Jonathan Pollard - The Spy Left Out in the Cold

Dr. Arno HaCohen - B'tzedek Magazine: Fall/Winter 1997/1998

As a point of clarification, the words of Jonathan Pollard contained in this article come from three different sources.

1. Jonathan Pollard via his wife Esther.
2. Written material by Jonathan Pollard and Esther Pollard.
3. Quotations taken from an interview conducted by Ben Caspit of the Israeli daily Ma'ariv on March 21, 1997. Ben Caspit's interview, entitled "Face to Face With Jonathan Pollard," appeared in Ma'ariv's Sof HaShavu'a in three segments on May 9, May 22, and June 5,1997.

The Introduction

The Pollard Affair encompasses far more than the U.S. prosecution of Jonathan Pollard as a spy for the State of Israel. Unlike most tales of espionage, the Pollard Affair becomes a story of importance following the discovery of Pollard's activities. The reason for this is that the Pollard Affair is not a simple case of espionage in which an Israeli agent was caught compromising the security of the United States. In fact, there is no evidence that Jonathan Pollard ever released to Israel any data related to the security of the United States or any information pertaining to the activities or names of U.S. intelligence agents. The Pollard Affair is a dramatically ironic story in that it has more to do with Israeli denial and American Jewish fear than U.S. security interests. What makes the Pollard Affair so difficult to understand is that Jonathan Pollard did not commit the heinous and unforgivable acts against the United States that his life prison sentence would indicate. Jonathan Pollard was betrayed, and the intrigue of the Pollard Affair is not found in the espionage committed by Pollard but by the actions taken by both the Israeli and American governments during and following his arrest.

The facts of the case clearly indicate that the Pollard Affair was singled out for special treatment by U.S. officials from among the many cases of espionage committed against the United States. The question is: Why? Jonathan Pollard did not damage the security of the United States. He was not charged with treason. The single indictment against Jonathan Pollard contained one count of passing classified information to an American ally. For this crime, Jonathan Pollard received a sentence of life imprisonment with a recommendation that he never be eligible for parole. To date, Jonathan Pollard has been incarcerated for 13 years.

The average American, be he Jew or Gentile, might say, "O.K., he did the crime, now let him do the time." However, this opinion would be arrived at through ignorance of the American judicial system and the punishment meted out to those convicted of espionage. In the history of the United States, no other spy convicted for passing intelligence to an ally has received a life sentence. In fact, the maximum sentence for such an offense today is 10 years while the median sentence has always been 2 to 4 years. (See Appendix A for a comparison of sentences and time served for those convicted of spying for U.S. allies.)

Additionally, agents spying for countries categorized as enemies of the United States have received less severe punishments than Jonathan Pollard and many have been released prior to the expiration of their sentences. (See Appendix B for a list of sentences and time served for those convicted of spying for U.S. enemies.) As an example of how out of the ordinary Pollard's sentence is can be seen when viewing the case of Aldrich Ames. Ames spied for the Soviet Union, a country categorized as an "enemy" of the United States, committed treason, and was responsible for the deaths of at least 11 American agents. Yet, Aldrich Ames received the same sentence as Jonathan Pollard. And while Jonathan Pollard spent seven years in solitary confinement, in the harshest prison of the Federal system -- FCI Marion, Aldrich Ames did not. Ames, aside from the time he spent during interrogation by U.S. authorities, was not forced to do any solitary time nor was he housed in an institution containing the most desperate and violent criminals found in the American federal prison system.

It is for this reason, at least at the outset, that the Pollard Affair should be of great concern to those who seek justice. There is, however, far more at stake than justice. The Jewish community in the United States must ask themselves about their own leadership and how deafening the silence has been these past thirteen years concerning Jonathan Pollard. Lastly, every Israeli citizen should demand an explanation from the political leadership as to why they behaved as they did. From every perspective, the Pollard Affair just doesn't make any sense. Is there something that we are not being told or is it simply that no one cares?

What did Jonathan Pollard have to offer the Israeli security services and why did he illegally transfer classified intelligence material to them? That's the first question. Then we need to know, who was involved and how did it all work? And finally, how did what appears to be a grand injustice happen to Jonathan Pollard?

The Background

"I grew up on Exodus, on the new Zionism, on the new sense of national pride. On the new Jew, who is re-vitalized, who isn't afraid. I detest Diaspora mentality, I detest defeatism, and Jews who are motivated by materialism to live in America," Jonathan Pollard told journalist Ben Caspit from his North Carolina prison cell in 1997.

Jonathan Jay Pollard grew up in the way most self-identifying Jews did in mid-twentieth century America, with both a love of the United States and a deep commitment to the fledgling Jewish State. For some American Jews, the concept of Israel took root and although they chose to live and work in America, there was always something that left a deep and abiding connection to Israel. Not religious, but not un-religious, many young post-Holocaust Jews felt an awakening of memories and commitments that generations had sought to bury. Israel, seen as a nation of proud and independent Jews, was responsible for fostering this new Jewish awareness; a reorientation of commitments and beliefs.

"You know what makes me really sad?" Pollard said to Caspit. "Everything that happened didn't ever have to happen at all. I had decided to move to Israel after college. To make aliyah, to go into the army and to do reserve duty. To be an Israeli. But my family was very opposed. 'After all we invested in you,' they said, 'all the best schools -- how could you do such a thing to us?' And I like a fool, put my plans off. And now I'm here. It simply did not have to happen."

Jonathan Pollard did as he was expected. He married and secured a good job in America. Highly educated, he went to work as a civilian analyst for United States Naval Intelligence in September of 1979. Little out of the ordinary would characterize Jonathan's life during the early 1980s. He did not make trips to Israel, there were no signs that he sought a new life, nor were there any hints that Jonathan was unhappy with the lifestyle he had chosen.

It wasn't until 1984 that Jonathan Pollard understood that something was terribly wrong. The problem had to do with his work and his belief that American interests and Israeli interests, in the areas of security and defense, ran along parallel lines. However, something had changed, the sharing of intelligence material between the United States and Israel had stopped. As part of his job, Jonathan regularly was privy to data concerning military and terrorist activity in the Middle-East. He was aware that Israel and the United States had signed a Letter of Agreement in 1983 which confirmed that vital security information pertaining to the defense and well-being of either country was to be shared. Jonathan discovered that this was no longer happening.

