Arye L Ben Harav
28 December '10
(Excellent! Y.)
I was amazed to find a young Jewish College student today who argued articulately for the case to just leave Jonathan Pollard in jail and that due to Pollard’s own actions he pretty much deserved whatever he got and we should not spend time or resources on extricating him from prison. To this fellow’s credit, as a second year college student, I am impressed with the depth of his knowledge and research on the subject and I offer my advice as a professional legal recruiter that he should consider obtaining a law degree and thereafter practicing litigation as a prosecutor for the state or federal government.
My friend’s problem with Jonathan Pollard is that the man is not ‘pure enough’. He is not innocent enough. If only my friend could get his hands on a clean cut case of “Innocent Man Incarcerated” then he would be willing to add his support to that noble cause. Pollard broke laws, he violated his agreement to keep quiet and all of his dealings are classified, and so we must assume that the Government has a good enough reason to consider him a traitor and to lock Pollard up and throw away the key.
This is, in some strange way, reminiscent of the 1960’s. Jews were at the fore of the Civil rights movement. We worked for the human rights, and particularly the judicial rights of non-Jews to insure that they, although poor and less socially connected than the average middle class white man, or middle class Jew , would get a fair shake in court. Countless Jewish students and attorneys spent decades in the 60’s and 70’s building cases for the benefit of the indigent, the wronged indigenous, the formerly enslaved, the poorly raised, the drugged, the drunk, the confused and the insane.
Alan Dershowitz, in his book , Chutzpah , describes how the judge for whom he clerked for would constantly beg Alan to find a little loophole, a little ‘Rachmones’ (mercy in Yiddish), for each poor soul who would appeal to his court. The judge took into account the fact that the defendant was poor, non-white, uneducated or had endured severe family hardships or a nasty childhood. It was only later when Dershowitz asked Angela Davis, (whom he had defended) an avowed anti American Communist, to assist with the case for Soviet Jews, that he received the standard anti Semitic slap in the face; the Jews in question weren’t worthy of support or defense based on their status as educated members of the upper class and obviously counter revolutionary, reactionary and anti Soviet (from whence came her political and monetary support). It is interesting to note that few of the Jewish individuals or groups involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s made efforts on behalf of 3 million Soviet Jews, who were systematically discriminated against in education, employment, housing and political positions. They were systematically denied the right to religious freedom and upon asking to leave the country were summarily fired from their jobs and left destitute and harassed by the KGB. Many were imprisoned. Natan Sharansky, former Israel MK and now head of the Jewish Agency was one who spent 8, (eight) years in solitary confinement in the Gulag. The first groups to make the plight of Soviet Jews into a worldwide Jewish struggle were Lubavitcher Rebbe’s Chabad , and Meir Kehanah’s group of followers. The State of Israel was indeed always active if mostly in a quiet way, on behalf of Soviet Jews during those years, if for no other reason than to try to convince a few more poor Jewish refugees to make Aliyah to the struggling Jewish State.
The Damning of Jonathan Pollard, by my friend, follows a litany of charges from treason to spying to outright avarice. His contributions to Israel’s security are insignificant to my friend and as for the reason he's spent so much time, that's his fault - his fault because he *didn't* keep his mouth shut , his prolonged sentence is now, his own fault. (“As for the reason he's spent so much time, that's his fault - his fault because he *didn't* keep his mouth shut not because he did.”) (“In exchange for violating his plea deal he received a harsh sentencing, as is usually the case when people violate their plea deals.) Yes, my friend, and there are those who despite having broken every single law and plea deal, have served little or no time and they are afforded attorneys at the expense of the state to defend and appeal their cases.
The famous case of “The Hurricane” a man with a lifelong arrest record that fills a book and a murder conviction, comes to mind. People, including Bob Dylan, worked hard to free him and ultimately succeeded. To this day no one is quite sure of his innocence but the rest of his record stands and speaks for itself. Yet, he is free thanks to his supporters. ( Strange, I don’t remember many who said that they were personally afraid to petition for this man’s release. )There are countless syndicated crime figures, many of whom have committed multiple murders, walking free in our society after having made the right deal ( the expedient deal ) with the right people.
