Interview with Esther Pollard
September 14, 1994 - The Canadian Jewish News
The Jewish world was humming earlier this summer with the announcement that Elaine (Esther) Zeitz of Toronto, an educator of children with special needs, had married Jonathan Pollard, the world's most famous Jewish prisoner, in a secret jailhouse ceremony. Esther Pollard hopes the union will lend added weight to the Pollard campaign.
CJN:
There has been some controversy over the validity of your marriage to Jonathan. Can you shed some light?
Pollard:
Jonathan and I are both observant Jews. We live our lives in full accord with Halachah. All our actions are governed by Halachah. Our marriage is in accord with Halachah. Our marriage is a private affair. We originally had no intention of sharing it with the world. It was a gesture of confidence and optimism and faith in our future, in spite of all odds, that we made.It was a very particular set of circumstances that encouraged us to go public. Perhaps it was somewhat naive. We let it be known in the hope of establishing credibility in the most unimpeachable channel; for Jonathan's voice to be heard. We didn't realize there would be such a massive hunger for nit-picky details - the kinds of things that are really not in our best interests to share right now.
Jonathan is the most over-monitored prisoner in the American system; every detail about his life, from the smallest to the largest, is in some way, on some level, by some individual, routinely monitored. For that reason, we keep all details to a minimum. If I were to divulge details, my first preference would be to detail the way he is routinely abused, harassed, singled out. Right now, even on those specifics, I can only speak in very general terms and I truly regret that, because I feel that if Jews were aware of what he endures on a daily basis, there would be righteous wrath and very justified outrage.
CJN:
Rabbi Aaron Soloveichik of Chicago, the great orthodox sage, called your marriage to Jonathan a joke ... null and void.' Can you comment?
Pollard:
(Sighs.) For us, Torah is a very great thing and we're certainly not seeking to dishonor or insult anyone. We're at a loss to understand how it is possible to render a psak Halachah - a halachic judgment - without having any facts. Rav Soloveichik has never contacted me about the matter, never contacted Jonathan about the matter, and has never spoken to anyone who was directly involved [in the marriage ceremony.]
CJN:
Is it fair to call you Jonathan's halachic bride?
Pollard:
Jewishly speaking, there is no other kind. Jewishly speaking, the civil marriage has no standing. For us, Halachah is everything.
CJN:
What can you say about Jonathan's daily treatment?
Pollard:
There are repercussions against him for every detail made public. The authorities who let their displeasure be known to him are very careful to act within the law. But the pressure that is brought to bear on him every time a disclosure is made public is enormous. And all information is used against him.
CJN:
Is he subject to anti-Semitic harassment?
Pollard:
Very much so. What Ican
say is that Jonathan is no longer in solitary confinement, but he is singled out to be managed as if he still were, which means that even the finest details of his life are micro-managed. He is subjected to a jungle of red tape and permissions and bureaucracy that no other inmate faces. And this over every single, teeny-tiny detail of his life. And I wish I could detail them.
CJN:
Technically, Jonathan is eligible for parole in 1995. You are now on a vigorous campaign to get people to believe parole is not a viable alternative. Why?
Pollard:
The parole issue is a red herring and nothing more than a delaying tactic. Jonathan stands virtually no chance of being paroled. True, he is eligible for parole in 1995 but so are people like Charles Manson and [convicted Robert Kennedy] assassin Sirhan Sirhan, who also have absolutely no chance for parole.Jonathan has in his parole file four strong recommendations which would obviate any chance for parole. No parole board in the United States is going to go against no less personalities than U.S. attorney Joseph de Genova [who prosecuted Pollard]; the sentencing judge, Aubrey Robinson; [former defence secretary] Caspar Weinberger - who all endorsed recommendations that Jonathan never be paroled.
And then, President Bill Clinton added the icing on the cake last spring when he turned down the commutation of [Pollard's] sentence. Parole boards are [composed of] ordinary, average people who are not going to contradict the president of the United States and say they know better. Therefore it's foolish to even continue the process when you know that the answer at the end of it will be no.'
Let's say just for argument's sake that Jonathan had some chance of being paroled. Parole would leave the balance of a life sentence hanging over his head and the head of Israel for the rest of his natural life. It means that if indeed parole is granted by some miracle, if at any point the authorities decided that he violated any conditions of his parole, he could immediately be rearrested, extradited - if he was in Israel - and sent back to spend the balance of a life sentence in prison.
An issue that for the Jewish people is the most critical is that Jonathan's sentence is consistent with those meted out to enemy agents. If Jonathan gets the sentence of an enemy agent, who's the enemy? Israel! As long as the life sentence remains intact, Israel has this life sentence hanging over her head as well.
He was never charged with harming the United States. Harming the U.S. is a charge that stands on its own, separate and apart. This is important because President Clinton used that as the excuse to deny clemency to Jonathan, and it's a false charge.
After nine months of polygraph testing, the CIA concluded that Jonathan was an ideologue and that he had done what he did for ideological reasons. Moreover, in the United States, when a person is found to have benefited financially from espionage, the courts routinely fine them. Jonathan was never fined. He was never charged with having benefited financially, yet that has been the major myth.
As Alan Dershowitz points out, if Jonathan were to spy for money,
Prime Minister Rabin made a personal appeal to President Clinton [for Pollard's release.] One head of state generally doesn't approach another head of state publicly about such a request unless he has some pretty good assurances in advance that his request will be favorably received. There's no reason to invite public humiliation and rejection otherwise.
