From the NYT (of course), a noxious fiction but with no contemporary relevance

...American Jews -- like all Americans -- enjoy First Amendment rights to free expression -- without having to look over their shoulders to take their cues from the New York Times.

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
05 April '14..

Secretary of State John Kerry’s Mideast peace diplomacy seems increasingly moribund. Nevertheless, there remain all sorts of scenarios floating around as to the kind of mix that might result in an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Among the latest is the suggestion that Israel might be more amenable to release of another batch of Palestinian terrorist killers if in return the Obama administration might free Jonathan Pollard, a former Navy intelligence analyst convicted of spying for Israel.

Pollard, who’s serving a life sentence, is in his 29th year of imprisonment. His defenders argue that he has become a poster child for massive injustice. The prosecution at his trial asked for a term short of life But a side-letter by then-Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger persuaded the judge to give him life imprisonment. Pollard supporters note that such espionage -- spying for a U.S. ally, passing on confidential Soviet files that bore on Israeli security -- normally might have gotten Pollard a sentence of less than 10 years. Pollard has admitted his crime and expressed his profound regrets. It’s also clear that he had lousy lawyers.

On top of all this, Pollard is gravely ill, suffering from multiple ailments. He’ll be eligble for parole next year. So why not release him now?

It’s a powerful case. And more and more prominent Americans, including former high-level security and diplomacy officials, Jews and non-Jews, have been rallying in support of Pollard, including former Secretary of State George Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey. These are folks who have been privy to all confidential Pollard files and they vouch that his release would not in any way harm U.S. security.

But that’s not the way the New York Times sees it. In a front-page article in the April 4 edition, the Times issues a stern warning to U.S. Jews not to rush to Pollard’s defense lest they be viewed as harboring “divided loyalties.” It’s a monstrous libel designed to silence Jewish support of Pollard. American Jews -- like all Americans -- enjoy First Amendment rights to free expression -- without having to look over their shoulders to take their cues from the New York Times.

The administration’s use of Pollard is despicable

...This is one of those (frequent) times when I am glad that I am not the Prime Minister of Israel! I don’t know what he will decide, but it is absolutely despicable for the Obama Administration to use Pollard in this way, despicable to place the Prime Minister in this position, and — more than anything — despicable to support the PLO (because that is what this amounts to) in its project to eliminate the Jewish state.

Fresnozionism.org..
01 April '14..

The ransoming of captives [פדיון שבויים] takes precedence over the feeding and clothing of the poor. Indeed there is no religious duty more meritorious than the ransoming of captives, for not only is the captive included in the generality of the hungry, the thirsty, and the naked, but his very life is in jeopardy. — Rambam (Moses Maimonides)

CNN reports:

Jonathan Pollard, the former U.S. intelligence agent who was convicted of spying for Israel, could be released before the Jewish holiday of Passover as part of efforts to save Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, an Israeli official involved in the talks told CNN. …

Kerry stated Tuesday night that “no agreement has been reached with respect to any prisoner” — be it Pollard, whom he was asked about, or anyone else — though talks involving all parties are ongoing in hopes of reaching a broader agreement.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that President Barack Obama hasn’t decided whether to release the convicted spy at Israel’s request. …

In exchange for the release, the sources have said that Israel would have to make significant concessions to the Palestinians, which could include a settlement freeze, the release of additional [Palestinian and/or Israeli Arab] prisoners beyond the current group in dispute and an agreement to continue peace negotiations beyond the end-of-April deadline.

The continued imprisonment (29 years) of Jonathan Pollard, the highly disproportionate sentence he received and the dishonest conduct of the government in his affair are a blot on the supposedly equal justice system of the United States.

Pollard should have been released long ago, but it seems that the government has been waiting for the moment at which it could exact the heaviest ransom. It’s true that nations act according to interests, and concepts like justice and mercy are not relevant to interests. On the other hand, nations have leaders who make decisions, and they are ultimately held to account by God, if not by history.

Last August, Israel agreed to release a total of 104 Arab prisoners, most of them convicted of murder (including multiple murderers) in order to persuade the PLO-ruled Palestinian Authority (PA) to engage in peace talks. Israel was aware that the talks would lead nowhere, but it was considered more important to remain in the good graces of the US. Three of four scheduled prisoner releases have been carried out; in each case, freed murderers were greeted as honored heroes on their return to the PA. There was a great public outcry in Israel — after all, these are murderers and Israel has received nothing in return from the PLO except more incitement to murder.

The fourth and last release has been held up by Israel, primarily because it includes Arab citizens of Israel, whose release calls Israel’s sovereignty over its own citizens into question, and because the PLO has hardened its positions rather than moving closer to an agreement.

Now the US is raising the possibility of freeing Pollard in return for going ahead with the last scheduled prisoner release, and acceding to even more PLO demands. This could be the last time it will be possible for the US to play this particular card, since Pollard is not well and could die in prison (and on the conscience of Barack Obama).

