Thursday, August 18.1994 — THE BULLETIN —
WORLD MEDIA REVIEW
ff' O V M 0 0 @
'.9 ?
NEW YORK — Jonathan Pollard is saying that new evidence and supporters could help him reopen his case.
Pollard, who is serving a life term for selling American secrets to Israel, has won over leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who
= say that they were swayed by his By E.V. Pl^^ support during a recent
KONTOROVICH ""^^'["8 and that a growing
number of Conference members feel he was treated unjustly. At the
_same time. Pollard and his backers
----— say they plan to use "new evidence" to ask a federal court to re-examine his sentence.
The developments may push Pollard into the limelight yet again, although prospects for an early release appear dim. Pollard supporters say that they doubt he will be paroled next year at his first hearing and that a new trial, which would probably seek to overturn his sentence, is a long shot — though maybe his best. Still, the fact that Jewish groups that were previously uncommitted about his case are now eager for him to get another day in court may be a measure of Pollard's success, at least among Jews, at depicting his sentence as anti-Semitic.
"[The new evidence] is very exciting and promising," says Pollard's sister, Carol Pollard, one of his most vocal supporters. "It hits to the heart of the matter with information we did not know existed."
Pollard's chances of being released next year were dealt a blow when President Clinton refused Prime Minister Rabin's request for a commutation, saying Pollard "had done considerable damage" to America's national security.
The new evidence takes "a different tack" and is "based on information that has come around in the past nine months. His lawyers think it is excellent," Ms. Pollard told the Forward.
One source close to the case, who requested anonymity, confirmed that Pollard's lawyers hope the new material they are pursuing will get the case before a judge again. Another source suggests Pollard's lawyers "would have to present newly discovered evidence . . . proving the government acted in bad faith during the plea bargain and sentencing" to have his sentence reduced in district court. Carol Pollard describes the new leads as HOENLEIN "things about government policy at the time [of the trial], who was running [that policy] and why." Pollard's supporters say debriefings by Aldrich Ames, an
agent for the CIA who is accused of spying for the Soviet Union, may help Pollard.
"Any time government files are opened it may provide a window into what was happening and . . . why Pollard was treated so harshly," one of the sources say.
The chairman of the Presidents Conference, Lester Pollack, and the executive vice-chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein, visited Pollard for the first time in July at Butner Correctional Institution in North Carolina at Pollard's request. The Conference has never taken a position on Pollard. Since meeting with Pollard, however, Messrs. Pollack and Hoenlein have been more sympathetic- to Pollard's pleas.
"I haven't gotten to the bottom of why the sentence is so severe," Pollack says. "1 think there is a sensitivity in the community that there is something at work here that doesn't jibe."
Pollack and Hoenlein say they detected growing support for Pollard among their members during a conference call with them recently. Although the group did not decide whether to support Pollard publicly, Hoenlein believes that previously uncommitted member organizations will now come to his defense, especially if the legal battle reopens.
"Pollard feels he has new information to renew an appeal [of his sentence]," Hoenlein says. A new trial would be the "watershed" that would make "organizations that have not backed him . . . re-examine their position," he predicts.
"There is a genuine consensus [against the] injustice of a disproportionate sentence."
July 29,1994 The Forward
New York City
The weeks go by slowly for Jonathan Pollard, sentenced to life imprisonment, without the psslbility of parole, for passing American defence Infoimation to Israel.
incarcerated U
has been
........■■" ........'I
recs>p^ Wfoiiaras punishment ill no way its his csto^; i^^Hective voice of outf^e at his excessive ytnXwm"- letters, telegrams, falstes and phone calls - can make a difference. :
Voice your pBOtm by Pre^dent mil Olnton The White House Waslilngton, D.C aOSOD
The President's Comment LUie 1-202-456-1111
The Presidents Fax: 1-202-456-2461
Weighing risks for peace, then and now
ne of the most popular slogans utilized by critics of Israel is the demand that Israel should "take risks for peace." They repeat the slogan again and again like some kind of mantra, intoning it with an almost religious fervor. It shows up in their articles, letters, speeches, even on their placards at demonstrations.
The essence of the "risks for peace" idea is that Israel has not previously been willing to take such risks, but it must ============ take them now in order to attain peace.
By IRVING Like so many of the cliches invented by MOSKOWITZ the Jewish left, "risks for peace" ■ requires a very short memory. Because
even a superficial recollection of the basic events in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict reveals that Israel has, in fact, taken "risks for peace" time and again. The problem for the left is that each time, Israel has taken the risks but not
By AVI WEISS
'he proliferation of well-funded organizations dedicated to Jewish defence would lead us to believe thai the central challenge facing North American Jewry today is anti-Semitism.
Not so. At far greater risk is the soul, not the body, of North American Jewry. To be sure, a soul without a body cannot function in this world; but a body without a soul is a body without direction, purpose or meaning.
Of course, there are pockets of anti-Semitism in the United States that must be confronted head on, whether it's a <, - white David Duke or a black Louis Farrak-han. But we should recognize that anti-Semitism is not omnipresent here.
The spiraling intermarriage rate amongst North American Jews proves this point. Throughout Jewish history, whenever anti-Semitism prevailed, the marriage of non-Jews to Jews was verborten. In America today, we are so free that non-Jews are marrying us in droves.
