about American nukes to a country that already had all the information it needed about American nukes, and which already had a nuclear arsenal that would make Lex Luthor green with envy.

Now... maybe I'm missing something, but every time this comes up I keep thinking, "What the f*** is going on here?" I mean -- either they're our friends or they aren't, right? And if they are -- and all evidence is that they are, since their foreign policy and ours are virtually identical, and our politicians are constantly taking pains to describe their interests and ours as synonymous -- why do they have to spy on us? And even if they somehow think they do, why do we mind? Haven't we given them everything they've ever asked us for? What on earth is left for them to ferret out? Can't they just ask? It seems bizarre that Israel and the U.S. are joined at the hip in every imaginable way, but yet once in a while we get these "cases", where all of a sudden they're "spying" on us and we don't like it -- and some schmuck who probably thought he was the most patriotic guy since Paul Revere is thrown in jail.

What I find at least as puzzling is that our leaders never -- never ever -- bring up these cases in public, or attempt to "esplain" (as Desi Arnaz used to say) the apparent contradictions involved. And yet the cases are, in fact, made public; i.e. they are not concealed. They are made public, and yet the resulting questions, that are screaming to be answered, are never dealt with. Now, one possibility is that the intelligence services are simply doing their job and that they haven't been informed by higher authorities that Israel cannot, by definition, spy on the U.S. because they're our most trusted ally. But why haven't they been informed? Innocent people are going to jail! Or -- our successive administrations allow Israel to play these games, but only as long as they don't get caught. But that's no less crazy. So the mystery remains unsolved. Unless...

... you subscribe to my "decoy" theory. Let me give a relatively minor instance of how this theory works, before we try and apply it to the present case. Remember when the Clinton adminsration started bombing Belgrade because of alleged "atrocities" in Kosovo and elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia? And remember how we accidently -- oops, our bad! -- bombed the Chinese embassy at one point? And remember how -- miraculously! -- the only people killed were a handful of "foreign journalists"? And the Chinese were, hey, no problemo -- they didn't make any more of it than Cheney's lawyer buddy made of the Dickster's unloading a shotgun round on his behind. It all seemed so odd... so strange... so surreal, until we remembered that, at the very same time, the Clintonistas had been "outed" as having allowed the Chinese to make major inroads in places like Long Beach in exchange for campaign contributions. Now, the decoy theory says that even an "accidental" bombing of their embassy in Belgrade could be perceived as a kind of "get tough" gesture, and thus defuse any indignation surrounding the campaign contribution issue. It was a way of saying, "Hey, we're not in China's back pocket... we're no friendlier with them than with anyone else... and here's proof. We bomb their embassy and say, hey, stuff happens, and they just back down. So get off our case about this campaign money thing."

Far-fetched, you say? Well, OK. Maybe accidentally bombing someone's embassy when we have detailed maps and imagery of every square foot of the place we're bombing is an everyday thing. Maybe not _knowing_ the location of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is perfectly understandable. See, these were all claims that were made at the time. We were using "old maps". Yeah, sure. Maybe five _minutes_ old. Plus -- how often have _you_ ever bombed an embassy and managed to only kill a few foreigners? Who _were_ those poor schmucks anyway, and what were they doing there? I don't remember seeing that explained either. You bomb the average embassy in Washington, DC, and you're going to knock off at least three diplomats, a half dozen spies, a military attache or two, a few prostitutes, and a pastry chef. So don't give me this "foreign journalists" noise. My theory -- per the "decoy theory", that is -- is that someone over here said to the Chinese, "Hey, we've got a problem here. How's about we drop a bomb on your embassy as part of our campaign to stomp the Serbs, we both hang tough, and maybe that'll get everyone off our case on this campaign money thing? And, oh by the way, don't forget to have everyone call in sick on [whichever day it was]."

Yeah, I know -- it's a nutty conspiracy theory. But it does have the merit of fitting with the known information, and no other theory, or non-theory, does. And it did, indeed, have the (theoretically) intended result -- the whole "Manchurian candidate" issue was defused and, basically, was never raised again (and has not been raised in the current presidential race, you'll notice -- but give John McCain time).

So that's an illustration of the "decoy theory" and how it might have worked in that particular case. Moving back to the Uncle Fester case, then, what can we say? For starters, let's theorize that not everyone in Congress is totally thrilled by our relationship with Israel -- especially since, after a 50-plus-year engagement, the marriage was consummated at the start of the Bush II administration in a sleazy motel run by the Neocons and Evangelicals. A few people might be getting a bit skeptical as to whether that relationship isn't just a little too cozy, and whether our foreign policy being phoned in from Tel Aviv and coordinated with AIPAC is really the best thing for the American people and the American economy. Some might even question whether Israel, as the unindicted co-conspirator in our attack on Iraq, hasn't pushed us past the point of no return economically and foreign relations-wise. The problem is, no one who has questions and misgivings about these things can ever express them -- not in Congress, not in the media -- _especially_ not in academia -- for fear of being labeled "anti-Semitic" and banished from all polite society, and jobs that pay more than a McDonald's fry cook, from that point on. And, as far as the general public is concerned, they cling (as Obama would say) to many articles of faith, among which is the one that says, "If Congress and the media aren't worried about it, I won't be either." Which is the semi-conscious version of "If Congress and the media say the problem does not exist, then it doesn't."

And yet -- or so it seems -- the regime cannot simply continue to "stonewall" on this issue without once in a while offering up a bit of red meat, to demonstrate that, hey, Israel doesn't have a stranglehold on our foreign policy... they can't boss us around... and here's proof. So off to jail go Jonathan Pollard and Uncle Fester, who sincerely thought they were doing no wrong, and in fact they weren't, according to official policy. But once in a while someone has to be tossed into a volcano to appease the forces of bigotry and skepticism, and those guys got picked. The stories are disseminated as widely as possible, everyone sees that, yes, we can "get tough on Israel", and the tide goes out again, until next time. Everybody goes back into their accustomed comatose state and the follies of our foreign policy march on.

But of course, this is just a theory. All it has to recommend it is that it fits all the facts, and nothing else even comes close. But if you have a better idea, please let me know. 'Cause this is way too crazy.