An op-ed attacking AIPAC, authored by two Jews who oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, would be unremarkable. Two people who hate Israel naturally also deeply despise AIPAC. Nothing surprising in that.

But an op-ed column attacking AIPAC by prominent figures in two mainstream American Jewish organizations—well, that’s something else entirely.

And that may explain what motivated the editors of a major daily newspaper, The Philadelphia Inquirer, to publish a harsh attack on AIPAC on April 24—and to hide the fact that its co-authors are avowed anti-Zionists.

The op-ed demanded that candidates for public office reveal whether they have received contributions from any political action committee linked to AIPAC. It didn’t include any call for candidates to disclose contributions from anti-Israel groups. That’s a curious double standard, to say the very least.

The key to the op-ed’s credibility—or lack thereof—was its description of the co-authors.

Christie Balka was identified as “a member of the Tikkun Olam Chavurah in Northwest Philadelphia.” The Hebrew name no doubt left the average Philadelphia Inquirer reader with the impression that it is a mainstream Jewish institution.

The byline did not explain what the “Tikkun Olam Chavurah” stands for. One has to go to its website to find out. There, the group defines itself as “an anti-zionist (sic), queer-led community,”—meaning that it is part of the tiny fringe in the Jewish community that opposes the existence of Israel.

Balka’s co-author was a local Reconstructionist rabbi, Mordechai Liebling. According to the website of the anti-Zionist organization “Jewish Voice for Peace,” he is a member of its “rabbinic cabinet.”

But Liebling’s byline on the op-ed didn’t mention that. There, he was identified as an ex-professor and “a former member of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.” That lent credibility to the piece by linking Liebling to the mainstream American Jewish community’s major leadership group.

But is that an accurate description? Anybody familiar with the Conference of Presidents knows that it’s a coalition of Jewish organizations, not individuals. (The I.D. line also misstated the Conference’s name, but that’s the least of the problems here.)

Forty years ago, Liebling was hired as executive director of the Jewish Reconstructionist Foundation, a small Jewish organization that happened to be one of the 50-plus organizations in the Conference of Presidents. That position didn’t make him a “member.” It didn’t make him a major Jewish leader. And it doesn’t change the fact that today, he is affiliated with an explicitly anti-Zionist organization. What’s more, no Reconstructionist movement affiliate is a current member of the Conference of Presidents.

What other anti-Israel organizations is Liebling involved with?

The Prayers for Peace Alliance prominently features Liebling on its website. The hate group IfNotNow and CAIR are both “sponsors” of the Prayers for Peace Alliance. The Anti-Defamation League examines the leadership role that IfNotNow has played in anti-Israel protests in its article “Who are the Primary Groups Behind the U.S. Anti-Israel Rallies?” on the ADL website.

On the Prayers for Peace Alliance website itself are accusations of “Israeli military’s campaign of ethnic cleansing” and that “Zionism has … produced a heavily militarized society in which a permanent state of occupation ultimately endangers everyone in the region.”

In 2009, Liebling was involved in the Jewish Fast for Gaza group, an entity that said their events were created “to call for a lifting of the blockade that prevents the entry of civilian goods and services into Gaza.” It was advocacy like this that led directly to the tragic easing of the blockade, allowing Hamas to rearm and expand its terror tunnel network. And we all know what that led to.

Lastly, as mentioned above, Liebling is on the Jewish Voice for Peace’s Rabbinical Council. The ADL has described JVP as a “radical anti-Zionist” and an “anti-Israel activist group” in multiple publications. JVP does not support a two-state scenario, and it is not advocating peace talks and negotiations. JVP calls for an end to the State of Israel.

It’s easy to see just how radical JVP really is with even a very quick review of their website, where they call for the removal of Jews from Israel. The section reads: “We imagine Arab, Middle Eastern and Southwest Asian/North African Jews having ethical and safe access to return to their original homelands.”

Balka and Liebling may hate AIPAC, but their real beef is with Israel itself. The organizations with which they identify, Tikkun Olam Chavurah and Jewish Voice for Peace, and the others, oppose the very existence of the Jewish state.

The co-authors and the editors of the Inquirer should have been upfront about that.