Finally, my friend pointed out that in his opinion, Pollard deserves no Jewish rights of Pidyon Shvuim (Jewish law requires that we redeem captives) as Pollard broke the rules of ‘Dina de Malchutah, Dina’ (Jews must live according to the laws of the lands in which they live) and did much of the rest of the damage to himself. In addition he has done some calculations as to Mr. Pollard’s value not measuring up to his Super- Halichic Standards.
I have yet to hear of anyone who denied, including Mr. Pollard that he is in any way innocent. At best, he is and was truly torn between his duty to the USA and what he felt was his duty to Israel and his fellow Jews. At worst, he made many mistakes, which my friend has eagerly pointed out, some of them it seems, quite stupid, mistakes. I would like to remind my friend that most jailhouse stories usually start out with the phrase, “ It was about 2 AM and we were just sitting around having a drink in a bar……..” and of course, one stupid thing led to another., then to a robbery or worse ,a murder….
Dozens of Orthodox rabbis in Israel and the USA have ruled that Pollard’s release is indeed a matter of Pidyon Shevuim so you will forgive me if I accept their well respected, revered authority over my friend's puerile interpretation of Jewish Law and Jonathan Pollard’s dollar value.
As with other Jews who have recently been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and beyond, and as with Judge Goldstone’s finding fault upon fault with Israel yet so little fault with Hamas , I feel that in desperately needing a lily white innocent prisoner, my friend has found just another way of feeding his, special Jewish sensitivity. He is sensitive to what others might feel makes for a perfectly air tight case and therefore a case for leniency and thereby attain the approval of the society in which he lives. Since when is such perfection demanded of trespassers and lawbreakers seeking mercy?
And what of the recent dozen or so Russian spies who lived and worked under- cover in the USA for decades including a couple of higher profile minor celebrities? They were exchanged immediately and returned to Russia. Imagine giving up a comfortable life in the USA for a life of struggling for a daily bowl of Borscht. I’m sure some of the deep cover spies tried to remain here, ‘free’ in exchange for information or double agent status. They were exchanged due to the expedience of the matter. It was simply expedient and convenient for the USA and Russia to put the matter to rest. Those spies simply had the most influential ‘friends’ in the highest circles. Not one of them served even one day beyond a little local detention while awaiting the exchange.
Part of Pollard’s long incarceration lies with the fact that it is not expedient for the Israeli government to open up this can of worms. They don’t want renewed headlines reading , “Israel Spies on USA”, although, Russia, China, and most of the other countries in the world whom the USA feeds and to whom we afford, Most Favored Nation Status, all spy on the USA. My advice to the Israeli government is to ‘man up’ and get over it. It’s not like Judge Goldstone will suddenly love Israel or glowing headlines regarding Israel’s largess toward her enemies ( daily convoys of aid to Gaza ) will miraculously appear in the Guardian newspaper of the UK or the New York Times .
After all, claims my friend, why bother? Pollard, according to this person’s calculations and deft understanding and interpretation of the standards of the Bureau of Prisons, should be out by 2015. (While it is true he was given a "life sentence", his release date is projected to be November 21st 2015.”) Gee, that’s only another 4 years of rotting away in prison. While it is true he was given a "life sentence", his release date is projected to be November2015") As they say, to those who have never lost it, freedom is free and therefore worth every penny.
Jonathan Pollard’s offences, intentional, committed without just regard, or enacted with stupidity should under no circumstances ever have caused him to serve a life sentence of 25 or 30 years. I’m sure that my friend would feed the homeless at the drop of a hat, would give Tzedakah at the highest level, ( i.e. reipient not knowing not the source nor the source knowing the recipient), and stand in line for hours to vote for the candidate whose promises most accurately reflect his ideology.
However, when it comes to publicly helping a Jew who has already spent his adult life in jail to live his remaining time in freedom, we must judge him by the standard of a bar raised high enough to make every professional and amateur jurist happy, even Judge Goldstone.
There are multiple ways to help free Jonathan Pollard. The writer requests that you openly appeal for his immediate release.
For more information about how you can help, visit the Justice for Jonathan Pollard website.
If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.