It became clear to Pollard that data vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld from Israel by the U.S. Administration. The information no longer being shared with Israel was not the run-of-the-mill intelligence on troop movement or military exercises conducted by Arab armies. It was information related to Syrian and Iraqi poison gas production and the development of nuclear capabilities, as well as planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

According to Pollard, when he discovered the suppression of this information he went to his superiors to question the propriety of holding back from Israel what appeared to be vital security intelligence. The response to his inquiries included, "mind your own business" and "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know." Pollard insists that he did everything within his power to stop what had become an "illegal embargo" of security intelligence against Israel. He failed. Disgusted, disheartened and with a fear that the lack of this intelligence put Israeli lives in danger, Jonathan Pollard in October of 1984, directly approached the Israelis. All agree that Pollard went to the Israelis not to hurt America, but to save Israel.

The Israelis agreed and Pollard went to work supplying Israel with classified material relating to Israel's security needs. His main contact was Colonel Aviem Sela, head of Israeli Air Force Operations and chief pilot on the operation to bomb Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor. Pollard was "handled" through LAKAM, a special intelligence unit run out of the United States headed by Rafi Eitan, Israel's legendary intelligence officer. Among Eitan's many renown operations was the capture and delivery of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann to justice in Jerusalem.

According to Pollard, "Rafi [Eitan] took care to pay me, but he did it in a strange way. He would send me different places, on errands and he would ask me to pay for things with my credit card; he would give me back the money in cash. I told him that it was crazy, that my credit card could incriminate me, and he just said that that is the way it has to be done.

"By the way, he tried to convince me to bring him information on American agents in Israel. He said he was willing to pay any price for this. I absolutely refused. I had my red line. It was very clear to me that I would never do anything to endanger America or American lives. That's not for me. I didn't work for money; I wasn't willing to do any such thing. I never had anything against America. I only wanted to save Israel."

Pollard was high enough on the list of important Israel agents working in America that he was issued an Israeli passport in the code-name-alias of Danny Cohen. The passport was to be used in case he needed to make a run for it before his term of service came to an end. The Israelis realized that Pollard could not be "run" indefinitely, therefore, included in their deal with him was a decommission date and the promise of a future in Israel. Jonathan Pollard, however, was never to use his "spy" passport or was he able to reach his decommission date as a free man. In 1985 U.S. law enforcement pinpointed the source of suspected security leaks. Pollard was targeted and he knew it.

The Arrest

How or why Jonathan Pollard knew he was about to be arrested is not clear. What is clear is that he shared this information with his Israeli contacts and was told to seek refuge in the Israeli embassy in Washington. Before Jonathan made his way to the Israeli embassy, his Israeli handler, Aviem Sela, who had by that time become Pollard's close friend, was able to escape. Pollard told Ben Caspit,

Realizing that time had run out Jonathan and Anne Pollard went to the Israeli embassy in Washington with the full confidence that they would be given refuge. The following is excerpted from Ben Caspit's "Face to Face With Jonathan Pollard" in which Jonathan Pollard relates the incredible events that took place at the Israeli embassy as he attempted to elude agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Anne and I drove into the Israeli Embassy compound through the electronic gate. I was identified at the entrance, and they opened the gate for me. The F.B.I. were following, but they did not enter; they remained outside. I had specific instructions from Avi [Aviem Sela] and Rafi [Rafi Eitan] on how to behave in such a situation, and that is how I acted. When the electronic gate closed after me, I knew I was home. On safe ground. That I could stop worrying. It was over.

The Israeli government in 1985 was made up of a National Unity coalition of Labor and Likud. The central decision makers were: Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir, alternating Prime Ministers under the national unity agreement; Moshe Arens, Cabinet Minister Without Portfolio and former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.; Yitzhak Rabin, Defense Minister; and Rafi Eitan, head of LAKAM.

The Indictment and Sentencing

In June 1986 Jonathan Pollard was criminally indicted. The charge was violating 18 U.S.C. 794 (c); criminally delivering defense information to a foreign government "with intent or reason to believe" that the material was to be used either: "to the injury of the United States," or, "to the advantage of a foreign nation." The U.S. government did not cite the first alternative of the statute. Jonathan Pollard was formally charge with transferring classified data that "would be used to the advantage of Israel."

Jonathan Pollard never went to trial. Due, in part, to the specific wording of the indictment and at the express desire of U.S. officials, Jonathan relinquished his right to be heard in court and entered into a plea-bargain agreement with the government in May 1986. More importantly, Jonathan Pollard entered into his plea agreement with the U.S. after he came to understand that the Israeli government had not only thoroughly abandoned him, but was aiding in his prosecution. According to Caspit, "It was Israel that helped to incriminate him. The confusion that gripped the political and intelligence leadership in Israel following the exposure of Pollard resulted in their complete loss of composure. A sharp team of Americans that was sent to Israel to investigate succeeded in pressuring the Israeli cabinet and in taking from Israel all the proof and documents necessary to indict Pollard."

Pollard told Caspit:

Israel did not remain quiet, to the contrary, they made every effort to remove blame from themselves and place it squarely and exclusively upon the shoulders of Jonathan Pollard. Leonard Garment in his book Crazy Rhythm & All That Jazz (Random House, 1997) gives a unique insight into the inner-workings of the Israeli betrayal of Jonathan Pollard. Pages 369 through 374 of Crazy Rhythm present a startling view of Israeli duplicity and, according to Garment, their falsification of facts. Garment writes that sometime toward the end of 1985 several Israeli officials visited his law office in Washington, D.C. The Israeli group included: Meir Rosenne, Elyakim Rubinstein, Moshe Arens, Hanan Bar-On, Ram Caspi and Avraham Shalom. It didn't take long for Garment to learn that Jonathan Pollard was the reason for this uninvited gathering.

Jonathan had been arrested only weeks before and it was apparent that the Israelis were scrambling to get all their ducks in a row. Moshe Arens opened the dialogue with Garment, "We need some off the record advice." Garment writes, "the whole contingent was headed for an emergency meeting with Secretary of State George Shultz. What guidance would I give? How bad was the U.S. government atmosphere? The American Jewish atmosphere? What tack should they take with Shultz?"

