My argument is that such improper transactions in classified information are spying, and this is an instance in which lobbying has become indistinguishable from spying. The claim that Rosen and Weissman talked with a reporter is a red herring that has no bearing on their improper sharing of improperly received information with the military attache of the Israeli Embassy and your claim that this is a backdoor maneuver to create an OSA is, frankly, absurd. You simply have your panties in a bunch because AIPAC is being held to account for a one instance in a larger ongoing pattern of behavior which your legal analysis indicates had not been previously prosecuted in precisely the way this case is being prosecuted. The defense you offer is "well officer, I'd always gotten away with it before, what's the big deal?" I'll give you points for chutzpah.

If it is your view that opposition to the policies of the State of Israel not only disqualifies all criticism and renders it, in your word "useless," but removes any obligation to meaningfully address the facts beyond a pro forma "everybody does it" defense, then what you are engaged in is both a variant on what Daniel Patrick Moynihan once called "defining deviance downward," and an argument that since all criticism is, by definition, illegitimate, all criticism is illegitimate. That's what we call a tautology.

You further confuse the issue with false choice between your repeated allegation of anti-semitic bigotry and an alternate allegation of betrayal of largely unenumerated and undefined progressive principles which you seem to assert I have and have abdicated, which is a cute tactic, but utterly unsupported by any knowledge you have of what constitutes my "progressive principles."

It is, conversely, my view that a strong relationship between the US and Israel must first be predicated on good faith efforts by the Israeli government to abide by relevant UN resolutions, to abide by the Geneva Conventions, to end the practice of targeted assassination, to make a full disclosure of all WMD Programs and stockpiles, and to abide by its obligations under the roadmap. In the persistent absence of such efforts, an absence which has a continuing destabilizing effect on the Middle East which damages US strategic and tactical interests as well as undercutting any US claims to moral legitimacy in global diplomacy, Israel must be regarded as a rogue client state unwilling to engage in good-faith partnership with the United States.

That stance is neither anti-progressive nor anti-semitic. Conversely, your stance may be reasonably characterized as semitocentric special pleading and exceptionalism unmoored to the advance of Western Enlightenment principles of human rights and democracy. Inasmuch as a)  respect for those principles is the primary basis for any substantive "strong relationship" between the US and Israel and b) is the primary basis for all Western progressivism, your final query is willfully mendacious in both form and substance.