I must continually be appalled at Arye having taken so much out of context - he fabricates accusations that bear no relation to the actual discussion.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am continually appalled by those who hide behind the veil of "anonymous" providing no context, facts or discussion, yet accuses others of fabrication. (ROFL)
ReplyDeleteYosef, I agree with Anonymous; Arye Ben Harav leaves much to be desired as a writer of facts and events. Anonymous makes my point so well as per my editorial. Everything must be absolutely perfect, including Arye Ben Harav, in order for him to lend, just plain support , a little 'Rachmones', and let Jonathan Pollard go free. J.P. nor I, nor anyone claims innocence. Further incarceration will only add to his misery and perhaps his death. He's paid his debt. 25 years is more than enough whether as a means of punishment or warning to others.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, I apologize. In my haste I wrote without realizing others would be missing the whole context. I would copy below the whole context, or as much as I can reproduce, but it is approximately 45,000 characters, and there is a character limit on this site of 4,096 characters per comment - which would then require 12 posts. I don't have an issue with doing so, but each one needs to be approved by you as the moderator so it will be a lengthy process. At the very least I will copy the comments which lead to his essay above.
ReplyDeleteArye 1:
@ [Name Removed], J Pollard merely told Israel that Iraq had poison gas and intended to use it. He may be irrelevant to you however for those of us who lived through that time we remember that ultimately he may have saved countless Israeli lives and Coalition forces in Gulf W I by bringing the issue to the fore and getting Israel to distribute Bio Defense to all citizens and forcing the USA to prep troops for Bio/Chem warfare. He did not spy against the USA nor did he sell secrets of the USA to foreign powers as did others who served less time. He performed a brave act of civil disobedience and has served a life sentence for something which other recieved 5 yrs. We also know that much of the time he has spent as a captive has to do with the Israeli gvt wanting to keep him behind bars with his mouth shut. Certain political figures will be embarrassed upon his release when he is able to speak freely. It is time for him to come home and as Jews we have an obligation to 'free a captive'.
December 26, 2010 at 8:15pm
(This one second)
ReplyDeleteMe 1:
Arye, what is your source for that info? The US has kept the files classified so wherever you're getting the information from should be considered questionable and their motives weighed.
In regard to the Gulf War, I'm somewhat doubtful how much he could have had to say about it. He was caught in 1985, the war was 5 years later. Any info he gave would have been 5 years out of date, and then further back to when it was actually obtained and then transferred to the US.
As for the gas weapons themselves, they were never used against Israel so the warning (if it occurred) didn't provide an actual benefit. You say that his warning (presuming it occurred) was the sole reason that the US prepared its troops and that Israel prepared its citizenry...Wouldn't it make more sense to have to do with the ~100,000 Iranian soldiers killed through chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war which was publicized in the media and considered public knowledge at the time? True, it was during the exact same period as Pollard was spying, but I find the media a more likely source of origin than Pollard.
During the course of the official investigation, from what has been revealed publicly by the investigator Ronald Olive, from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Pollard passed information to South Africa, attempted to pass information to Pakistan, and passed information to his wife to help with her Chinese business dealings. His reasons were seemingly pure avarice. One of the things that has been publicly stated as something he copied was the US Radio-Signal Notations, a 10-volume manual detailing America's global electronic surveillance network - that seems to be a secret of the US rather than something that could even directly help Israel.
While it is true he was given a "life sentence", his release date is projected to be November 21st 2015. There was a law on the books at the time that as long as he maintained good behavior he gets an automatic parole after 30 years. http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Jonathan&Middle=Jay&LastName=Pollard&Race=U&Sex=U&Age&x=75&y=13 is the official site of the Bureau of Prisons showing his projected release date. Additionally, he was eligible to apply for parole after 8 and a half years, he never did so. If nothing else, let him help himself before getting other people to try and help.
As for the reason he's spent so much time, that's his fault - his fault because he *didn't* keep his mouth shut not because he did. Part of his plea agreement was that in exchange for leniency in sentencing he wouldn't talk publicly about about what he had done. So three weeks before sentencing he gave an interview to a national newspaper which published the article. In exchange for violating his plea deal he received a harsh sentencing, as is usually the case when people violate their plea deals.