With the little information he had, Garment told them that the general reaction to the Pollard situation was bad and he advised them not to hide anything. "Don't try to bamboozle Shultz," Garment said. "He'll find out, and he will be unforgiving."

In an attempt to be of service, Garment introduced the Israelis to Abe Sofaer, Shultz' "trusted private counsel." As a Washington insider with a talent for picking up political nuances, Garment understood that all would be well and the Pollard situation would work itself out quietly and cleanly. Garment incorrectly thought that what could be a potentially embarrassing situation for both Israel and the United States was closed.

Meanwhile, Jonathan had broken his silence and was cooperating with the U.S. prosecutors. In exchange for his testimony the United States authorities promised not to seek the maximum sentence against him. Additionally, Pollard wanted to spare the U.S. and Israel a long, difficult and very probably diplomatic threatening trial. There was little alternative, he knew that the Israeli authorities had already decided to collaborate with the U.S. prosecutors, after all, he had seen the evidence with his own eyes.

Indeed, the Israelis were playing ball with the Americans, but on their terms. Terms, as it was to turn out, that were wholly unacceptable to U.S. officials and in complete opposition to Pollard's interests. By May of 1986, the time of Pollard's plea agreement, the U.S. Justice Department revealed that Pollard had disclosed the name and role of Aviem Sela. The Israelis had foolishly calculated that even after locking Pollard out of the embassy and providing the Americans with incriminating evidence against him, Pollard would remain silent. Therefore, from the outset, they whitewashed the entire episode denying any high-level Israeli involvement in the affair. Once Pollard opened his mouth it became clear that the Israelis were lying. Rather than come clean, the Israelis further entrenched themselves.

Leonard Garment re-enters the picture. He writes,

Sela, as it turned out, had been in the United States taking an advanced computer course at New York University when a mutual friend had introduced him to Pollard. Pollard said he wanted to supply classified information to Israel. Sela passed Pollard's proposal to Rafi Eitan, head of Israel's scientific intelligence unit, who authorized the transfer of documents.

Regarding the Victim Impact Statement (VIS), David Zwiebel, "Of Counsel" on the amicus curiae brief submitted in support of Pollard's 1991 appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, wrote (Middle East Quarterly, "Why Jonathan Pollard Got Life," June 13, 1997):

In an article entitled, "Pollard's Weinberger Problem," published in The Forward on October 30, 1997 by Kenneth R. Timmerman, publisher of the monthly newsletter, "The Iran Brief" and author of The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq (Houghton Mifflin), an attempt is made to understand Weinberger's motivations. According to Timmerman:

Ben Caspit questioned Jonathan Pollard concerning the events surrounding the sentencing:

Ben Caspit:

Jonathan Pollard:

"Israeli agent"

"rogue agent"

"rogue operation"

With one stroke of the pen they turned me from a foreign agent who had worked on behalf of the State on Israel into a freelancer who worked for himself -- some wild-eyed, nationalist fanatic. Hey, that's not true! Ben, you're looking at Danny Cohen! At an Israel agent who worked for the LAKAM intelligence office, who at one point received a salary, and who has an Israeli company registered in his name! Who even had a date for deactivation! December. The month after I was arrested I was supposed to have been deactivated, to leave it all and move to Israel to build a life there.

Ben Caspit:

Jonathan Pollard:

In the end, the U.S. government violated every clause of the plea agreement. Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason, his unprecedented sentence can only be attributed to the events occurring outside of the courtroom -- Weinberger's vanity and Israeli duplicity. It must be said that in all likelihood Weinberger would never have had the opportunity to have his vengeance if the Israelis settled the case as George Shultz suggested.

The Aftermath

Pollard appealed his sentence and plea agreement, but was rejected. The court battles, however, continue in what appears to be a never ending struggle to secure Pollard's release. Currently there are two fronts to Jonathan's fight: the Israeli legal and political battle and the American diplomatic one.

Using the Courts: An Interview with

Pollard Attorney Larry Dub

B'tzedek:

Larry Dub:

We maintain that there are grounds upon which a new hearing should be convened. On the day of Mr. Pollard's sentencing, Caspar Weinberger sent a secret memo to the sentencing judge, Albee Robinson. There were allegations in the memo that Mr. Pollard's actions caused a great and severe danger to the United States of America. The Weinberger Memo has been a classified document and we have no knowledge what information was given to Judge Robinson upon which he rendered his decision. We do know that based on that memo, Pollard was given life without parole, even though the government argued that they would not seek a maximum term. The sentence handed down was, in fact, a violation of their plea bargain agreement with Mr. Pollard.

The only way for a prisoner to re-file a motion, under the new 1996 anti-crime law that passed in the U.S. trying to do away with criminal appeals and expedite the process, requires a panel of judges to decide whether a prisoner should be allowed to re-file his motion. This is what we are now seeking. So, even if we were to find out today that the Weinberger Memo was full of falsehoods, it would still not guarantee that Mr. Pollard would have his case heard. That is the current status of the Pollard case in the U.S. court system. Therefore, short a presidential commutation, it appears that Mr. Pollard has a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Regarding the Pollard case in Israel, it has been our position all along that the Israeli government should have taken an active role in freeing Mr. Pollard. We have seen, recently, that is, the September 28th, assassination attempt in on Khaled Mashaal, in Jordan, that when the Israeli government puts its mind to getting its agents out of jail it is able to do so. Unfortunately, with Pollard, we see a case of total abandonment and betrayal. The reality of the situation is, even under the present Likud government, which promised to help Pollard, nothing is done. The lack of activity from the Israeli authorities on Mr. Pollard's behalf has been a great shock and a disappointment. And that's where we stand today.

In 1995, Mr. Pollard made a move to wake up the Israeli government on his behalf. He asked them to grant him Israeli citizenship, as they had promised they would from the outset of his work for them. The government replied that they would be happy to give him citizenship once he arrived in Israel. Mr. Pollard said that he was in prison and unable to come to Israel and was there any other way of obtaining citizenship? The government said, no. He then filed a petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice. Mr. Pollard stated that promises made to him by the Israeli government were not kept. Additionally, Mr. Pollard claimed that just as the Israeli government had previously granted citizenship to people not present in the country -- as done for the Refuseniks [Jews held in the Soviet Union against their will] -- there is precedent to give citizenship to someone not in Israel. On the eve of the hearing before the Israeli High Court, after a preliminary injunction and a show-cause as to why Pollard should not be granted Israeli citizenship was delivered to the government, then they relented, and granted Pollard citizenship.

