How do you “return” one of your own citizens, working in your own country?
I dunno. If somebody was caught passing secrets to the UK, I suppose this would have been the response:
a) So much for the special relationship,
and
b) Sure you can request that Agent 007 be returned to the her Majesty. We won’t laugh. But we won’t comply either.
Ditto for Japan. I suppose if the ally were France or the Netherlands, the request might prompt a few giggles.
South Africa – Of course not. The government there is totally different from the one when Pollard was active.
Pakistan – Only if he actually sold them secrets, not just tried. However, the average Pakistani would regard a claim that the same person spied for both Israel and Pakistan as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. And I’d agree with that average Pakistani.
This is a fair point. Also, it’s against Israel’s interest to run spies against the US, given the risks. So Israel doesn’t have a need to reward people for spying against the US. If they give Pollard parades, they’ll be going against their national interest.
The big damage to Israel’s national interest came from running a spy against the US in the first place.
Because their actions are distasteful?
Because their actions portray the sponsor as “bad”?
The French Agent bombing of the Rainbow warrior did a lot of damage to public opinion of France in New Zealand, and seeing their subsequent treatment was a festering sore.
The same way that Israeli agents trying to fraudulently obtain NZ passports was a “very bad thing” - the more that this is portrayed as “ok” or “celebrated” by the sponsor, the more damage it does to their image.
Now I’m not going to delude myself that having people in New Zealand pissed off at Israel particularly matters a whole lot - but maybe if it happens to the US, UK or similar, it might be a bit different
The Soviets and Kim Philby might beg to differ: http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/philby.jpg
In other words, you have no answer.
You imagined some unrealistic hypothetical. No answer is appropriate except to point out that that is what it is.
You are mixing up two different notions.
Yes, undoubtedly, it is a significant factor that spying pisses of the targets of the spying. This is always true. It is true no matter who the targets are.
That is, as already admitted, a factor.
However, it is equally a factor that the countries all seem to find spying valuable. To the extent that spying is in their own interests, the treatment of spies is also in their interests - the better spies (for them) are treated, the easier to recruit spies in the future.
What you guys seem to be saying is that it is in a country’s best interests to hypocritically denigrate or at least not reward their own spies, who were following their orders but got caught, because to do so avoids inflaming the offence given by spying in the first place. That may well be the best move in some cases, but it is an awfully cynical position to take, and avoiding giving offence not the only significant factor - there is also whatever value spying has to consider.
Thanks for finding that. Philby did find his way to the USSR when he was about to be caught, but was kept in obscurity under virtual house arrest for many years before dying broke and broken. He was adulated only then, when he was safely dead.
No good role models there.
It is unrealistic to address the exact issue in dispute?
Seems to me there are two ways of dealing with “blown” spies to consider:
-
The way you have claimed the US deals with them; and
-
the way Israel deals with them.
I am merely asking you, which way is more likely to lead to easier recruitment of spies in the future.
I do not see this as “unrealistic”, as both countries will, undoubtedly, be recruiting spies in the future (not least, to spy on each other).
Suppose this Pollard was caught, and confessed. Then he was used to transmit false information to his handlers, so that the CIA/FBI could determine where the info was going. Would he have any claim for leniency then? i have often wondered whether these spies are in fact "double agents’ who are used to plant false information, and thus reveal who on the other side is running things.
Traditionally, that was part of the “deal” for being turned: if you cooperate, the punishment would be less (in wartime, “turn or be shot”).
It’s also worth mentioning that Britain was pretty damn far from being a friend and ally of the Soviets throughout that time period, and they *still *kept him discreetly out of sight while he was alive rather than needlessly antagonize Britain. That distinction also prevents comparison with Israel’s use of Pollard to obtain American secrets solely for resale to the Soviets.
I’m not conflating anything -
at least I don’t think I am,
I’m quite explicitly saying that, in my opinion,
Between pissing off the general populace of the spied upon, and “selling out your man”, then the “better” deal is to sell out your man.