(This one Third)
ReplyDeleteAs for your final point, Pidyon Shvuiim does not apply to Pollard despite how much it's used a buzz phrase. To quote Rambam, "There is no greater mitzvah than redeeming captives for the problems of the captive include being hungry, thirsty, unclothed, and they are in danger of their lives too" - exactly *zero* of which apply to Pollard. To quote the Mishna, "One does not ransom captives for more than their value." This is in reference to a time when people were captured to be sold into slavery (which Pollard is not) and means that one cannot pay more than the going rate for a slave because that will lead to more kidnaps in the future. Even though that direct meaning doesn't apply, the analogous argument is that the political capital to get him out less than 5 years early is more than he is worth and therefor should not be done. There is yet another generally accepted restriction that those that cause their own captivity (whether through selling themselves into slavery or from committing crimes) don't count either. The Halachic concept of Dina d'malchuta dina ("the law of the land is law") applies here as well. We are in fact Halachically bound to follow the laws of whatever country we're in, barring that they aren't in conflict with following Halacha - and treason is generally accepted as one of those laws not to violate.
December 26, 2010 at 9:53pm
(It was then followed by the above essay, or a similar version of it.)
Abu Teddy,
ReplyDeleteThere are more than 7 millions people in US prisons today - don't you feel bad for all of them? Don't all of them deserve some Rachmones? If you're going to make the argument that someone deserves to be an exception and be given Presidential clemency then there ought to be a very good reason, a reason that can be applied to comparable cases who would then also deserve such clemency.
I ask you to give such a reason.
Anonymous: There is an Old Chasidic saying, " There are those who remind others of all that is strict in the Halachah while keeping all that is lenient for themselves."
ReplyDeleteYou don't support Jonathan Pollard's release. He is just not worth the effort in your eyes. Pollard, like Israel as characterized by Goldstone, is not pure enough, or innocent enough or Jewish enough or Halachically Technically Kosher enough for you to support. Again you ratified the original editorial.
Arye, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but what is wrong with you?
ReplyDeleteYou keep accusing me of believing Pollard "is not pure enough, or innocent enough or Jewish enough or Halachically Technically Kosher enough for you to support". This is utter gibberish and a straw man argument. I have never uttered anything even mildly comparable to those phrases in regard to Pollard.
You want to give Pollard some sort of special considerations without explaining why it makes any sense to allow one person out from prison early because people feel bad for him. Do you not think that for all 7+ million people in US prisons today there isn't *someone* that feels bad for each and every one of them? No judicial system, or even basic societal structure, can function based on what you're proposing.
I ask over and over again to give some reason why Pollard should be an exception to the way society works for *everyone*, instead you accuse me of being overly strict in regard to him.
Imagine I had said this, "You don't support Bernie Madoff's release. He is just not worth the effort in your eyes. Madoff, like Israel as characterized by Goldstone, is not pure enough, or innocent enough or Jewish enough or Halachically Technically Kosher enough for you to support."
When I last wrote something analogous to that you ceased responding and deleted the comment. I presume because you felt insulted by the accusations, even though they're the same ones you accuse me of and they make as equally little sense.
You want to make an exception. I want to treat everyone equally. Yet you accuse me of being prejudiced against him when you hold a prejudice for him.
Give me a *reason* to support him. Feeling bad for someone is not enough of a reason to let *anyone* out of prison early. During the era of the Cities of Refuge people who accidentally killed another would have to stay in those cities until the Kohen Gadol would died, often for the rest of their lives. Their crimes were accidental, everyone felt bad for them, but that didn't mean they were allowed to leave. How can you view it as appropriate for people's freedom to be dependent on the emotions of others?
And the facts of the case are....maybe we should start with what they're not. "Fictionalizing Facts on Pollard" By Kenneth Lasson, Angelo Codevilla, Lawrence Korb, and John Loftus
ReplyDeletehttp://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2010/12/fictionalizing-facts-on-pollard.html
Kenneth Lasson is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore. Angelo Codevilla served as a senior staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee (1978-85). Lawrence Korb was assistant secretary of Defense (1981-85). John Loftus is a former U.S. prosecutor and Army intelligence officer.
Anonymous: First of all this is not personal but your posts being indicative of a swath of arguments on your side predicated my editorial which I posted without direct response to you so as to save you from having to personally defend what I consider to be an unkind, heartless and un-Jewish position.
ReplyDeleteSecondly; Let's employ Ocum's Razor which may help clarify where each of us stands.