We believe that the Israeli government has asked for clemency for Mr. Pollard over the years, but at the same time, we also believe that they have not put Pollard at the head of their priorities. When they did ask, it was always on humanitarian grounds. Israel's official position, until today, was that the Pollard Affair was a rogue operation. It was not sanctioned by the Israeli government. The people in America know the real story, they are not stupid, they gave lie detector tests to Pollard and all those connected with him, they know that he was an agent of Israel. They know that he was asked to retrieve certain documents for the Israelis. From what we can see, the Americans want the Israelis to come clean with a statement to the effect that Jonathan Pollard was their agent. When the Israelis start telling the truth, the Americans will start talking about Pollard. We thought that part of the process was gaining Jonathan Israeli citizenship. However, this did not move the Israeli government.

B'tzedek:

Larry Dub:

Aviem Sela, for example, was appointed head of Tel Nof air force base. He was only later stripped of his position after the United States placed tremendous pressure on Israel to have him removed. Sela, who was one of Pollard's handlers, was the only individual other than Pollard to be indicted in the U.S., therefore his 'punishment,' so to speak, was not for running a rogue operation, but rather because his advancement so obviously demonstrated to the Americans that the opposite was true. The reason being, according to Sela's attorney Leonard Garment, in his book Crazy Rhythm, was that the Israelis were willing to appease American officials with this gesture in order to quiet the Pollard Affair. At the time, Garment, a Washington attorney insider, had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz who was interested in hushing the entire Pollard matter.

The Israelis wanted to contain the damage to their relationship with America. Garment was hired by the Israelis, who, in turn, hoped that Garment's reputation as "Nixon's attorney" and his friendly relationship with Shultz would aid in neutralizing whatever backlash Pollard's capture might create. It was Shultz who told Garment that the U.S. now wanted to put the episode to bed, quietly. Garment spoke to Aviem Sela in Israel and got a statement from him. George Shultz said to Garment and the Israelis that since Pollard gave a statement and passed the lie detector, all we want to know is what Sela knows, we want to ask him questions. If Sela submits an affidavit, we will let the case rest.

However, when the Israeli team came to Washington to present Sela's affidavit, it was very different from the statement Sela had given to Garment. Garment describes in his book the affidavit that was supposedly taken from Sela was absolutely not true. After Garment approached the Israelis with this allegation, the Israelis asked how Garment knew that the affidavit wasn't true. Garment replied that he had met with Sela and knows the truth and that he had notes from the meeting. The Israelis demanded that Garment dismiss himself from the case and hand over his notes. Garment said no. He warned the Israelis that Shultz knows the truth, and that they must be forthright. Instead, the Israelis gave Shultz the perjured testimony and Shultz hit the roof. It was on the back of this incident that the indictments against both against Pollard and Sela were issued. It is our opinion that the Americans would have never indicted Sela, had he not signed the perjured testimony.

B'tzedek:

Larry Dub:

B'tzedek:

Larry Dub:

Ariel Sharon had warned the National Unity Government of Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Shamir that if they gave over the documents received from Pollard, that they were, in effect, putting Pollard out to dry for life. Pollard's fingerprints were all over these documents. Shamir only stated that a democracy needs to know how to sacrifice some of its own. The Americans really had no other way of proving what documents were given over to the Israelis. It was on the evidence provided by Israel, that Pollard was precluded from going to trial. This is the first time a country turned in its own agent and cooperated in the prosecution of its own agent.

We believe that like the price paid for the Mossad agents in Amman, there is a price for Pollard as well. After thirteen years of incarceration, his physical condition is poor.

We wish to force Israel to make the first payment on Pollard's release: admit that he was an Israeli agent. Admit publically and unambiguously, Pollard was our agent, he served the Government of Israel. Secondly, there were certain promises made to Mr. Pollard -- that he will be taken care of.

MANY SAW THE election of Benjamin Netanyahu as the answer to ending the tragedy of the Pollard Affair. It was hoped that the old guard of Israeli political leadership would no longer have a say in the effort to gain Pollard's freedom. However, little has changed.

Ben Caspit:

Jonathan Pollard:

Several sources have told me that Netanyahu played a part in the decision to throw me out of the Embassy. There is no proof of this; I try to be cautious and I won't make any accusations in this matter. But I don't have any doubt that Netanyahu is one of those to be counted with the group that does not approach me with clean hands, and certainly not with a clean conscience.

FEW ISRAELI LEADERS have clean consciences when it comes to the Pollard Affair. They have yet to form an "official" position concerning Pollard's status. However, their unofficial position is quite clear. Israeli authorities have preferred to categorize Pollard as a "rogue agent," who, without official sanction from the government, passed on classified documents taken from United States intelligence sources. This position is maintained in the face of two separate inquiries conducted by the State of Israel concerning the Pollard Affair which seem to indicate otherwise.

New Jersey Jewish News Editor-in-Chief David Twersky, wrote in "Pollard: Israel AG Conspired To Obstruct Justice," the following:

The "Lavonites" in my case, are those individuals who have dirty hands and dirty consciences because of direct involvement. They are fearful of protecting their reputations and careers. Most of these individuals can be found in the political arena and in the Ministry of Defense, which ran my operation. These are the types who had no qualms about selling me out. More will be known about their deeds once our hearing in the Israeli High Court of Justice gets underway. In the meantime, they are working actively behind the scenes to undermine any serious attempt to secure my release, afraid that any reopening of the case will reposition the "roaming spotlight" on them.

An Interview with Esther Pollard

B'tzedek

Esther Pollard:

We have three prime Jewish defense organizations in America, not a single one of them during thirteen years of this ordeal has had a word to say about Jonathan. We have recently gone back to them and asked again for their support and they are totally and completely uninterested. This is shocking when you take into account that these organizations have money for full-page ads on the treatment of the Bosnians and the Kurds. They have the money and energy to get involved with or have criticism on every issue that one would be hard pressed to define as a "Jewish." When it comes down to defending Jewish interests, i.e., the Pollard case, they will have nothing to do with it.

