According to this article in Ha'aretz, U.S. Jewish leaders across the political spectrum think there is something not competely kosher about the indictment of two former AIPAC leaders for receiving classified documents, but they are keeping silent, for now, waiting to see how it plays out. The most disturbing quote from the article:

The investigation is also bad news for the Jewish community. Dozens of people, most of them Jews, have already been questioned. There were those who felt anger, particularly when asked questions such as, "Does AIPAC have dual loyalties?" or "Why do Jews actually have to act on behalf of Israel?" They told their friends they were asked "strange questions."

But I suppose this isn't surprising, when it's become respectable in many "intellectual" circles to suggest that a Jewish cabal lead the U.S. to war in Iraq on behalf of Israel.

UPDATE: With respect to Orin's comments above, given that the FBI investigation into AIPAC was headed by one David Szady, many would think it not at all surprising that inappropriate questions were asked by FBI agents. ["Although not named in the suit, Szady headed the elite department that former CIA Director George Tenet admitted in 1999 was involved with 'insensitive, unprofessional and highly inappropriate' language regarding the case of the attorney, Adam Ciralsky."] And the point of my comments was not that FBI agents are "intellectuals," but when intellectuals make prejudiced views of Jews respectable, it filters down.

FURTHER UPDATE: One reason I thought the Ha'aretz piece of interest was because many Jews active in politics absolutely despise AIPAC, some out of jealousy for its success, some because it is seen as too "right-wing" and friendly with Republicans, and some because it so transparently puts the power and prestige of AIPAC over any other consideration. If prominent Jewish activists are nevertheless universally privately defending AIPAC and its ex-employees, as the article states, that suggests they feel rather strongly that something is not right. Whether they are correct or not is beyond my knowledge.

Anyone else find it strange that the government would offer Larry Franklin, a government official who actually leaked classified information, a plea agreement so that he would testify against two lobbyists who are accused of what would seem to be the lesser offense of knowingly receiving the classified information (something, I understand from media reports, is rather common in D.C.)? Either (1) the feds are trying to send a message to lobbyists, journalists, and whatnot that they risk prosecution for accepting leaked documents, and have decided to make an example of these two men; (2) the feds are still hoping for an espionage prosecution to justify the tremendous resources they seem to have been largely wasted on this case, and hope that pressure on the two AIPAC defendants will lead to this; (3) the feds have decided that if they don't get at least three convictions out of this case, they will look foolish; or (4) there is something else, and perhaps something strange, going on.

UPDATE: Continued discussion at Orin's post, above, and in the comments section to that post.