It's simple:
I support Jonathan Pollard's immediate release from prison. 25 years is enough and he doesn't deserve to die there.
Are you ; FOR or AGAINST ?
If ; FOR, then please just sign a petition or send a letter to the President on his behalf. No money, no resources. Simple humanity. Donate a few moments and a few electrons.
If; AGAINST: Stop persecuting him with your parroting of the prosecution's case and the US Prison Code. At least, in this way you will do him no harm.
Arye, your essay *was* written in direct response to me, whether it names be my name or not. It *refers* to me as a "young Jewish College student". The entire essay is written referring to me and making unfounded accusations about me. Merely leaving off my name does not make it less to, or about, me.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to Occam's razor, no offense, but you clearly do not know how that principle works or is to be applied. It functions by creating a hypothesis to answer all available information that requires fabrication of the least number of assumptions.
I actually tried for a while to formulate an example using the information available, and failed to come up with any type of example using Occam's razor, it's simply inapplicable as a concept here. It's like saying "if we apply the square root then it's clear that Pollard should go free early", completely meaningless because the term cannot be applied to this scenario.
As such, I reject your false dilemma - by "dilemma" I mean the literal "two options". Reality is not limited by your perception of only those two possibilities.
Let me try a theoretical example:
An 85 year-old man J walks in a city that gives 10 year prison sentences for J walking. The man is arrested, duly tried, sentenced, and is now in prison.
Do you feel bad for him?
Certainly.
Will you appeal the case and tell the judge, "I feel bad for him and that's why you should let him out early."?
Of course not, that's absurd and won't work.
Would you give some reason, any reason, based on legal theory about why the man should be let out (it's cruel and unusual, punishment isn't equitable to the crime, no evidence, etc.)?
Yes.
Feeling bad for someone doesn't equate to a reason they should go free, no one can or should accept that, society cannot function based on that principle. Can you give a objective argument based on legal theory about why he should go free? That's what I've been asking for, give a reason why, not just a normative claim that he should.
If you cannot give a reason beyond "I feel bad for him" then you have given no reason at all.
Throughout Halacha judges are continually expounded to treat people equally, whether rich or poor. It's not because there is a fear the judges will believe the rich respected people because they're rich and respected (though that too would be a miscarriage of justice). The worry is that the judges will be *too lenient* in favor of the poor people and side in their favor. Halacha warns about letting our desire for mercy overrule the consistent application of justice.
So tell me on what grounds he should go free and stop making straw man arguments, meaningless accusations, false attributions, and the rest of what you have been doing in order to ignore the actual point - that singular question of why.
I defer to the "anonymous" poster's expertise in the usage of Ocum's Razor but stand by my point that he is squarely against Jonathan Pollard's release unless he states otherwise.
ReplyDeleteDuring the 1960's & 1970's civil rights and rowdy anti war demonstrators in the USA would *sometimes* be arrested, thrown in jail, fined a few dollars and released within a day or two. The mantra of the day was,
" You see, this is not a democracy! The USA is just as bad as the USSR and WWII Germany or Red China. We are being arrested for merely demonstrating and speaking out "! Students screamed about the "Fascist" forces of government.
Mature and experienced adults would often comment, " The difference is that in the USSR and other regimes, one gets 10 years for doing nothing and 20yrs in Siberia for just speaking out against the State. For demonstrating and marching - a life sentence or execution.
Your 85 year old man example and you suffer from the same exagerated need as those students for Goldstone's model of perfection in how Israel should carry out warfare and how pure Jonathan Pollard must be to win even your tacit support.
I don't know what axe you have to grind against Jonathan Pollard other than,"The worry is that the judges will be *too lenient* " They haven't been the least bit lenient with J.P. Your previously stated fear that his release will be linked to a land give - away is akin to pinning all of Israel's troubles on Pollard. I'm not buying either of your fears. 25 yrs is more than enough and he doesn't deserve to die in prison. Many believe that J.P. is just too Jewish looking and/or afraid that non Jews will see one more unfavorable Jewish headline ala Madoff. Mike Tyson, a violent convicted rapist, a flesh mutilator, who needs to be medicated or else he will kill someone, is walking around free and doing the talk show circuit. Is that more elevated and appropriate? Tyson is out because he is popular with the public. In our society , the USA Sports figures, Movie stars and Pop singers are referred to as Idols with good reason. It is all subjective and your feigned search for a good legal argument is wearing pretty thin.