The late professor Eliezer Berkovits was correct when he said that, from a sociological perspective, a Jew is one whose grandchildren are Jewish. The painful reality is that large numbers of the grandchildren of today's North American Jews will not be Jewish.
What is needed is a refocusing of our priorities. This can be accomplished by transforming our concept of Jewish defence into an expression of Jewish spirituality. When we defend Jews under attack we should do so not only as North Americans demanding equal rights, but as Jews who feel a deep bond with those in our community who are in jeopardy.
To be sure, as Jews living in America, we reject any
attempt by anyone to treat us as second-class citizens. Thus, in response to Pat Buchanan's accusation that I am biased toward Jonathan Pollard because of my Jewishness, I replied in blunt terms: "I am defending Jonathan Pollard as ; ^ an American, I am not asking that Jonathan ' be treated any better than other Americans, " ^ X 'M but I will not allow him to be treated any worse."
But of course, while we speak as North Americans, we above all raise our voices as
^3
WEISS
president of the Co@IS-tion for Jewish Concems-Anricha and senior of the Hebrew Snstitute of Riverdaie.
POLLARD
Jews, who feel a unique connection, an emotional connection to our people, yes, to our larger family. It is what Natan Sharansky, from the dungeons of Chistopol, described as the "unity of souls." While alone, he always felt an inextricable link to Jews everywhere.
This then is our first task. To teach and act out Jewish defence as one of the most fundamental principles of Jewish spirituality — ahavat Yisrael — the infinite and endless love of all Jews.
The second task is to recognize that the essence of activism is to ignite a Jewish spark. The activist grounded exclusively in physical defence — demonstrations, rallies, protests, political lobbying — doesn't understand the true nature, essence and higher purpose of activism.
If I am a Jew only to fight anti-Semitism, that is negative Judaism. If. however, I am a Jew because I appreciate Shabbat, I treasure the Jewish laws of business ethics, and all the laws and rituals that enoble the life of the Jew and I devote time to reading Jewish books and Torah study — that is positive Judaism.
From this perspective, activist organizations must see the defence of the Jewish people as a point of entry to a greater sense of Jewish spirituality. Standing up for Jews should not be the last step in one's commitment \o Am Yisrael, but rather the first step toward rekindling greater ties to our people and inspiring greater commitment to Jewish observance and learning.
But, if we were to add up all the monies allocated for Jewish education and Jewish spirituality in one column and all the monies SHARAMSSCY targeted for Jewish defence in the other, the former sum would pale in comparison to the latter. Unfortunately, in our day, we are trying to fight massive assimilation with a slingshot. What is required to touch Jewish souls
WEISS - Page§
received peace in return.
Consider, for example, what happened when the United Nations drew up its proposal for partitioning Palestine in 1947. The Jews knew that the proposed borders were hopelessly indefensible.
The UN lines gave the Jews a few strips of land along the coast, while giving the Arabs most of the Galilee; the Negev, the "Little Triangle" area, all of Judea and Samaria. The Jews wouldn't even have control of Jerusalem.
Yet they accepted the UN plan; they were willing to take
the risk of those dangerous borders, for the sake of peace. They took the risk at a time when Arab forces were already invading the Jewish area from three different sides. They took the risk — but they got no peace.
In the spring of 1949, they took another risk. The Arab armies that had invaded, vowing to annihilate Israel, had been beaten back. The Israelis could have inflicted serious damage upon them. Instead, the Israelis agreed to an armistice that returned territory in Gaza and northern Sinai to Egypt, that left the Old City of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation. The Israelis ceased fire and even surrendered some territory, in order to attain peace — but they didn't get it.
Israel took additional risks for peace in the 1950s. For seven long years, they tolerated Arab terrorist attacks {cdiWtd fedayeen raids), suffering thousands of casualties. For seven years, the Israelis held back — they could have moved in to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which is where the terrorists were based. But instead, they waited, risking the lives of their citizens in the hope that their restraint would help facilitate peace. It didn't, and eventually Israel had no choice but to take over Gaza and Sinai in the 1956 war.
Dr. Irving ^oskowitz Is a coSymnlsl who writes on
of the board of governors of Anterlcans For A Safe
Ben-Gurion's retreat from Sinai in early 1957 was a classic case of taking "risks for peace." Ben-Gurion told Eisenhower that giving back Sinai and Gaza would be risky. Eisenhower insisted that if they gave up those territories, the U.S. and the international community would prevent Arab terrorism and make sure that the Straits of Tiran were kept open to Israeli shipping.
Israel took the risk — but did it get peace? Hardly, The terrorist attacks soon resumed, and when Egypt blocked the Straits of Tiran in the spring of 1967, the U.S. and its allies stood idly by. Israel had taken the risk, but there was no peace.
The desperate Israelis still hadn't learned their lesson. As war approached in May and early June 1967, they delayed launching a pre-emptive strike. They risked losing the advantage of surprise. They took that risk in the hope it would lead to peace — instead it almost led to disaster.
Fortunately, at the last possible moment, Israel struck first. At war's end, Israel took even more risks. Instead of conquering the Arab capitals and imposing an appropriate peace settlement (which is what victors normally do when they win a war), they agreed to cease fire in the hope that their restraint would lead to peace. Of course it didn't.
So it was that six years later, they were faced with a similar crisis. Although Golda Meirwasaware of the Arab invasion plans, Fhe took the risk of refusing to order a pre-emptive
S — Page 7