In other words, the US wants to use its Jewish captive — he is no more than that, because he has long since paid his debt to the US for his offenses — to extract concessions from Israel to benefit the PLO, one of the most vicious of terrorist organizations in recent history and one which has absolutely zero desire to end its conflict with Israel.

The fourth prisoner release will damage and humiliate Israel while strengthening the PLO. Other concessions as demanded will do the same. It goes without saying that continuing the negotiations with the PLO will only result in more opportunities for the US to pressure Israel to meet new Palestinian demands.

The First Chance He Got, Abbas Fled Talks

...But since abandoning the talks allows Abbas to avoid having to sell a deal that ends the conflict to a Palestinian people that has been taught to view their national identity as inseparable from the struggle against Zionism, he prefers it to negotiations.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
01 April '14..

Though nothing is permanent in the Middle East peace process, for the moment it appears that the Palestinians have finally found a way to scuttle the talks sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry. Though Kerry had brokered an unlikely last-minute compromise that would have ensured the release of another batch of terrorist murderers that the Palestinian Authority had demanded, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas wasn’t buying it. Today, he signed papers indicating the PA’s request to join 15 international agencies, a clear violation of their Oslo obligations and commitments made to the United States. This was a signal that Abbas wouldn’t keep negotiating in spite of Kerry’s efforts to give them what they wanted. As a result, Kerry has canceled his planned trip back to the region, leaving, at least for the moment, the impression that the talks are at an end.

If the Palestinians continue to refuse to keep talking, it will mean that the deal Kerry had cooked up to free convicted spy Jonathan Pollard in exchange for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s agreement to release one more batch of terrorists including Israeli citizens and then another larger group of prisoners not convicted of violent crimes, will have been for nothing. That deal would have been a poor bargain for Israel in that it would have meant making real concessions — releasing Israeli Arabs convicted of terrorist murders as well as a promise of a limited freeze on building in the West Bank — in exchange for a man who might well be free on parole in 2015 anyway. The irony of having someone like Pollard who, though his crime was grave and did real damage to the U.S.-Israel relationship, acted in what he thought was Israel’s interest, being traded for people with Jewish blood on their hands, was so great that reportedly even the spy opposed it.

But the main conclusion to draw from these events isn’t about the Israeli desire to see Pollard freed after 28 years in prison but about Abbas’ desire to evade the peace process. What has happened isn’t so much a negotiation that went wrong, as it is the PA leader seizing the first opportunity that came his way to flee peace negotiations that he never wanted to join in the first place.

As Secretary of State Kerry’s “Last Chance” Diplomacy Implodes

...What the secretary is learning is that as bad as a situation seems, it can only be made worse by hubris and naïveté, qualities Kerry possesses in abundance. Whether or not he manages to bribe either the Israelis or the Palestinians to keep talking in the coming days, the most important point to be gleaned from this chapter is that stoking fear in order to build support for peace isn’t merely counter-productive. It’s a recipe for disaster.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
31 March '14..

Secretary of State John Kerry is back in Israel today attempting to breath life into the peace talks that he initiated last year. With the Palestinians refusing to accept the framework for further talks the secretary tried to broker, and the Israelis seeing little purpose in releasing more Palestinian terrorist murderers to bribe Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas if the PA won’t keep negotiating, the whole scheme is on the brink of collapse. Thus, Kerry is working furiously to try and come up with a way to entice the Israelis to give Abbas what he wants in terms of either more prisoner releases or a settlement freeze.

The latest idea on the table, which has now been publicly confirmed by U.S. officials speaking off the record, is for the U.S. to hand convicted spy Jonathan Pollard to the Israelis in exchange for the last batch of terrorists already scheduled for release from Israeli jails as well as a further group to be let go after that. Presumably this latest batch of terrorist prisoners would be enough to bribe Abbas to keep talking even though he has already signaled that he isn’t that interested in the discussions, especially if they require him to agree to measures that herald an end to the conflict with Israel. As I wrote last week, the idea of trading Pollard for murderers is a bad deal for Israel. If Prime Minister Netanyahu is to keep making concessions to Abbas then he should expect something of substance in return from the Palestinians that would bring peace closer. Doing so for the sake of Pollard makes no sense for anyone.

But the real problem here isn’t the unbalanced nature of such a deal that is not likely to be carried out anyway. Rather, it is the sense of hysteria that has been invested in the latest iteration of the Middle East peace process. Having decided to try to succeed where all of his predecessors have failed, Kerry did so by claiming that it was the region’s last chance for peace even though there was no reason to believe the conflict was in danger of re-igniting or there were reasonable prospects for success. But now that he appears to be failing, his frequent predictions of doom have become self-fulfilling prophecies.

The secretary invested time, energy, and the prestige of the United States on a negotiation that few thought had a chance because he was convinced there was no alternative and that a failure to advance a peace process that has been stuck in neutral ever since the Palestinians rejected the third Israeli offer of independence and statehood would lead to disaster. But as Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl aptly noted today, prior to the start of Kerry’s talks, “Israel and the Palestinian territories” were “an island of tranquility in a blood-drenched Middle East.” If the Palestinians preferred meaningless symbolic victories at the United Nations to statehood, such folly was rooted in Abbas’s belief that his people were not ready to give up their century-long war to destroy Israel.