Leon Levy, former head of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, finally called me during the hunger strike last year, after seven years of silence. This was on the back of a visit by Rabbi Mordecai Eliahu, who reprimanded these "Jewish leaders" for not fighting for Jonathan. Levy said to me, "Mrs. Pollard, I am calling to tell you that the Conference of Presidents is continuing its efforts on behalf of your husband." And I said to him, "My husband will be calling me in fifteen minutes. Would you like to tell me what it is that you are doing, so that I can tell my husband?" There was dead silence at the other end of the line. He simply had no words. I asked him why my husband's name wasn't on the agenda when -- I think it was either July 28th or 29th, 1996 -- when the President's Conference met with President Clinton. Why wasn't Jonathan's name on the agenda while they were in there with Clinton? During that meeting, McMurry, the spokesperson for the President was out announcing to the press, that President Clinton was turning down commutation for Jonathan Pollard. Clinton didn't even have the decency to tell the Jewish leaders, who were sitting there at the time, what was decided about Jonathan. And, of course, the Jewish leaders were shocked and outraged. I said to Mr. Levy, "Why is it that you are so shocked and so outraged?" And he said, "Because we didn't see it coming." I said, "Mr. Levy, you didn't even put my husbands name on the agenda. You made it very clear that you were not interested. Why should you be shocked?" And he said, "We should have been given the courtesy. Nothing like this has ever happened before." I said, "Oh really, in 1994 the President did the same thing to you when he slapped the entire Jewish community in the face on the night of Passover and declined commutation for Jonathan. In both cases he turned down the request for commutation using three falsehoods. Why are you surprised?" He answered, "Oh, well I wasn't the President [of the Conference of Jewish Presidents] then." I replied, "Don't you know anything of the history of your organization? Mr. Levy your own house is on fire. You don't have to do this for Jonathan Pollard. Understand, this is about the American Jewish community. This is about equal justice!" When I began to explain to him just how his own house is on fire, he said to me, "Mrs. Pollard, I want to tell you about Jewish tradition." I thought that he was going to respond with something important about the Jewish tradition and the commandment of "redeeming the captive," instead, he said to me, "According to the Jewish tradition, what you are doing is wrong." He was referring to the hunger strike. I replied that Rabbi Eliahu, as my husband's Rabbi and the only one that we accept halakhic decisions from.

The reason why I bring up this exchange is because it epitomizes the relationship that Jonathan and I have with the American Jewish leadership throughout the years. When push came to shove, and he was called on his indifference, he responded. The bottom line is that these people are acutely aware of the fact that they have no real power. These are the leaders who pose for photos with Clinton. These are the leaders who have funded this president. These are the leaders who have covered for him through every one of his shenanigans and his own questionable doings. But they can't get up the gumption to ask for equal justice.

B'tzedek:

Esther Pollard:

B'tzedek:

Esther Pollard:

I did an interview with Arutz-7 [independent radio station in Israel] when I was on my hunger strike in which listeners were invited to call-in. The audience was very receptive to me and sympathetic to my husband's plight. However, it broke my heart over and over again hearing the same comment, "Mrs. Pollard, why are you having a hunger strike here in Israel? We can't do anything. Go to America and do it there." I was shocked. This vassal state mentality has permeated all levels of Israeli society. Again and again, I had to remind people that Jonathan is Israel's agent, not America's. America is not going to release him unless Israel demands or, in some way, negotiates his freedom.

In 1996 the Pentagon issued a memo to its agencies, to beware of Jewish subcontractors because of the close ties of the Jewish community to Israel. They defined Israel as a 'non-traditional enemy.' Again, their basis for this was the Pollard case and all the "damage" that he had caused America. When the Jewish establishment's defense organizations heard that, it should have been their cue to say, "enough." When did Israel become a non-traditional enemy? Are Jews not equal citizens? American Jewish leadership should have demanded the end of Pollard as a scapegoat. Instead the whimpered a little bit and sniveled. Abe Foxman, the present head of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations declared that it borders on anti-semitism, while doing nothing else.

I have for you a tape of my last conversation with Jonathan from prison while I've been here in Israel. The conversation bears directly on what we are discussing now. I think that you and your readers would do well to hear the words of Jonathan on this matter.

Jonathan Pollard:

The reporter, J. J. Goldberg said, "The dinner answered at least one question decisively, How seriously does the White House take the mood of American Jews? The answer is, very seriously. Consider, the President and his top aides spent three hours closeted with ten leaders of the organized Jewish community, probably the longest such chat ever. Some Washington watchers were hard pressed to recall when the nation's chief officers last spent three hours closeted with anyone, besides their lawyers."

The whole piece is about the strength and power of the Jewish establishment. It also speaks volumes about how weak and craven, and I would use the word "treasonous," President Ezer Weizman actually is, stabbing our country [Israel] in the back with a group of individuals, Jewish, so-called leaders who have no vested interest in Israel's survival, except for the fact that, if Israel were to perish, their means of sustaining their lavish lifestyles in New York and elsewhere would be seriously compromised. The bottom line on all of this is, I spend the better part of the day talking to people in Los Angeles, in Chicago, in Washington and New York and I have a very good understanding of what was said there and what wasn't. Simply put, Ezer Weizman lied when he said my name was brought up. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, the [U.S.] President's people made it, apparently very clear, to the leaders -- the American Jewish leaders -- that the subject of my situation would not be mentioned. These people -- kaiser yuden -- simply bowed their heads and agreed. Not to say that they would have done anything or said anything for me, anyway. But their willingness and readiness to accede to a presidential dictate really calls in to question their oft repeated claim of being the proudest, most independent, leaders of the most self-respecting Jewish community in the world.