President Clinton turned down Prime Minister Rabin's request in the most arrogant, high-handed manner, which showed absolutely no respect for Mr. Rabin. President Clinton could have made a gesture. He could have shown that he at least considered the plea of an ally from its head of state.
During the Gulf War, Israelis called Jonathan
All his mail goes to Washington, where it's supposed to be vetted, not stolen. As long as the people who vet it are satisfied that it doesn't contain classified information, they are supposed to send it on to its rightful address. Roughly 70 percent of his mail doesn't make it to its destination. I want to emphasize that this is
What has happened is that constituent organizations have broken away from the leadership and begun issuing their own calls for commutation. And it's sad that the leadership had to wait for the constituent organizations to act.
I received two envelopes in reply. One was full of information; the other was a personal letter. I had opened the information first, and read it. And then I read the letter. I expected the person who wrote it to be angry and bitter. Instead, his letter was full of love for the land and people of Israel. It was such an overwhelmingly human, patriotic, compassionate tone, that I was very touched. Thus began the beginning of our communication.
At the same time, I was shocked beyond words at what I'd read, because I'd honestly believed that America was the land of justice and democracy. I didn't believe something like that could happen in America. There was a moral imperative; you just had to get involved.
I can honestly say that my personal feelings for my husband aside, this is the kind of issue I feel very strongly concerns every Jew and every decent, law-abiding citizen in a democracy. The issues are much bigger than Jonathan and myself. They affect every citizen, and, like it or not, we are writing a page of Jewish history.
CJN:
Can you clear up what Jonathan was charged with and convicted of?
Pollard:
Jonathan was convicted of one count, and one count only, of passing classified information to an ally. He was never charged with treason.
He couldn't be, because treason means you give aid and comfort to an enemy, and Israel is not an enemy.
CJN:
Almost all accounts of the case state that Israeli payments to Jonathan were made, whether it was Israel persuading him to take money or whether it was an unwritten rule that anyone providing this sort of information had to be paid.
Pollard:
Israel did try to insist [that Pollard be paid] and actually set up a false bank account to which Jonathan never had access. These things were investigated in minute detail and there were nine months of polygraphing that satisfied the CIA.
major
money could have been made by passing the information to enemies of Israel. A minor amount of money was recorded to have passed hands - something like $50,000 - every cent of which was accounted for to the courts, to their satisfaction that it was not for Jonathan's benefit. That did not even cover operational expenses he incurred on behalf of Israel.
CJN:
You have said that his case has resulted in a de facto legal redefinition of Israel. What do you mean by that?
Pollard:
When you have an ally - Israel - and an agent working to pass information to that ally, and yet when that agent is sentenced to a term consistent with one given to a hostile agent, what does that tell us about what they are trying to say about that ally? Again and again, we keep finding this mischaracterization.
CJN:
What has been the punishment been for others who have spied for an ally?
Pollard:
Typically, two to four years
. What's also been mind-boggling is the case of Albert Sombolay. He was an American soldier during Operation Desert Storm. He shared the U.S. plans for Desert Storm with Iraq and Jordan. He was originally sentenced to 35 years. This was the highest treason possible! After the first appeal, it was reduced to 19 years, and it's been reduced since then.
CJN:
Is a presidential commutation, from this or a future president, still possible?
Pollard:
Absolutely. And we've got to press for it now. President Clinton is free to change his mind at any moment. He is free to review the case today, and tomorrow sign Jonathan's release. Frankly, that is the only morally decent and acceptable solution. Jonathan has already served twice as long as anyone else in the history of the United States who was charged with a similar offence.
CJN:
What information did Jonathan pass to Israel?
Pollard:
He passed the kind of information Israel was owed according to a 1983 treaty agreement, which dealt specifically with Israel's security needs. He did come under pressure at various points during his operation to hand over information to Israel concerning the United States, and he categorically refused. He did not pass Israel any information to which she was not entitled.
He handed over information concerning Iraq's nuclear capabilities; the building up of non-conventional weapons in places like Iraq, Syria and Egypt - things that directly concerned Israel.
the ghost of the sealed rooms.'
The sealed rooms existed because of the warnings Jonathan had given Israel. Moreover, information Jonathan gave Israel prior to the Gulf War allowed Israel not only to prepare itself, but also to feed information to America.
CJN:
How often do you communicate with Jonathan?
Pollard:
We speak every day, and that's not easy because the authorities can and do interfere with his privileges. Jonathan writes me every day. I have not received any
of his letters since 1990. His letters to me are routinely confiscated and that's a direct contravention of American law.
illegal
.
CJN:
Why hasn't Jonathan's plight caught the imagination of the majority of the North American Jewish public?
Pollard:
I don't necessarily agree with you. I think the energy is there in the American community. Once they have been made aware of the issues, they're a good community and they do respond. The energy has to be harnessed and focused. I think this is the task of the Jewish leadership. There has been perhaps less directness from the leadership than is desirable. For various reasons, they were slow to respond. An example: Why is that someone like [Canadian Jewish Congress president] Irving Abella has no difficulty saying that anti-Semitism is behind Pollard's fate, and yet his American counterpart waffles for years?
CJN:
How did you become involved in this?
Pollard:
It was the summer of 1990, and I was in Israel working at the Ministry of Justice and teaching English at Hebrew University. I had been in touch with Shifra Hoffman, who founded Victims of Arab Terror, and she suggested I write to Jonathan, which I did.