After his serving over a quarter of a century of a life sentence in a North Carolina prison, the taboo subject of the imprisonment of Jonathan J. Pollard has resurfaced amidst peace discussions between America and Israel. In his most recent trip to Israel, Secretary of State John Kerry urged Israel to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, including murderers of Israeli citizens, in desperate hopes to restart failing peace talks. Kerry had thought that the deal to release prisoners would be solidified this spring, and again traveled to Israel to urge Israel to release the prisoners upon hearing that Israel had only approved the impending peace plan tentatively, giving the plan “framework” agreement status.
So, what does an American Jew, an ex-civilian intelligence analyst for the US Navy, convicted of relaying confidential satellite photos and data on Soviet weapons and ship movements to Israel, have to do with the frayed peace process? After years of protestors adamantly claiming that Pollard has been wrongfully sentenced to a severe punishment that does not fit his crime, in November 2015 Pollard’s case is due to be reviewed for parole. However, despite his pending parole hearing, the Obama administration has now introduced the possibility of releasing Pollard early, possibly in time for Passover, as a last-ditch effort to ensure the release of the Palestinian prisoners, a mechanism that could coax additional concessions from Israel regarding building and settlement freezes in the West Bank.
The transformation of Pollard from convicted spy into a bargaining chip not only gives Americans and Israelis a distorted image of Pollard’s conviction, but is also detrimental to both the Obama administration and the Israeli government. Aside from the harsh length of his sentence, I would like to explore a route less often traveled, and explain why I believe the discussion of an early release to be an outright mistake for both administrations.
I would first like to preface my argument by stating that perhaps this conversation would result differently, or at least strike a different chord, if Pollard’s parole date was not in six months, or if there was no discussions of expediting the date of his impending parole date due to his ailing health and good behavior. However, due to the fact that Pollard’s release in the near future should be almost inevitable, the release of Palestinian prisoners is not a task that should be taken lightly. With each release, the safety of Israel is at stake. Not from a halachic standpoint, but the release of one individual from prison at the expense of the safety of a nation of people does not seem like a reasonably equal tradeoff. Even though the Israeli government has been avidly advocating Pollard’s release for many tireless years, it is unlikely that they will budge on the safety of Israel at his expense.
This burden is something that Pollard himself has acknowledged. On April 1st, Pollard called for his first parole hearing, the first time since he has been eligible for such a hearing for the past two decades. As the United States Parole Commission gathered in North Carolina, Pollard made it abundantly clear that he does not wish to be a pawn in the grand scheme of peace negotiations, especially one which occupies the idea of releasing prisoners. In an Op-Ed in the Jerusalem Post earlier in August, Pollard commented that such a release of “dangerous, unrepentant murderers and terrorists” would dishonor those fallen in he name of terrorism, “betray its bereaved, and disgrace its citizens for the sake of political expediency.”
From the perspective of the Obama administration, the release of Pollard on account of securing foreign policy and peace would set a grave precedence for granting clemency to criminals for greater political purpose. Former NSA and CIA director Michael Hayden criticized the deal and equated it to a hypothetical release of Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who released federal documents which revealed the government’s massive surveillance efforts through the media of phone calls and other data. Hayden told Fox News, “I don’t think it’s a good idea just to keep some people at the table, which apparently was the purpose of this offer…the second thing I’d offer…It’s almost a sign of desperation that you would throw this in the pot in to keep the Israelis talking with the Palestinians.” According to Hayden, keeping Pollard on the table weakens America’s credibility as a country that maintains a nonnegotiable stance on the wrongdoings of convicted criminals.
However, I propose that perhaps the greatest targets of such a move are ordinary people. America has painted Pollard as a figure of propaganda. If such a deal is made, Pollard is glorified as both someone who is a patriot to the foreign relations of the United States, as well as an individual who was motivated to helping Israel in the first place. The danger then becomes the distorted image of Jonathan Pollard to the people. He has become objectified as a means to an end. He is no longer the face of someone who either was convicted of an actual crime, or the counter perspective, as a Jew who bravely risked his freedom to do what he thought was best for Israel. Hero or convict, one thing is certain: the name Jonathan Pollard is at risk of becoming nothing more than a symbolic household name, with no past.