Pollard and the American 'treason' libel

...It took Williams much of an opinion of 5,000 words to sketch the sleaziness, the slyness of the semantic evasions, by which the government broke its promises. To those of us invested in both the American Constitution and the Jewish struggle, it was a heart-breaking picture.

Seth Lipsky..
Haaretz..
18 February '14..

Jonathan Pollard is in the news again this week, after our former director of Central Intelligence, James Woolsey, told Israel’s Channel 10 that he suspects anti-Semitism could be a factor in America’s refusal to release the spy from his life sentence. I hadn’t ever heard such a blunt statement from any high government officer. It sent me back to the court record - and to Shakespeare’s Macbeth, in which the witches introduce the drama with the warning that “fair is foul, and foul is fair.”

Macbeth got into it because of a memorable dissenting opinion by a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That's the bench sometimes referred to as the mini-Supreme Court, in that it gets a lot of the disputes that directly involve the federal government. It was the court that spurned Pollard’s appeal for a new sentencing hearing and, in effect, doomed him to a life sentence on a plea bargain on a single count.

The ruling against Pollard was from a three-judge panel. The two judges in the majority were - and still are - widely admired (including by me): Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who would eventually be elevated to the Supreme Court, and Laurence Silberman. They reckoned Pollard hadn’t made his case and, the key point, missed his chance to appeal his sentence. He waited too long. Their opinion struck me, given all that was involved, as pettifoggery.

No so the dissent by Judge Stephen Williams. He didn’t accuse anyone of anti-Semitism. He sided against Pollard on the question of whether the government had improperly coerced his plea by threatening his wife. Williams also supported trial court judge, Aubrey Robinson, who’d handed down the original life sentence, against the claim that the judge ought to have recused himself during the bid for a new sentencing hearing and that he should have held a hearing on contacts he’d had outside of open court.

Williams, however, went on to find that the government had breached its side of the plea bargain agreement in a way that was a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.” He made some preliminary comments about the general judicial insistence “on a reasonable and not a niggling interpretation for plea agreements,” given that the “defendant has given up his right to a trial that satisfies due process.” Wrote he: “If fulfillment of the promise is to mean anything, it cannot refer only to the promise pared to its literal bone.”

The government, as Williams reprised it, made three promises. One was to bring to the court’s attention Pollard’s cooperation and “represent that the information supplied was of ‘considerable value’ …” Two was to refrain from seeking a life sentence. Third was to limit what it said to “the facts and circumstances.” Williams concluded that the government “complied in spirit with none of its promises; with the third, it complied in neither letter nor spirit.”

Three lovely (nasty) memes about Jews and Israel

...Separately, all these three examples are alarming enough. Taken together, they demonstrate that American public discourse about the Middle East is much more receptive to ideas that we thought had been discredited by history. That’s why, when the next instance of Iranian nuclear duplicity surfaces, get ready for the chorus proclaiming that it’s all the fault of Israel and its supporters.

Ben Cohen..
JNS.org..
16 January '14..

Here are three disturbing memes about Jews and Israel that I’ve noticed in three separate-but-related news stories recently.

Meme Number One: “You’re Ungrateful”

Here’s State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf responding to reported remarks by the Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, attacking Secretary of State John Kerry. “We find the remarks of the defense minister to be offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the United States has done to support Israel’s security needs and will continue to do,” said Harf.

Now, one can certainly argue that Ya’alon’s description of Kerry as “obsessive” and “messianic” was injudicious—after all, he’s a government minister, not a newspaper columnist. Rightly, Ya’alon apologized. But what’s striking about Harf’s response is that she doesn’t defend Kerry’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which was what sparked Ya’alon’s overly candid criticism. Instead, she effectively accuses the Israelis of biting the hand that feeds them, a theme beloved of the extremists on left and right who argue that Israel is an unconscionable drain upon the U.S. Treasury.

As Israelis know well, the principal and most valued defender of Israel is not the United States, but the Israel Defense Forces. Additionally, the vital strategic relationship between Israel and the U.S. is much more balanced than Harf’s comments suggest. The United States doesn’t have to risk its troops by stationing them on Israeli soil, in marked contrast to other Middle Eastern countries. Meanwhile, Israel enhances American security by, among other things, exporting more than $1 billion worth of military technology to the U.S. every year.

Meme Number Two: “You’re Warmongers”

The Obama Administration’s trashing of anyone expressing doubts about the deal struck last November with the Iranian regime over its nuclear program contains, of course, an Israeli dimension. Objecting to the new Iran sanctions bill co-authored by Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), veteran California Senator Dianne Feinstein opined that the proposed legislation was bolstering a “march to war.” And who is directing this heinous agenda? Feinstein once more: “We cannot let Israel determine when and where the United States goes to war.”

