A Commitment to Truth

By Glen Allen

My first inkling that there are groups in this country that abuse the political process regularly whenever the interests of Israel are concerned came nearly 20 years ago, when I was a teen-ager growing up in Grand Junction, CO. Our congressman at that time was James Johnson. In the late 1960s, as I recall, Johnson incurred the wrath of certain local Jewish groups for not voting as they wished on some issue that affected Israel. Spearheading the local attack was novelist Leon Uris, who lived in Aspen. I understood the issues only dimly, but I understood the emotions that followed very well. Johnson, half apologetic and somewhat diffident, sought by all means to avoid the label "anti-Semite. " Uris, rancorous and aggressive, attacked on behalf of Israel with a vehemence that seemed clearly disproportionate for one who, after all, was a citizen of the United States, not of the country whose interests he was advancing so stridently. That incident started me thinking.

Another thing happened about then too. An interview with an alumnus was part of the application process for Colorado College which I later attended. My interview was with a highly respected local banker in Grand Junction. During that interview the conversation turned to the major topic on all university campuses at that time: the war in Vietnam. The banker, in an offhand way, remarked upon how patently inconsistent it seemed to him that many of the same groups actively opposing the Vietnam war simultaneously supported Israeli military actions in the Middle East. Initially, I was appalled at the comparison. Yet, as I thought about his remark off and on for the next decade, I came to see that the man was right.

There is perhaps a lesson in this. Sometimes our remarks on controversial questions may seem to have no effect on our listeners. And yet, if our remarks contain truth, like dormant seeds they may take root and grow long afterward.

The progress of my thought in this area for the next decade was a classic case of cognitive dissonance. It is odd that a person can believe that pro-Israel organizations present a false picture of the Middle East, intimidate critics, in essence bribe Congress, and set a pernicious self-serving example for other American ethnic groups, and yet simultaneously believe that Israel is a valiant, peace-loving democracy surrounded by bellicose Arab fanatics, that it shares and supports American values and is a true ally. But this described my state of mind. It also, I believe, describes the state of mind of a great many Americans today.

Cognitive Dissonance

My cognitive dissonance began to be cured about 1981, when I first learned of the USS Liberty incident. If any day ever deserves to live in infamy, it is June 8, 1967. I was convinced then and I am even more certain now, after having studied the matter, that the Israeli attack on a virtually defenseless US Navy vessel in which 34 Americans were killed and another 110 wounded was deliberate and the subsequent US government cover-up was undertaken with the knowledge that the attack was deliberate.

The USS Liberty incident opened my eyes once and for all to the distortions present on many critical issues, especially those involving the Middle East, in the major American media. This realization imparted a degree of unreality to my subsequent law school studies. Perhaps this new clarity with which I approached the theory and practice of law in the United States is one reason that I did very well in law school. I studied First Amendment doctrine with great care. When I compared the law with its real life application, it reaffirmed my conclusion that in the real world First Amendment principles are subordinate to the biases of major advertisers who may withdraw their advertising if a newspaper or television or radio network or station does not properly tailor its news and views.

Most Americans—including most law students—have yet even to recognize these problems, much less cope with them. We must cope with them, however, if freedom of the press and of expression are to retain any real meaning. No truly free people let themselves be lied to by their government, or manipulated by their major media. Supporting independent publications such as the Washington Report, I am convinced, is one positive step we can take. Seeking out truly independent candidates prepared to lead rather than follow the dictates of special interests is another.

My instincts are basically patriotic, but ever since leaving the army I have been unable to suppress a large measure of cynicism whenever any political figure invokes patriotic symbols rather than discussing real issues.

Maybe Dr. Johnson was right when he exclaimed, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." I am today convinced that no true patriot—and no honest American—can avoid speaking out against the increasingly despotic grip of pro-Israel special interest groups on American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Glen Allen practices law in Baltimore, MD.