Rep. James Moran of Virginia’s Eighth Congressional District has already been thoroughly denounced for his March 3 comments saying “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this.…The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should.”

Yesterday, six prominent, senior Jewish Democratic members of Congress — Henry Waxman, Martin Frost, Tom Lantos, Sander Levin, Benjamin Cardin, and Nita Lowey — announced that they hope Mr. Moran doesn’t seek reelection, and that if he does, they won’t support him. But it’s worth remembering back to October 2002, the last time that Mr. Moran was running for reelection. Back then, New York’s senator, Charles Schumer, along with two New York congressman, Gary Ackerman and Jerrold Nadler, sent a letter describing Mr. Moran as a “mentsh” and “a strong supporter of Israel’s right to security and sovereignty.”

At the time, the letter made news in the Forward and in The New York Sun, owing to the fact that there were those who understood the letter was an error in judgment. One Washington lobbyist, Morris Amitay, was openly critical. Mr. Nadler, through a spokesman, now tells our Timothy Starks that he wouldn’t support Mr. Moran again. Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Schumer couldn’t be reached for comment.

They should have known better. In June 2001, Mr. Moran spoke to the American Muslim Council, a group whose 2001 Congressional Agenda called for the creation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. “Any further peace negotiations with Israel must be based on the freezing of Israeli settlement activity,” the agenda said, complaining that “American uncritical and unlimited support for Israel is hurting America’s interests in the Muslim World and our credibility everywhere else.”

The agenda also said: “The U.S. team working on the Middle East conflict cannot have an overwhelming number of key policy-makers come from Arab or Jewish background.” And in Mr. Moran’s own appearance before the American Muslim Council, the congressman said that Prime Minister Sharon is coming to Washington, and “he’s probably seeking a warrant from President Bush to kill at will with weapons we have paid for.”

Mr. Moran’s own words should have been enough to alert Messrs. Schumer, Ackerman, and Nadler to the fact that he was trouble. But there was also Mr. Moran’s voting record. In October of 1995, 374 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act, which required America to move its embassy to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem. Mr. Moran was one of only 37 members to vote “no.” In March 1999, 380 members of the House voted for a resolution opposing the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian Arab state. Mr. Moran was one of only 24 Members who voted “no.”

In October 2000, 365 members of the House voted for H. Con. Res. 426, expressing support for Israel and condemning the new wave of violence in the Middle East. Mr. Moran was one of only 30 members opposing it. In May 2002, 352 House members approved H. Res. 392 condemning suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. Mr. Moran, one of only 22 Members voting against, later changed his vote from “No” to “Present,” according to the Web site no-mo-ran.com.

It’s worth noting that there are plenty of Jewish Democrats who didn’t make the mistake that Messrs. Schumer, Ackerman, and Nadler did of fronting for Mr. Moran. Senator Lieberman didn’t sign the letter, for example. Neither did Rep. Nita Lowey. But the Moran scandal, we hope, will be about more than embarrassing the hapless trio. It should raise some questions about the motivation of all the dozens of congressmen, Republican and Democrat, who voted with Mr. Moran in the small minority on these resolutions in support of Israel’s security and its right to its capital.

We don’t mean to tar them all with the broad brush of the anti-Semitism that is implied by Mr. Moran’s tendency to ascribe extraordinary influence to American Jewry. But deep down, as the Moran case illuminates, the instinct that drives politicians and countries to oppose Israel’s security and its rights in its own capital will all too often put them in harness with those infected with the classical bigotry. As such experienced men as Messrs. Schumer, Ackerman, and Nadler found out, this is a struggle in which they’ll have to keep their wits about them.