Wow. Just wow.
You know, I’d occasionally gotten the notion that that was how it was, but I never expected to hear it out loud from a defender of Israel.
I didn’t say that that was the majority opinion. Still, if Israel gets more isolated and more desperate, it’s an opinion that might grow more popular.
Not that the US intelligence community is trustworthy, but that seems a little silly when Israel didn’t admit Pollard was a spy until… what, 1998?
From an individual, human point of view, yeah, probably. But nation-states and government have a vested interest in reprimanding treason as the highest of crimes, so…
[QUOTE=Alessan]
I need cites, though, about your allegations. And nothing from the CIA or DoD investigations - I have trouble believing anything those are two organizations say. It would be very typical of them to make up false allegations to support their case, especially back in the bad old days of the 1980s. Given the choice between believing the American intelligence services and believing the Israeli intelligence services, I tend to do the latter.
[/quote]
Well, most of my knowledge of the case comes from Wiki as I was hardly even born back then, but the Australian whistleblower angle was revealed by the Australian authorities at least (they, in fact, believed the CIA was playing fuck-fuck tricks with them with this obvious, over the top turncoat). And if they speak the truth, then that gives a bit more credence to the DoD’s allegations, don’t it ?
Whether you can trust *their *spooks over your spooks, well, it’s up to you I suppose, but I don’t think Oz has or had much to gain making things up about Pollard.
Well, yes. You owe him 10.000 bucks, plus a thousand a month ;).
I mean, I could maybe understand (part of) Israel’s fervour in this case had Pollard been motivated by a patriotic duty towards Israel as he claims, and had given y’all the secrets because that felt like the right thing to do, à la Snowden or Manning. Principles, you can’t mess with. But he made you pay for it. Still does, if the rumour that Israel’s government is banking his pay to this day is true.
That makes it a business deal, plain and simple. Those don’t really imply loyalty on either part beyond what has been agreed upon.
I think people would be more likely to sell secrets to Israel if they knew that Israel would try to support them with diplomatic effort if they are caught (and you can publicize that you had a deal with Israel so that other traitors would know how Israel treated its turncoats and quislings).
An interesting point.
:rolleyes: You are not talking about a POW.
So? Let Israel ask, if it wants to ask. What’s the harm?
What’s the going rate for 29 years of government hospitality? Send us a check for balance, interest, and carrying charges and I’m good with unloading him.
He’s ceased to be a spy, traitor, bad example, whatever. Maybe he’ll be a footnote on an actual agreement - I don’t believe it. Someone will make political hay/theater out of the release both in the US and Israel. It will all be Obama’s fault.
“Let them ask”?! “What’s the harm”?! You’ve never in your life spoken to a Jew, have you?!
And why should you think I’ve never spoken to a Jew?
Because you asked that question, and, far worse, as if it were meant to be taken seriously!
I don’t know what your point is, and you’re wrong anyway.
If Pollard’s function now in the view of the Israeli and U.S. governments is as a minor bargaining chip, so be it.
Why?
What are Jews like?
Are they crafty and untrustworthy?
That’s exactly how many Israelis see him.
A prisoner of war, huh? That implies that he’s being imprisoned by the people you guys are presumably at war with.
If there’s any other interpretation of your statement, I’d be interested to hear it.
He’s being imprisoned by people we had a minor disagreement with at the time he was imprisoned, 30 years ago. That doesn’t mean that there was a war then, or that is a war now. The fact that we’re *not *at war with the United States is exactly why so many people think it’s absurd that you’re still holding him.
Look, most people here agree that it was wrong to have him spy on the U.S., an that the people who sent Pollard over are responsible for the issue. That goes without saying. But it’s their fault, not Pollard’s. They were the officers, he was just the grunt.
Not sure why you’d say “prisoner of war” then. Those were your words.
In any case, he’s a criminal. Why is it that some purported special relationship with Israel should make him subject to different treatment than any other criminal?
Because he’s our criminal. We sent him, we’re responsible for him. We can’t just shrug and say he’s not our problem, can we?
Fine, we’ll swap him for the officers. They can do 30 years too.
I have no opinion on whether Pollard should be paroled or not, but your attitude towards the situation is disingenuous in the extreme. He was a spy, he was convicted, and he’s serving the sentence he earned for his actions.