Arye, as I have repeatedly said I am against the *movement* for his release. To be clear, I'm not a big fan of him personally, but if he applied for parole *for which he is eligible* and received it then I would certainly not be saying he should go back to prison.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you keep accusing me of somehow being prejudiced against Pollard's "purity". You seem to have an obsession with this completely baseless accusation. Besides for quoting you I don't think I've used that term in this discussion nor any equivalent synonyms. Yes, it might matter if he was innocent and imprisoned falsely - but he wasn't, and since everyone is agreed on that then it doesn't matter in this discussion quite *how* guilty he is. A little guilty or a lot guilty is still guilty, so it bears no relevance whatsoever despite how much you like bringing it up and accusing me of...of I'm not even sure what, whatever it is you imagine you're saying.
You again bring of Goldstone despite lacking a single comparable trait, but please, go ahead making the comparison over and over despite still not having noted a single similarity that you haven't fabricated yourself to accuse me of believing (i.e. the straw man argument).
That quote about judges is taken out of context, I'm using it to refer to you. You only say he should get out early because you feel bad for him...
...that is not an answer!
Feeling bad for someone does not equate to deserving to not have to fulfill their punishment. If a three year old does something wrong and gets a time-out for 5 minutes you don't say "It's alright, I feel bad for you so don't finish your time-out". Think of any criminal, we've already brought up the Lockerbie bomber, so let's use him. Don't you think there were quite possibly *milions* of people who would have been willing to sign a petition saying they felt bad for him and that he should go free? Should anyone reasonable have said, "Ok, since so many people feel bad for him let's let him go."? Of course not, so why should it work for Pollard?
I previously didn't say that. I previously said that many media outlets believe that Natanyahu may be willing to have a settlement freeze in exchange for Pollard, which is why he sent the letter. If so, then yes, I oppose Pollard being released if that is the reason because I oppose the reason on general grounds that having nothing to do with Pollard. I have never used that as a reason to oppose him, it's not known. Media conjecture isn't a good reason to oppose or support someone. However you did just give me insight on how well you actually understood anything I said earlier if that is how poorly you interpreted it.
"25 yrs is more than enough and he doesn't deserve to die in prison." Two claims, and no support for either of them besides for your emotions. *That* is the problem. Give me a good "why" for either of those. Not to mention his death in prison would be a bit unlikely; he's 56 now and should be out when he's 61 - he's more likely to live long enough to get out then die sometime, perhaps many decades, afterwards.
(Continuation)
ReplyDeleteThough the main point, on what grounds did you determine 25 years is more than enough for the crime of espionage? The makers of the law clearly believed 30 years was an appropriate amount, so in what way is your opinion better than theirs - or better yet, than the guy that commented on Facebook about how he should have been shot at dawn the next day? Any opinion is just that, an opinion. Any number of years is almost arbitrary in it's determination, there's no complicated math for determining exactly how much crime equals how much prison. So give me a reason why your opinion is right and the politicians are wrong, if you can't then why shouldn't the guy in favor of the death penalty be as equally convincing as yourself? You both believe in an opinion, and neither support it for any reason, if I can believe you I should just as easily believe him - or the original politicians.
As for the rest of what you said, you're making normative claims based on reality which is generally regarded as invalid. Just because things *are* a certain way, or *have been* a certain way, or there are *examples* of it a certain way doesn't mean that that way is correct. If a murderer goes free that doesn't mean its good they went free, but it sometimes happens. Just because a miscarriage of justice occurs doesn't mean that future identical miscarriages become just, they'd still be miscarriages. You're confusing how things *ought* to be by how things *are*. It's true reality may not always match our ideals, but that isn't a good reason to discard of the ideals.
As for my search for a reason, that isn't feigned in the least. If you want to convince someone about *anything* then you have to give a reason, right? So convince me, I'm open to it - but you have to give a reason. Do you think I'll change my view because "Arye said I'm wrong, so I must be, I now believe he's right". That doesn't make any sense.