What Feinstein’s statement insinuates is that Israel has, in the past, done just that. Those who supported the survival of Saddam Hussein’s barbaric regime in Iraq consistently argued that Israeli pressure was a key reason why the U.S. went to war there in 2003; hence the need to prevent a repeat of that pattern more than a decade later in the case of Iran. In one stroke, all the complexity of the Iran situation—the disquiet among Arab countries over Obama’s Iran policy, the strengthening of Iran as a regional power with dire consequences for Syria and Lebanon, the summary dismissal of successive U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that Iran end its uranium enrichment activities— simply disappears. All we are left with is the impression that the Israelis are pushing us into another unwanted war, aided by their dupes on Capitol Hill.

The Levy Report Campaign - The Only Game in Town

...Why do I call it the only viable game? Because I see it as the best option for advancing Israel's rights. It's the hook that provides rationale for Israel's legal grounds, and offers a basis for moving ahead so that the paradigm of thinking can be changed. No more "occupation."

Arlene Kushner..
From Israel..
25 December '13..




"The Only Game in Town"

Let me qualify this: The only viable game. I'm speaking of the Levy Report Campaign.

I'm not promoting this because I'm working on it. Quite the contrary, I am working on it because I believe it merits enormous promotion.

Why do I call it the only viable game? Because I see it as the best option for advancing Israel's rights. It's the hook that provides rationale for Israel's legal grounds, and offers a basis for moving ahead so that the paradigm of thinking can be changed. No more "occupation."

And so I will continue to talk about this, especially during these terrible times. As we progress I will ask that you inform yourselves about the Report, share information with others, and otherwise assist us.

For today, a reminder: www.facebook.com/thelevyreport . Like it, share it, promote it. And a small word of caution: Facebook has a page called "About Levy Report" that has nothing to do with us. Be careful when accessing the page.

~~~~~~~~~~

And now, a look at these terrible times.

If I have a sense of deja vu, it's because all that I will be writing about indeed has happened before, many times, in various permutations.

It is clear as clear can be that the gaps between the two sides (Israel and the PLO/PA) are so huge that the notion of a negotiated settlement is nothing but a figment of the imagination of those in the US government.
Three days ago, Abbas is reported to have put out his red lines on negotiations. These red lines, which do not deviate significantly from what he has been saying all along, would completely undercut what Kerry is aiming to do:

[] No recognition of Israel as a Jewish state (a Netanyahu demand)

[] No demilitarization of a Palestinian state (a Netanyahu requirement)

[] Not a single IDF soldier in the Jordan Valley (something Netanyahu insists upon)

[] Control of all of eastern Jerusalem -- by which is meant everything over the Green Line; there is no "East" Jerusalem -- for utilization as a Palestinian Arab capital (when Netanyahu sees Jerusalem as eternally united)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-said-to-lay-out-pa-demands-as-kerry-prepares-framework-deal/

~~~~~~~~~~

When all of the above is said and done, what is most significant is that the PLO does not want a "two state solution" that means end of conflict and end of claims. The PLO seeks Israel's destruction, whether in stages or all at once, and nothing less.

Of course, this is all of a piece: the demands put out by PLO leaders are maximalist in part, I have no doubt, to ensure that there is no deal. The other part is the fear that Abbas harbors that his throat might be slit if he were perceived as having caved to the Jews -- and I kid not here.

After 25 Years Pollard Defenders Vindicated

...Ultimately, the Pollard case is not a referendum on Jews or Israel, or the U.S.-Israel alliance. “The story of the Pollard case is a blot on American justice,” said Codevilla. “It makes you ashamed to be an American.”

Lee Smith..
TabletMag.com..
20 December '13..

Jonathan Pollard, a former Naval intelligence service analyst, broke the law by selling American secrets to Israel. For that crime, he is currently serving the 25th year of a life sentence—the same sentence handed down to Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, American intelligence officers who sold secrets to the Soviet Union, a dangerous Cold War enemy for nearly half a century.

Since his 1985 arrest, Pollard’s case has sharply divided Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. To detractors, it makes little difference that Pollard gave top secret intelligence documents to an American ally. From their perspective—and this includes many in the pro-Israel camp—one of the most dangerous spies in American history richly deserves to end his life behind bars. But to Pollard’s supporters, including those who continue to demand his freedom, even naming a square for him in Jerusalem, he is a hero of the Jewish state.

Even as Israeli leaders have regularly petitioned their American counterparts for Pollard’s release, so little has been known about the details of the Pollard case that it was easy to assume the very worst. For instance, there was the widespread belief that Pollard had committed “treason,” as then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote in a memorandum to the judge sentencing Pollard. There was also speculation that the intelligence he sold to Israel had found its way into the hands of the Soviet Union, which had led to the deaths of several American agents. Perhaps the truth was even worse: Why else would former CIA director George Tenet have threatened to resign when President Bill Clinton considered Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to have Pollard released?