What could shock you, perhaps, is that our good friend, Ezer Weizman, the President of our country [Israel], didn't even bother to bring my name up. He too, apparently acceded to the presidential dictate. According to two people who had advised participants there, Weizman and a few of the participants discussed the need to keep my name out of the picture. They didn't want to muddy the water with something, according to Weizman, that was of no real concern to Israel and certainly should be of no concern to the American Jewish community. So, it's not just that Weizman lies, it's not just that he is essentially in complicity with my continuing incarceration, it is that he dishonors our country. This article really . . . for a man like Weizman to consort with these petty Jewish leaders and to trim his own sails to cut their weakened breeze . . . it's like the tail wagging the dog. These Jewish leaders exist, as far as I am concerned, to help Israel, to safeguard her interests. Not the other way around. [Pollard is referring to the Weizman-Clinton meeting on October 12, 1997 in which Weizman carried a petition signed by members of the Israeli Knesset asking President Clinton for the immediate release of Jonathan Pollard. Subsequent verification indicated that President Clinton did not receive the petition from the Israeli President. Weizman admitted that he had not brought up the Pollard case with President Clinton (The Jerusalem Post, October 7, 1997); and then two days later (The Jerusalem Post, October 9, 1997) he inexplicably declared that he had.]

Esther Pollard:

Jonathan Pollard:

Esther Pollard:

Jonathan Pollard:

Esther Pollard:

Jonathan Pollard:

The other thing that just devastated me today, two inmates -- these people don't know anything about Israel at all -- came, ran and got me to come see the news. "Your President is on TV." [I said,] "Oh really, what Arab terrorist is he releasing, now?" And I walked in, and there he [Weizman] was at a gala hosted by Shimon Peres for peace with the Egyptians and the Palestinians. Everybody was there. And there he was, shmoozing it up with Shimon Peres, a man who immediately after his defeat in the last elections, hand wrote you a letter promising to "continue" his efforts. Well, I guess he kept his word, since he did nothing before, he simply did nothing after. I guess he is honest in that regard! But here is a man who has the chutzpa to shmooze with the President while the blood of our people is still wet on the pavement.

The Hope

Jonathan Pollard's freedom will only be found through a political agreement between Israel and America. Israel must act. In a courageous move that may signal the break in the dam, the first senior official in any Israeli government has visited Jonathan in prison. Perhaps the efforts made by Esther Pollard and Larry Dub in the Israeli courts will push the government toward justice for Jonathan Pollard.

"Every single day I get ready all over again waiting to Be released," Jonathan Pollard told Israeli Minister of Immigration and Absorption, Yuli Edelstein. The Israeli Minister told Yediot Ahronot (November 25, 1997) reporter Orly Azulay Katz, "He told me something interesting: 'If the Americans see that the Israeli government, which I served, does not go out of its way to help me, why should the Americans lift a finger to resolve this case?' And he is right in his thinking." Edelstein said, "While he did not come out and say that he feels that the Government of Israel abandoned him, it is easy to understand how hard it must be for him, the fact that the Government of Israel has not done enough for him."

Edelstein has apparently taken the Pollard case seriously. He wrote an article for the Israeli daily, Ma'ariv, on November 28, 1997 entitled, "80 Minutes With Prisoner Number 09185-016," concerning his visit with Pollard. The following are excerpts from Minister Edelstein's article:

On December 8, the Israeli Knesset made a public appeal for Jonathan's release. Deputy Defense Minister Silvan Shalom said that it was time to change Israel's policy on the Pollard Affair. Stating that behind the scenes efforts did not bear any fruit over the last 12 years of Pollard's incarceration, M.K. Silvan insisted that it was now the time to speak openly and call for U.S. authorities to issue a pardon to Pollard.

Israeli Minister of Communications Limor Livnat will meet with Jonathan Pollard on December 17, as part of a new campaign to win his release. Minster Livnat will carry a letter from Israeli Labor and Social Affairs Minister Eli Yishai praising Jonathan Pollard for working with "divine devotion" for Israel's security. Yishai writes, "You deserve to be pardoned, to immigrate to Israel, the beloved land whose security you worked for with such divine devotion." Additionally, he said that the Israeli government should "do all that is possible so that you will see the light of the sun, feel the freedom and come to Israel."

Following the announcement of this letter in the Israeli media on December 12, Labor Member of Knesset Ophir Pines demanded the government reach an agreement for the release of Pollard and questioned why the Amit spy case was not used to get Pollard out long ago. He said that former prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres "have questions to answer and explanations to make concerning their strange behavior in this case." Pines added that the present government can make up for past injustices and "insist on the principle of reciprocity in its relationship with the U.S. It must demand Pollard be released immediately. The U.S. cannot continue to relate to Pollard as a dangerous criminal who cannot be released, when today everybody knows that at the same time that Pollard operated and was caught, the U.S. was not averse to dealing in espionage on Israel."

Although not officially released from the Office of the Prime Minister it is reported that Minister Livnat will carry a message from the prime minister, in which Mr. Netanyahu states, "The entire nation is concerned about your continuing ordeal. I sincerely hope that our efforts to seek a solution to your case will be successful and you will be a free man again in the near future."

The Conclusion

We are left with some very frightening questions. Namely, that at one and the same time the Pollard Affair suggests that the United States wanted to "get" Israel and found Pollard to be an excellent vehicle. However, there was a time in which the U.S. was willing to hush up the entire episode in the manner followed by most friendly nations who spy on each other. The United States may have used the Pollard affair to whip the Israelis, but only after the Israelis failed to come clean. Is Jonathan Pollard being held as ransom for far greater matters? That is to say, that the Israelis were willing to sacrifice Pollard and lie to the Americans in order to prevent the exposure of something else. Could Israel be so weak as to allow the Mega episode to go unchallenged if other things would not be compromised by making a stink? Why wouldn't the Israelis allow Sela's affidavit correspond with his statement taken by the Israeli hired lawyer, Leonard Garment? Were there elements in Sela's statement that would have led US officials to bigger things? What does America believe Israel was hiding and whose crime is Jonathan Pollard paying for? What is Israel hiding that would allow them to continue to leave Jonathan Pollard out in the cold?