Example: The sky is purple. I'm not giving you an reason except I believe the sky should be purple, and some other people believe it's purple too, and sometimes people that believe it's purple are considered attractive and are celebrities - so you believe the sky is purple now don't you? Oh right, and if you don't believe it's purple then you don't believe the sky is pure enough and you're evil like Goldstone. That convinced you, right?
You'll probably just ignore that and not be willing to accept that it's directly analogous to what you've been saying.
The point remains, give me a reason or else I have just as much reason to believe you as believing the sky is purple.
Ananoymous; the case for Jonathan Pollard's release has been made eloquently by judges, polititians and by his attorneys here in New York. My intent is not now nor has it been other than to say, 'Yes, guilty, paid his debt, let him go.' If you wish to engage in the legal minutiae, I suggest you look, not to me but rather to yourself. You seem to have studied the material (so familiar are you with the prison codes that one wonders if perhaps you are employed somehow in that field.) Find him a loophole just as you have found so many reasons to attack his cause and so many loopholes and excuses to exclude yourself from helping him and to exclude yourself from the minimal Rachmones that we are expected to show to one another.
ReplyDeleteArye, so to put it simply, *you* don't have any reason whatsoever for why he should go free.
ReplyDeleteAs for Rachmones, as I've said repeatedly, I have it. I also follow Halacha and refuse to allow my emotions to get in the way of the application of law. As I've said repeatedly, feeling bad for someone isn't a get out of jail free card.
I've asked repeatedly for any reason for why Pollard should go free, you have instead repeatedly insulted me and made unwarranted accusations about me in order to cover this deficit in your position. You go so far as to delete comments when you control the medium and cease discussion so that it appears as if I yielded to your views.
So I will now go a step further. I ask for both an apology and a removal of your incorrect references to me in your essay.
New article: Justice for a Spy
ReplyDeleteby Lawrence Korb
Foreign Policy Magazine
12 January '11
http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com/2011/01/justice-for-spy.html
Again Mr. Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou have presented a case for not supporting Mr. Pollard's release. We, you and I, disagree.
Other forums completely erased your comments altogether. When you complained, I personally invited you to present your arguments and I went to bat for you to have your posts re-posted in those forums. Your complaints that you have somehow been treated badly are erroneous.
If anything, I have been more than complimentary regarding you and your views and find the conversation quite stimulating even though I found some of what you wrote, particularly your 'mind reading' and extrapolations of my position, to be offensive mischaracterizations of me and my position. However,it is a debate in the public sphere and I have been careful to maintain decorum. If you do indeed seek privacy and anonymity then perhaps FaceBook and this page will not serve you well.
You do indeed have my personal apology if I said things which you found personally painful when 'you' was generally meant to characterize your positions.
Arye, I compiled a list of most of the times you refer to me specifically and refer to my views, following each quote I explain how you horribly mischaracterize me. I would like you to either delete these quotes and associated phrases entirely, state at the beginning that your discussion was with a fictitious individual who did have these views, or substantially amend them so that the many errors are rectified. I am not even asking you to make your essay balanced, give proper placement to opposing views, or even state any of my actual arguments – but simply don’t misrepresent me.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to how “Other forums completely erased your comments altogether”, you also deleted my comments in their entirety when you controlled the forum i.e. the note on your Facebook page. I made three attempts to respond to your final remark, and you deleted all three, along with other comments of mine and some of your own. It’s actually somewhat obvious when your comments quote me, for a comment that is no longer there. I have an email from Facebook of at least one of your comments which you deleted, I am not sure how many you had originally because you also erased my responses to them as well. So you tell me, was I “treated badly” ? Treated badly beyond being repeatedly insulted and mischaracterized in insulting and ad hominem manner of course. I’ve continued this discussion here on this blog because, so far, it has yet to delete my comments due to a lack of response to my position, which I can only imagine as the reasoning for your own actions.
In the first paragraph you wrote,
“My friend’s problem with Jonathan Pollard is that the man is not ‘pure enough’. He is not innocent enough.
I have repeatedly stated and demonstrated that this is a complete misrepresentation of my views.