Quite specifically, what the French did to their fucking murderous scum agents, turned a whole country against them for a very long time
I’m on the record as being both against spying but also thinking its not a big deal. I think the facts of Pollard’s case that’s come out in the past 30 years is mostly true, and I expect the US and Israel to continue acting in their interests. Factions in Israel will give him a hero’s welcome, the US just has to be ready for that because its gonna happen. And the US can tut-tut about how distasteful that is and maybe even lob some empty threats at Israel, but in the end we all know we’re not going to seriously punish Israel in any meaningful way over it. By that time Pollard will be gone and out of our hair and both countries can put the episode behind them
I don’t see anyone saying that.
Vigorously lobbying the nation that was spied on to release the spy (without offering anything in return, and while being unapologetic about the spying), granting the spy citizenship in your country, and lavishly rewarding the spy, with the prospect of a hero’s welcome when he returns “home”, are actions that many see as needlessly inflammatory even if they didn’t involve a major ally.
I think it speaks to the arrogance of Israeli leaders like Netanyahu that he thinks it’s worthwhile to stick a thumb in America’s eye over the Pollard affair. Maybe he thinks Congressional support for Israel is so bulletproof that he can do whatever he wants. It strikes me as an unnecessarily stupid risk.
As for certain “friends of Pollard” in this country, they are behaving in a comparably heedless and stupid way. While I believe they represent a tiny minority of American Jews, it amazes me that these people don’t know, or don’t care that their actions feed the propaganda of anti-Semites who claim that American Jews have a “dual loyalty” or are actively disloyal to their country.
And what about what he did to his own country? Doesn’t that bother you? Like I said, what if it had been the other way around? What if it had been an Israeli citizen who spied for the U.S., and sold secrect documents that later found their way into the hands of say, Palestine? (I believe some of the stuff Pollard took was sold to the Soviet Union) How would you feel? (And before you ask, I wouldn’t expect Israel to turn that person over to the U.S.)
For all your comments about what he did for you, and how you owe him – what about what he did to his own country? Doesn’t that count at all?
He’s not one of “your’s”. He wasn’t an Israeli citizen (until it was given to him later after he was in prison), he was a citizen of the U.S., who screwed over his own people. I don’t care what his reasons were. If someone of Russian descent decided to sell documents to the Soviet Union during the Cold War because they felt some kinship in their Russian heritage, would that be okay?
The only thing he’s “owed” is to rot in prison.
Again, at no point did I ever say he shouldn’t go to prison. He did the crime, he should do the time. No argument there. I would have been happy if he had been freed ealier, but not because he deserved it - rather, as a kind gesture to the Israeli people.
The thing is, we’re talking past each other here. You’re couching the issue in moral terms, and from that point pf view, your svsolutely right. What he did was very very wrong. I, on the other hand, am looking at the matter from a completely different viewpoint - that of loyalty and responsibility. And to me, at leat, the fact that he’s guilty doesn’t diminish our responsibility toward him one whit. Morality and responsibility are two unrelated issues.
This isn’t about his actions. It’s about ours. We were responsible for getting him out of prison, and we failed.
Besides, we can’t condemn him for doing somethibg wrong after asking him to do it in the first place. That would be a tad hypocritical of us.
Yosef Amit - IDF officer, convicted in 1980s for spying on behalf of the US. Hushed up by Israel, not to embarrass United States.
Andrzej Kielczynski (Joseph Barak) - high level Likud politician recruited by the CIA.
Tell us you know what other considerations are involved.
Tell us where you acquired responsibility for him. Was it when you hired him to spy on your ally so you could sell their secrets to their rivals? Or when you gave him citizenship and a trust fund?
You are defining responsibility solely as a synonym for tribalism - us good, others no matter - following the decision to make him part of your tribe. Well, he isn’t - he’s ours. And yes, most moral codes *would *include responsibility. How is it that yours does not?
What else were you responsible for? Were you also responsible for not selling out the ally you depend on for your very existence to its strongest rival?
As long as the trust fund and the hero’s welcome are out there, you haven’t yet failed in your efforts to tell your best friends to fuck off. Because that’s all it looks like from here.
Cut the crap.