The Pollard Affair is symptomatic of the position thrust upon Israel by the world community. The nations of the world perceive Israel's existence as a gift they have bestowed upon the Jewish people. Regardless of how well the Jewish people attempt to integrate themselves within the body of mankind, they will always be considered anomalous. It is not difficult to understand how the greatest power on earth, the United States, views a nation whose pre-modern history harkens back to a time when choseness had significance. American Jewish leadership is diseased with the malady of giving lip-service of an allegiance to Israel, while always fearing their precarious hold on an ever dwindling constituency. Power is their god and America gives them the illusion that they possess it. But what is most unforgivable is the plague upon the sovereign State of Israel. Israel has most ashamedly accepted the idea that her life-force is at the whim of global charity. Israel has accepted the perverted notion that she is not to act as other nations with solemn obligations to all Jews. Israel is not to hold on to territory won in defensive wars. Israel is not to spy on allies even when doing so is a matter of life and death. The illness is carried by the nations of the world, but its infestation within Israel is a burden she has taken on willingly.

Jonathan Pollard is now an Israeli citizen, who wishes only to lead a quiet, private life in his homeland. Its time to bring him in from the cold. "What scares me the most," said Pollard to Ben Caspit, "is that we won't have time -- Esther and I -- to have a family. I want so badly to have children. I want to be a father. Time is running out. Nothing else matters. I want a family. I want a home. I want to be an ordinary person. I want to live among my people in Israel. To share in what happens to Israel -- the hardships, the tragedies, the explosions. To be an Israeli. That's all."

Appendix A & B (Comparative Sentences)

---

Appendix C

Victim Impact Statement

This is a copy of the Victim Impact Statement quoted verbatim from Jonathan Pollard's pre-sentencing interview:

The specific instances of damage to the national security caused by Mr. Pollard's offense will be described in a classified damage session affidavit to be submitted to the Court in camera. Generally, it can be said that the breadth and scope of the classified information compromised by Mr. Pollard is among the greatest of any espionage operation uncovered by Federal authorities.

Thousands of pages of Top Secret and Sensitive Compartmented Information were sold to the Israelis by Mr. Pollard. As explained in detail in the government's in camera affidavit, Mr. Pollard's unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard's disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East.

Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard's coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard's largess is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any such further intelligence exchanges has been undermined.

Appendix D

The Amit Spy Case

Unexchanged Spies

by Yosi Melman, Ha'aretz, December 12, 1997

"No, I don't remember the incident," former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir said in response to questions about whether Israel, under his leadership in the later half of the 1980s, missed a rare opportunity to mitigate Jonathan Pollard's punishment. "Maybe Shimon Peres remembers more," he suggested. Peres, who was deputy prime minister and foreign minister at the time, did not respond to questions posed to him.

The Israeli leadership might have been unable to help Pollard, who was exposed as an Israeli spy, even if it had tried. It did, however, have the means to take more aggressive action. And the leverage was Military Intelligence Major Yosef Amit.

Amit's story was partially covered by the press in the past, but here, for the first time, is the full story of his espionage and of the linkage that could have been made to Pollard. Jonathan Pollard, who worked at the American naval intelligence center in Maryland, was arrested on Nov. 21, 1985. Four months later, on March 24, Amit was arrested at his home in Haifa, on suspicion of spying for the United States. The fact that it was the United States he was accused of spying for was not even noted on the indictment he was served, and Israel never made that aspect of the affair public.

Yosef Amit was born in Haifa in 1945. In 1963, he enlisted in the IDF, and completed officer's course with distinction. Later, according to Foreign Report, he joined Intelligence Unit 504. The unit, according to the foreign press, is an intelligence gathering unit responsible for activating Arab agents in neighboring countries. Amit was given command of a military intelligence base on the Lebanese border. In 1978, he was arrested for drug dealing. According to Foreign Report, Unit 504 paid agents in drugs given to it by the police.

Journalist Uzi Mahanaimi, a former military intelligence officer who today writes for the London Sunday Times, wrote in 1996 that Israel also had a plan to swamp Egypt with drugs.

Amit attempted to sell some of the drugs from his base for personal profit. He was brought in to military court but was declared psychologically unfit to stand trial. He was hospitalized at the Mizra psychiatric hospital near Acre upon being discharged from the IDF.

Three years later, he was released and began to work as a private investigator. During that time, Amit befriended an American naval officer whose ship had docked at the Haifa port. They met at a pub, and Amit boasted about his experience in intelligence. The officer told his supervisors. At one point, the American officer told Amit that he wished to retire from the service, settle in Germany, and start a business. Amit hinted at his strong desire to make money and suggested that they do business together. The American agreed.

Sometime later, Amit went to Germany and met with his new friend. The American officer introduced him to some "friends," who turned out to be members of the U.S. intelligence community, officers from the CIA station at the U.S. embassy in Bonn. It is not clear whether the naval officer had been recruiting for American intelligence from the start, or whether he simply passed Amit's history on out of patriotic loyalty. The contacts, which all took place in Germany, continued for several months. The Americans called upon Tom Waltz, a Jewish officer at the CIA station of their embassy in Israel, to find out just how much Amit had to offer. Coincidentally, Waltz and Amit flew to Germany on the same plane. Waltz came to his first meeting with Amit disguised. During his interrogation, however, Amit noted that he had recognized his flight companion anyway: The CIA officer had indeed changed his clothes and his appearance, but he had forgotten to change his shoes. In any event, Waltz became Amit's direct handler. The American intelligence officer instructed Amit on the types of materials the Americans would be interested in. In particular, the Americans requested information on Israeli troop movements and intentions in Lebanon and in the occupied territories. The contacts continued until just before Amit's arrest in 1986.

It was information given to the Shin Bet general security services and the police by a friend of Amit's that aroused suspicion. The friend reported that Amit spoke of ties he had with American intelligence. Amit cooperated with his interrogators during questioning and gave complete details of his relationship with the CIA. He noted meeting places, dates, and names of individuals he had met with, including Tom Waltz. He revealed the information he had given to the Americans and admitted that he had received several thousand dollars from the CIA in exchange for his services. Classified military documents, as well as secret material belonging to the Shin Bet, were found when Amit's house was searched.It turned out that a childhood friend of Amit's had received material from the Shin Bet research department in his capacity as Shin Bet coordinator in the Galilee. Amit had convinced his friend to give him some of the material, claiming he needed it for some private investigations against Arab citizens. Copies of such material were found in Amit's house.