After more than 25 years of speculation, documents released last week to the National Security Archives at George Washington University provide us, for the first time, with many of the details of the espionage activities that have made Pollard one of the most controversial figures in the history of the U.S. intelligence community. What the documents, particularly the CIA’s 1987 damage assessment of Pollard, show is that both Pollard’s detractors and supporters possess vastly distorted views of him. But it is the narrative put forth by those who insisted that Pollard was the most treacherous U.S. spy since Benedict Arnold that has caused real damage to the fabric of this country—more damage, in fact, than Jonathan Pollard ever did.

Contrary to the widespread belief, the CIA report reveals that Pollard did not procure secrets about the United States—nor did Israel ask him to. The intelligence he provided his Israeli handlers consisted of the information that the United States had acquired concerning Arab and other Middle Eastern states. This information may not change the minds of long-time detractors, but it vindicates those who have argued that Pollard, having already served a punishment that fit his crime, should be released.

What’s That, Mr. Ambassador? "Unusual circumstances" are required?

...Former Director of the CIA James Woolsey, speaking at a security conference in New York this month, when asked about Pollard, and when asked what he would tell President Obama, responded that he would tell the president to forget that Pollard is a Jew and just release him — and that’s not unusual?

R. Pesach Lerner..
Hamodia..
19 November '13..






A Letter to U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, Regarding Jonathan Pollard

Dear Ambassador Shapiro,

Jonathan Pollard began his 29th year in prison this week for his activities on behalf of Israel, a staunch ally of the United States. The usual sentence for this offense is two to four years.

Mr. Ambassador, you were recently asked, at the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America, held this year in Jerusalem, about presidential clemency for Jonathan Pollard. Your response? “Unusual circumstances are required for President Obama to get involved in the matter … There is no reason to expect that the [Pollard] matter will be handled differently.”

Unusual circumstances?

The president, prime minister and Knesset of an allied nation, Israel, ask the president of the United States to release their citizen, after Israel’s public apology — and that’s not unusual?

Former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz, who was the sitting secretary at the time of Pollard’s arrest, says it’s time to release Pollard — and that’s not unusual?

Former directors of the FBI, CIA, NSA and Department of Justice, who have all seen the Pollard file, say it’s time to release Pollard — and that’s not unusual?

Dennis Ross, Special Envoy to the Middle East for President Clinton, writes in his memoirs that even though he believes that Jonathan Pollard’s life sentence is disproportionate and that Pollard deserves to go free, unconditionally, he still strongly advised the president not to free him. Why? Because Pollard is far too valuable as a bargaining chip with Israel to be released as a matter of simple justice. And that’s not unusual?

Forget that Pollard is a Jew and just release him

...Speaking at a security conference in New York last week, former CIA director James Woolsey renewed his long-standing call for Pollard’s release. Asked if he had a message to send to Obama, Woolsey responded that he would tell the president to forget that Pollard is a Jew and just release him. Indeed.

JPost Editorial..
10 November '13..

Recent revelations of unbridled American espionage against its Western allies have exposed the hypocrisy and injustice that have kept Jonathan Pollard in prison for nearly three decades.

Washington has always presented Pollard’s unprecedented life sentence, including seven years in solitary confinement, as a reasonable response to Israel’s unmitigated gall for running a spy in the US. Successive American administrations have consistently maintained a morally superior posture, posing as the injured party, insisting on perpetuating the excessive punishment of Israel’s agent.

Although Israeli officials have been aware of American agents operating in Israel for decades, they have never openly confronted the US.

Israel’s inexplicable cooperation notwithstanding, recent revelations of the US’s massive spy operations against 35 friendly nations (including Israel) have blown America’s cover and brought to light an egregious double standard and a stunning example of American hypocrisy. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more blatant than in America’s treatment of Jonathan Pollard. This has prompted many who have never done so before to begin calling for his release.

Next week, Pollard begins his 29th year in prison for the crime of spying in the United States for the benefit of Israel.

He never passed a single secret about America to Israel – only information about Israel’s enemies and their plans to destroy the Jewish state.

Although the US judiciary is presumed to be independent of the political echelon, in reality it is not that simple.

Pollard long ago used up all of his legal remedies pursuing justice, but the American justice system failed to provide any relief. This is incomprehensible, since the conduct of the case blatantly violated every concept of justice America holds dear. This includes:
• A grossly disproportionate sentence,
• A broken plea agreement,
• The use of secret evidence,
• A false charge of treason,
• Ineffective assistance of counsel,
• Ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge,
• A lack of due process, and
• A sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies.

Those who demand respect will be respected

...Contrary to claims by the Israeli left, respect for national honor does not represent a child's whim or an excess of pride. It is an essential component in the complex game of international relations. The fear of displeasing one's "friends" by saying "no," or the renouncement of hope in the name of gaining future hypothetical benefits are often the sources of cruel disappointment.

Shraga Blum..
I24 News..
02 November '13..

