Is the Dreyfus Affair happening all over again?

It was more than 120 years ago when a 35-year-old French artillery officer named Alfred Dreyfus was accused of treason “for communicating French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris.” Sentenced to life imprisonment on Devil’s Island, he was forced to spend the next five years of his life under intolerable conditions.  

In truth, none of this would have happened to him had he not been born Jewish, but it was that one detail which made him suspect to the military, at a time when antisemitism was rapidly growing throughout Europe. 

Although evidence came to light, revealing the identity of the real informant, there was a refusal to reopen the case until it made its way to the press, causing him to receive a presidential pardon and vindication for acts he never committed.

This bleak chapter of history seems to be repeating itself again as an Australian tribunal calls to revoke a Jewish officer’s security clearance, over the charge that he may have divided loyalties, fearing that there is a “risk of being influenced by the Mossad as well as the possibility of disclosing interactions with Israelis.”

While the circumstances are different, inasmuch as the charge of passing on secrets is not being hurled in the Australian officer’s case, there is definitely an eerie similarity of his ethnicity being the cause of this controversy.  

The assumption that he has dual loyalties to Israel is one which, unless concretely substantiated, cannot be an automatic supposition due to his lineage. Suggesting such a thing would then make every soldier a fair target of espionage, with the capability of passing on information to the homeland of their ancestry, so why single out a Jew?

The absurd claim of being “susceptible to foreign influence” is a laughable assertion, because, as we’ve come to discover, much to our regret, the world in which we live, these days, is rife with foreign actors attempting to influence every person in power, regardless of their ethnicity or faith. If there is enough financial enticement, most anyone is willing to spill the beans and hand over whatever information is being sought.  So, again, why is Australia singling out one Jewish officer, and why now?

Could it have something to do with the very toxic sentiments which have been expressed throughout the country, in the wake of the October 7th massacre? As calls to “gas the Jews” resounded from Sydney, and other disturbing acts of violence unfolded in the largely Jewish populated city of Melbourne, it became clear that Australia was taking a decidedly dark turn, looking at their Jewish community with a new set of jaundiced eyes. That is now evidenced by this latest episode within the military.

Although the officer categorically stated that he would not transfer information to Israel, it was his statement, expressing his love for Israel, which, to the military, undermined his solid commitment to remain loyal and faithful to the army which he serves. But if his admiration for the land of the bible is a disqualifying factor in his ability to preserve his security clearance, what about any God-fearing Christians whose love of the land is an integral part of their faith, knowing that this is the inheritance which the Almighty gave to His people? Are they also suspect? Will they, likewise, lose their security clearance for fear of having dual loyalties?

Something tells me that such a thought will never enter the minds of anyone on this tribunal which obviously believes that they are looking out for the best interests of Australia while coming to the conclusion that no Jew could ever show equal loyalties to his land of birth as he would to the land of his rightful heritage.

It is an insulting, presumptive leap which is actually an indictment on all Jews who may be placed in a position of power or a position which holds sensitive information, concluding that such an individual lacks the integrity which is demanded in order to be entrusted with classified information.

The officer in question has rightly stated that all of this represents an unfair inquiry, pitting him against his loyalties to Australia and his devotion to the Jewish homeland, which, again, is also felt by many Christians who not only admire Israel but also view it as the fulfillment of God’s promises to restore His people to their land. 

In this case, Australia and Israel are not at odds with each other. There has been an allied relationship between the two countries, and that makes it all the more unlikely that sensitive information or secrets would be passed on, as in the situation of two warring nations.

This, in fact, was a central point to the Jewish officer, who seems to be in a quandary as to why anyone would consider such a potential infraction, given the friendship between the two countries, at the present time. Invoking his 19 years of faithful service to the Australian military, this man sees absolutely no conflict between his personally held views and the job he intends to continue doing for his country of Australia. 

It is why he said, “his strong connection to the land of Israel and the State of Israel in no way conflicts with my identity as an Australian, and I would never act in any way disloyal to Australia. I never have, on any occasions, been disloyal to Australia, nor do I intend to, in any way, be disloyal to Australia.”

It’s no wonder, then, that the officer feels that discrimination was at play, when attempting to deny him, as a Jew, access to the information which someone of another faith would get, without question. For him, being a loyal Jew, means honoring Israel as the land God gave to His people, and, by his way of thinking, that cannot be in conflict with serving his country.

Nonetheless, the charge of dual loyalties has come to the surface, and likely one which will be repeated in other locations, because there suddenly seems to be a fear, albeit unfounded and unjustified, that Jews are incapable of possessing the same level of unwavering patriotism as their fellow citizens who adhere to other faiths.

This was the same assumption made in the Dreyfus affair, when exculpatory evidence had been obscured in order to scapegoat a Jewish officer in France. Yes, the circumstances are different, but the charge is the same – Jews are always suspect!