In the fifth paragraph there are two quotes,
“The Damning of Jonathan Pollard, by my friend,”
“His contributions to Israel’s security are insignificant to my friend and as for the reason he's spent so much time, that's his fault - his fault because he *didn't* keep his mouth shut , his prolonged sentence is now, his own fault. ”
The first quote mischaracterizes me, I never used that phrase nor stated opposition to him directly, I oppose the movement to support him which is a substantial, if subtle, difference. The second quote is so completely removed from context that they have taken on a different meaning and are otherwise simply erroneous. I didn’t say his contributions were insignificant, I specifically asked you to provide me with something he contributed, and you didn’t. Lacking that I don’t know if he contributed anything that aided Israel’s security, significant or otherwise. As for the portion regarding keeping his mouth shut, that was in response to you saying he only received his harsh punishment because he had kept his mouth shut. Out of context it mischaracterizes me greatly.
In the sixth paragraph you said,
“ ( Strange, I don’t remember many who said that they were personally afraid to petition for this man’s release. )”
Me neither, I certainly didn’t say or indicate this anywhere, but you imply I did.
In paragraph seven there’s this one,
ReplyDelete“ as Pollard broke the rules of ‘Dina de Malchutah, Dina’ (Jews must live according to the laws of the lands in which they live) and did much of the rest of the damage to himself. In addition he has done some calculations as to Mr. Pollard’s value not measuring up to his Super- Halichic Standards. ”
For all of this you clearly did not understand what I had said. Dina de Malchutah, Dina was something I mentioned in addition to how Pidyon Shvuim doesn’t apply, the calculations were yet a 3rd additional Halachic concept to apply in this case. They were not all one point. As for accusing me of having a “Super- Halichic Standard”, I referred to generic and nearly universally accepted sources such as the Gemara, Rambam, and the Shulcha Aruch all of which agree on this and with me. I tried finding a loophole by which it *could* be applied and failed to find one. If anything quite the opposite may be said, rather than going beyond Halacha I sought out a loophole.
In the eighth paragraph you said;
“which my friend has eagerly pointed out, ”
I did no such thing, eagerly or otherwise. I didn’t mention his mistakes, for which there certainly were many. I have no reason to mention them because they aren’t relevant. He did plenty of completely intentional knowledgeable actions that speaking of mistakes would be needless additional insults
In the ninth paragraph,
“over my friend's puerile interpretation of Jewish Law and Jonathan Pollard’s dollar value.”
First I want to protest that characterization of my simple reading of basic words without needing to formulate any assumptions. I actually asked several Rabbis who support Pollard’s release to explain the details of Pidyon Shvuim, their response was that they had never really learnt it in depth. When asked how they were sure it applied to Pollard they used the same logic as you that other learned individuals believed it applied. All sources which speak about it are exceptionally clear, and I could not find one to indicate it would apply to Pollard. As for his dollar value, I specifically referred to intangible resources like time and political influence that were being wasted, and while I did mention money as being among those resources, it was hardly the most significant.
In the tenth paragraph,
“ I feel that in desperately needing a lily white innocent prisoner, my friend has found just another way of feeding his, special Jewish sensitivity. He is sensitive to what others might feel makes for a perfectly air tight case and therefore a case for leniency and thereby attain the approval of the society in which he lives. ”
That is entirely baseless and serves only as an attempt to discredit me in the form of an ad hominem argument. Not to mention it’s simply not true and its veracity wouldn’t have had any bearing on anything else I have said anyway.
In the thirteenth paragraph,
“After all, claims my friend, why bother? Pollard, according to this person’s calculations and deft understanding and interpretation of the standards of the Bureau of Prisons, should be out by 2015.”
No, this is called basic research. It’s called going to the Bureau of Prisons website and typing in his name to get basic information about his prison, himself, and his release date. No understanding or interpretation necessary, beyond being able to understand the words “Release Date ” and the then the date underneath it.
In your final paragraph you make the biggest false accusation:
“ we must judge him by the standard of a bar raised high enough to make every professional and amateur jurist happy, even Judge Goldstone.”
I have specifically been saying to judge him like everyone else, you’re the one who wants to treat him differently. This is in no way an accurate presentation of what I had said.
Despite your attempt to claim you were generalizing with generic and easily confusable terms such as “you”, it is clear from the above that your statements were indeed specifically about me.
Yosef,
ReplyDeleteI believe I have substantiated my original assertion with context, facts, and discussion that Arye has taken much out of context and that he fabricates accusations that bear no relation to the actual discussion.