I was in Europe when the scandal concerning phone tapping by the US National Security Agency broke out. Leaving aside the fact there's a lot of hypocrisy involved in this matter -- as nowadays everyone is spying on everyone else -- it was interesting to observe the immediate reactions from France and Germany, two countries that are friends of the US and are hugely indebted to it since WWII, each for its own reasons.

The anger was palpably felt on both banks of the Rhine, and indignant declarations have poured in rapid succession: "shocked," "unacceptable practices," "broken trust," requests for "clarification," demands that "these processes" should be terminated post haste and so forth.

Being flooded with these reactions for two or three days, I could not help but feel a certain admiration for these two countries that, feeling offended or betrayed, did not hesitate to stand up to the US and demand a little more respect from the greater power, which is moreover their ally.

With all this talk of national honor, I couldn't but make an immediate link between the courageous stance of European leaders, and the ever-timid attitude of their Israeli counterparts -- in all governments alike -- against the United States or other countries that spend their time lecturing us or interfering in the internal affairs of our country.

A recent article in the Times of Israel cited intelligence specialist Ronen Solomon as saying that the US Embassy in Tel Aviv includes an intelligence unit (this was confirmed by Dany Yatom, the former Mossad chief). But no official Israeli reaction has thus far been forthcoming, and we prefer not to irritate the American big brother, citing as we always do the so-called "best interests" -- so elevated that we seem to have lost sight of them.

As far back as my memory goes, I have no recollection of any instances of open criticism by Israeli officials of the sometimes paternalistic, intrusive or authoritarian -- even when delivered through diplomatic channels -- stance of the US toward Israel.

Submitting ourselves to American whims and edicts has become a tradition in Israel; the media is on the lookout for any statements or policy decisions that could "cause a damaging crisis between Jerusalem and Washington," a veritable mantra with local journalists.

If American "espionage among friends" is legitimate, when is Pollard coming home?

...Adviser Lisa Monaco promises the democratic world that the U.S. is "collecting information because we need it and not just because we can."...Jonathan Pollard, who, not because he could but because he thought he needed to, relayed information to a very close ally of the U.S. while he was working for Navy Intelligence. This information served Israel in preparing, among other things, for attacks by Arab nations with weapons of mass destruction, in operations like the bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunisia on Oct. 1, 1985, or in responding to a string of terror attacks.

Smadar Bat Adam..
Israel Hayom..
29 October '13..

When reports surfaced suggesting that the U.S. was eavesdropping on dozens of Western leaders, among them the leaders of its closest allies, sending shockwaves through the West, and a U.S. State Department spokeswoman responded by saying they would look into the reports from the perspective of "our friends and partners around the world," I was reminded of another convoluted remark made by an American figure: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." That is what then-President Bill Clinton said back in 1998. I was reminded of that instance because of the Americans' unique way of presenting things they have done that are forbidden or immoral.

Now the U.S.'s friends are angry. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has reprimanded U.S. President Barack Obama and told him that the trust between their two countries has been severely compromised. Obama claims he was not aware of the National Security Agency's eavesdropping, even though he directly oversees that office. When it emerges that he was actually notified as early as 2010, he will have to call Merkel again and say, "Whoops, sorry, I wasn't aware that I was aware."

French President Francois Hollande is also unhappy. He is inviting additional European countries to join a no-spying agreement France and Germany seek to impose on the Americans.

In short, the U.S. messed up.

It is with all that in mind that every word uttered by U.S. State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki should be analyzed. Pay close attention when she says the U.S. "will continue to gather the information necessary to protect the American people and their allies." The Americans are doing damage control. Or when Obama orders a re-examination of the country's surveillance program, and his Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco promises the democratic world that the U.S. is "collecting information because we need it and not just because we can."

Pollard’s return to Israel is long overdue

Any solution that does not free Pollard immediately, without restrictions, and allow him come home to Israel only compounds the injustice.

JPost Editorial..
18 August '13..

Friday’s powerful opinion piece by Jonathan Pollard in The Jerusalem Post (“Restoring Israel to greatness”) caused quite a sensation.

At great personal cost, Pollard penned the piece out of love for Israel and a genuine concern for its future. His words, whether you agree with them or not, were intended to sound a clarion call for an end to moral ambiguity and a restoration of sound values.

He writes, “No political process devoid of these fundamental values will ever end the agony or the fear for the State of Israel. It is clearly time for an historic restoration.”

Pollard enumerates with striking clarity a continuum of morally bereft decisions taken by successive governments of Israel out of “political expedience,” which have earned the country a series of “unenviable world records.”

Among them, writes Pollard, Israel is the first and only country in the world to expel its citizens, destroy their homes and uproot graves in order to hand the land over to its enemies.

Pollard also gives examples of the world records held by Israel for betraying those who have served the state, including his own case.

He summarizes the Jewish state’s record of “firsts,” declaring that “Israel has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world so befuddled by moral ambiguity that it is willing to dishonor its dead, betray its bereaved and disgrace its citizens for the sake of political expedience.”