The Shin Bet quickly arrested the friend, who admitted his guilt, expressed remorse and claimed that he did not know Amit was using the materials for other purposes. He was dismissed from the Shin Bet, tried, and sentenced to three months in prison and a one-year suspended sentence. In April 1987, Amit was convicted on the basis of his confession and sentenced by the Haifa district court to twelve years in jail. His trial was held in closed chambers, and aside from a few brief and inexact stories that appeared in the foreign press (The Israeli emigrant newspaper Israel Shelanu in New York reported the arrest of a Military Intelligence officer for spying for Syria), the military censor prevented any mention of the incident from being reported in Israel. Even more surprising was the fact that the Israeli government did not decide to use the Amit affair with the Americans. The United States was not even asked to remove Waltz from the embassy in Tel Aviv, and about two months after Amit's arrest, Waltz even accompanied a Shin Bet and Israeli Military Intelligence delegation to a meeting in Washington. The delegation was briefed by Shin Bet official Yossi Ginosar shortly before its departure and told to refrain from even hinting at any knowledge of Waltz's activities. The delegation was also warned against discussing Pollard. At the time, Ginosar was head of the Shin Bet department in charge of counter-espionage and foreign liaison.

Members of the intelligence community were silenced when they tried to question why Israel did not use the issue to offset the Pollard affair.

The only step that was taken was a meeting between Shin Bet head Yosef Harmelin and the CIA station chief in Tel Aviv, in which the Shin Bet official presented the facts and asked for an explanation. The CIA chief informed the Shin Bet a few days later that Amit had approached the Americans on his own initiative and had been turned away.

In 1992, an opportunity to link the Pollard affair with the Amit affair once again presented itself. Amnon Dror, chairman of the Public Committee for the Release of Jonathan Pollard, learned that a former officer was serving a sentence in an Israeli jail for spying for the United States.

The committee actually served as a "front" for the Israeli government, which wished to hide its involvement in attempts to free Pollard and improve his prison conditions. It was funded by the Ministry of Finance. Dror tried to find out from his supervisors whether the Amit affair could be utilized on Pollard's behalf, but says "they told me to leave it alone."

He called the American embassy in Tel Aviv and spoke to the political attache. The attache denied that the United States had activated an Israeli in Israel. Dror later gave some of the details he knew to an Israeli journalist.

The journalist published the story in the American newspaper Newsday, and mentioned the possibility that Israel may be interested in exchanging Pollard's release for Amit's. The brief story appeared in a few papers in Israel but did not attract much attention.

Amit, however, sent a harsh letter to Rachel Sukar of the State Attorney's office, stating that he had no wish to be released as part of an exchange. Sukar replied, assuring him that neither she nor any other official party stood behind the story, and that in any event he would not be released against his will. Amit, who claimed that his confession was extracted illegally, was ultimately released in 1993. He was paroled for good behavior (even though he often violated prison regulations) and because of his psychological condition. It is highly doubtful whether a major spy like Pollard could have been released in exchange for Amit, who was considered a minor spy and was not important to the Americans.

It seems, however, that Amit could have been used to try to pressure the Americans to lighten Pollard's punishment, or to try to make a secret deal in which the Americans would at least promise to release him in the future. But nothing was done. Why?

Those familiar with the affair suggest a number of possibilities. The Israeli leadership of that period -- Peres, Shamir, and Yitzhak Rabin -- as well as the heads of the intelligence community, feared that demands for an exchange would only exacerbate the rage of the Americans, who were furious enough about the Pollard affair. The Israeli leadership wanted to placate the Americans at any cost.

They may also have feared that the issue would attract attention to the delicate operations of Unit 504.

Perhaps it was a matter of pride. In the 1980s, the intelligence community still felt that exposing the involvement of a former military intelligence officer and a Shin Bet official in espionage for the United States would embarrass them and damage their reputation.

The Israeli leadership and heads of intelligence preferred, it seems, to maintain their honor and professional pride rather than taking care of a spy that had been imprisoned because of them.

Appendix E

How Pollard Aided Israel Intelligence

Excerpts of "Pollard: Not A Bumbler, But Israel's Master Spy" by Wolf Blitzer
The Washington Post, February 15, 1987

The intelligence provided to Israel included specific material dealing with the following general areas:

Reconnaissance of PLO headquarters

Iraqi and Syrian chemical-warfare production capabilities

Regular U.S. intelligence assessments of operations planned by a

PLO unit

Soviet arms shipments to Syria and other Arab states

The U.S. intelligence community's assessment of a particular Soviet-made fighter.

Pakistan's program to build an atomic bomb, including large satellite photographs of its nuclear facility outside Islamabad, according to an American source with detailed knowledge of the Pollard case.

Despite the official Israeli claim that Pollard was part of a rogue operation. Israeli officials speak of him in terms that suggest he may prove to be

one of the most important spies in Israel's history

Indeed, Pollard's Israeli handlers even compared him to the legendary Israeli spy in Damascus, Eli Cohen, who rose to the top echelon of the Syrian government in the mid-1960s but eventually was exposed and executed. When Pollard was given an Israeli passport containing his picture as a token of Israel's appreciation, the name on the passport was "Danny Cohen" -- the implication being that Israel once had an Eli Cohen in Damascus and now had a Danny Cohen in Washington.

In general, Pollard gave Israel the pick of U.S. intelligence about Arab and Islamic conventional and unconventional military activity, from Morocco to Pakistan and every country in between. This included both "friendly" and "unfriendly" Arab countries.

An Israeli intelligence official told me that some of the information was "so breathtaking" that it justified the risk Israel was taking in running an agent in Washington. Pollard's handlers -- including Air Force Brig. Gen. Aviem Sela, veteran intelligence agent Rafael Eitan and former science counselor at the Israeli Consulate in New York, Yosef Yagur -- told him that he was "a one-man intelligence agency" for Israel, one source said.

Israel had to set up a special unit in New York and Washington to obtain Pollard's documents. Court documents show that Irit Erb, a secretary at the Israeli embassy in Washington, was given a second apartment where she operated sophisticated photocopying equipment for the documents provided by Pollard. Typically, he would deliver a large suitcase full of papers on a Friday evening on his way home from work and retrieve them on Sunday evening in order to return them to the appropriate national defense repositories the next morning.