Pollard’s thesis is that these kinds of actions, which no other country has ever taken against its own citizens, have led Israel down a morally slippery slope to last week’s unconscionable release of the first 26 of 104 Palestinian murderers and terrorists. He fears where this will lead to next.

He deftly cuts through all of the arguments for and against the prisoner release, declaring “No Israeli official has advanced a single compelling reason in support of the wholesale release of these murderers and terrorists. The claim that it ‘serves national interests’ is spurious. There is no national interest that supersedes morality.”

But he ends on a hopeful note by spelling out what is needed. “Only a reawakening of national resolve and a rebirth of ethical politics rooted in national self-respect, moral rectitude and courage of conviction can guarantee the future,” he writes.

IMRA Weekly Commentary – 3 comments on renewed talks

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
25 July '13..




#1. Obama hurts Abbas

Everyone involved knows that Abbas could have agreed to renewed talks with his head held high if the event was marked by the release of all the pre-Oslo terrorists in a single release.

And everyone involved knows the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu can release all of these murderers in exchange for the immediate release of Jonathan Pollard.

Add to all this: everyone involved knows that President Obama can release Pollard with literally the stroke of his pen – this when he can readily explain the move as a matter of justice, taken after due consideration of the many learned appeals for Pollard that he has received.

Instead Mahmoud Abbas finds himself "nickel and diming" with the Americans – even after Kerry's conditional announcement last Friday - as he seeks a way to join the talks without jeopardizing his own shaky future.

#2. Interim arrangement shouldn't mean interim withdrawals

Many Israeli observers are suggesting that this round of talks, if it does take place, cannot be expected to conclude with a final status agreement but instead with some interim arrangement. The withdrawal supporters, as can be expected, are already arguing that Israel will have to reward Abbas with various withdrawals in order to make the interim arrangement palatable.

Withdrawals would be a terribly shortsighted mistake as they only set the stage for more interim withdrawals another year two down the road.

There are arrangements that would be welcomed by the Palestinian street that have nothing to do with Israeli withdrawals.

“Every Intelligence Service [Does It],” He Declared - When Friends Spy on Friends

...Every day that Jonathan languishes in prison adds to a travesty of justice that has gone on way too long. Mr. Obama cannot have it both ways. If it is perfectly appropriate for friends to spy on friends, then Jonathan Pollard certainly ought to be granted immediate clemency.

Hamodia Op-Ed..
02 July '13..

President Barack Obama has a very unoriginal response to European outrage over new revelations from National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden that indicate that the United States spies on its allies. “Every intelligence service [does it],” he declared during a joint news conference with President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania.

“And if that weren’t the case, then there would be no use for an intelligence service. And I guarantee you that in European capitals, there are people who are interested in, if not what I had for breakfast, at least what my talking points might be should I end up meeting with their leaders. That’s how intelligence services operate,” Obama explained.

According to a Guardian newspaper report, among the targets of alleged NSA surveillance were U.S. allies such as France, Italy, Greece, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, India and Turkey.

Dry Bones: How long can this vengeful punishment of Jonathan go on?

Former intelligence official Joel Brenner, who served as head of U.S. counterintelligence under the Director of National Intelligence and held senior roles in other agencies, told the Associated Press that “if anyone thinks the Europeans don’t do it too, they’re nuts.”

There was not even a hint of regret in Obama’s remarks. The president clearly sees no need to apologize, as he perceives spying against allies as a routine matter, nothing to be ashamed of.

This is sharp contrast to the repeated apologies that Israel made to the United States over the Jonathan Pollard affair.

Refusal to release Pollard causes stalemate in talks to return Abbas to table

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Observation..
28 June '13..

Ma'an, the independent Palestinian news agency, reported this morning that secret talks are being held over the release of pre-Oslo prisoners. PA head Mahmoud Abbas has insisted that 107 Palestinians detained before the Oslo agreement must be released before the PLO will return to negotiations with Israel.

First a technical note: when PLO chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told Ma'an the release of prisoners detained before 1993 was part of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh memorandum and that Israel was obliged to abide by it he was a barefaced liar. And I say bareface liar because, unlike some of his Israeli counterparts, Erekat actually knows the text of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh memorandum, and that document in no way obligates Israel to release those prisoners.

If Israel releases these terrorists it is because it decided to do it - not because it is obligated to.

Now let's set the stage:

Here we are with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry going on and on about how important and critical it is for Israel and the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table and how we Israelis have to make sacrifices.

And he is pushing us to release the 107 terrorists who carried out crimes against Israel more than two decades ago that were so despicable that they are still in prison today.

So here is the simple question: if U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his boss President Obama genuinely believe that the talks are important, why aren't they willing to make a "sacrifice" themselves?

Ten thousand days as a bargaining chip?

JPost Editorial..
13 April '13..




As Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day this week, Jonathan Pollard – still incarcerated in North Carolina – marked his 10,000th day behind bars.

In all, the spy who helped Israel, but did not harm America, has been imprisoned for 28 years – much longer than spies who were convicted for far greater offenses. By any reasonable yardstick his release is long overdue.

This is not just our opinion.

Ranking American officials have gone on record stating that his sentence is grossly disproportionate. It has long been hard to avoid the conclusion that Pollard’s Jewishness and the fact that he acted on behalf of the Jewish state have contributed to the searing dis-proportionality.

On the scales of justice he had paid more than his dues. But to this must be added the humanitarian aspect as well. Pollard’s health is failing.

Both these reasons constitute solid grounds for commutation of his sentence to time served. The American courts have, however, consistently and adamantly refused to hear the merit of the case. They never allowed Pollard a direct appeal of his life sentence and finally disallowed any further appeals.

The presidential avenue appears just as blocked. Pollard’s petition for commutation of his sentence to time served has been sitting on Barack Obama’s desk for nearly three years without so much as a response. Indeed, the president has yet to acknowledge that the Pollard petition exists.

(Video) Esther Pollard's Heartfelt Appeal to President Obama

FreePollard..
11 March '13..

In an exclusive feature interview with Israel Channel 2 TV News, Esther Pollard was asked by journalist Udi Segal,"If you could speak to President Obama to ask him for Jonathan's freedom, what would you say to him?" Esther responded with a heartfelt appeal, first in Hebrew, and then in English. The English appeal aired on the prime time nightly news on Channel 2 TV, March 11, 2013, with Hebrew subtitles as shown here on YouTube.

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. 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.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.

.

An enduring rage, but why?

Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi..
Israel Hayom..
05 March '13..

On March 4, 1987, Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison, and his release is still nowhere on the horizon. U.S. President Barack Obama's impending visit to Israel also isn't expected to include new tidings regarding this painful affair. As with previous opportunities in which the possibility of releasing Pollard has been raised, it appears Israel's American ally is still stuck in the past.

Despite shifting permutations and circumstances, the Americans continue to be contrarian and stubborn. The memory of the trauma caused by the affair continues to burn deep in the consciousness of organizations and institutions in the U.S. This unbending and vengeful approach, which has consistently squashed any attempt by the White House to reconsider its position, currently arouses particular consternation. The matter is especially dismaying considering the partial publication in 2012 of an investigation conducted by the CIA following Pollard's arrest about the damage his activities caused, which clearly showed that his handlers never asked him to provide information pertaining to U.S. military capabilities or weaponry.

In lieu of this report and the considerable time Pollard has spent in prison, it would be natural to expect a presidential initiative on this front at the present time. Such an overture would serve to demonstrate Obama's presence in the arena and open a new, more pleasant page in his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (while giving the president Israeli credit as he attempts to kick-start the diplomatic process with the Palestinians). Instead, we are seeing that nothing has changed and that the question of Pollard's release won’t be on the American agenda during the president's visit.

Indeed, Pollard secretly provided Israel with information without being authorized to do so — valuable and diverse information pertaining to the capabilities of the Egyptian, Syrian, Libyan and Tunisian militaries. He also provided satellite photos of PLO headquarters, which was based in Tunisia at the time.

However, the CIA's damage control report found no evidence that any of the information Pollard provided (about American satellite capabilities, for example) was obtained by any third party, including the former Soviet Union. Moreover, when comparing the degree of punishment leveled against Pollard to other allegedly similar cases from U.S. history, the dismay soars to heights of absurdity.

It's time for some chutzpah to bring Jonathan home

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
28 February '13..

"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1). In relations between countries, certainly between allies, a system of ceremony, manners, restraint and diplomatic etiquette is usually employed. But in special cases, a little chutzpah is in order.

The situation surrounding the incarceration of Jonathan Pollard, the man whom the State of Israel sent to spy and then forgot about for years, is a classic example of such a special case. A little Israeli chutzpah has never killed anyone. Now, after we have tried everything else — demonstrating, signing petitions, pleading, kneeling, crying, begging for forgiveness, atoning — it is time to use a little force.

MK Moshe Feiglin (Likud-Beytenu), who recently announced that he would not be attending U.S. President Barack Obama's address at the Knesset, did the right thing. I wish more MKs would follow his footsteps and that several others, the ones with chutzpah, will even raise their voice to Obama. The Americans, who are sensitive to their president's honor, will make some noise, but that is not enough. For Obama, perhaps more so than previous American presidents, America's sentiments toward Israel play a relatively modest role. The only thing that matters is U.S. interests.

In 1998, just ahead of the Wye River talks, then U.S. President Bill Clinton promised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he would free Pollard. This understanding was ratified on the last night of the summit. It was part of a package that included other understandings — for example, Israel agreed to forgo its pursuit of the commander of the Palestinian Authority military wing, General Razi Jabali. Clinton went back on his word.

Now Obama is coming here, with a list of demands, requests, preferences, desires and interests. The issues on the agenda are well known: Iran, Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and Egypt. Now is the time to wisely, sensitively and tenaciously forge a link between doing something that the U.S. wants and the release of Pollard, which is what we want.