Skip to main content

According to the New York Times, in order to entice Israel to stay at the negotiating table and fulfill the requirements it has already agreed to with the Palestinians, the US is offering to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was an American who spied for Israel and turned over so much important information that Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger thought he should have been executed. There was no death penalty at the time (30 years ago), and Pollard is serving a life sentence.

To add insult to injury, this jaw-dropping offer is being made to induce Israel to do the same old same old it has been doing for the last 20 years of negotiation--basically, nothing.

In exchange for Pollard, Israel would put a partial freeze on settlement building. First off, let's all recall that building settlements in occupied territory is a war crime, so why we would reward Israel for partially not committing a war crime is beyond me. Second, we've seen what happens when Israel does a partial settlement freeze. Last time (2010), Peace Now documented 492 violations of the settlement freeze in an eight month period.

In addition, Israel has agreed to release Palestinian prisoners it had already agreed to release at the start of the current round of talks. Way to negotiate, Mr. Kerry.

Israel has also agreed to release 400 other prisoners, many of them women and children. Read again. Children. Wow, that must have been one painful concession for Israel.

In addition to getting the release of Pollard, Israel also gets Palestine to agree not to join over 60 UN agencies and the International Criminal Court, where this whole Israel/Palestine debacle belongs.

I hope Palestine doesn't agree. So do the New York Times' readers. Here are some of the top reader-recommended quotes:

Hal Donahue Scranton, PA 6 hours ago
Rather than release an Israeli spy convicted of stealing US secrets, perhaps a better route is to withhold an ever increasing percentage of the massive US aid provided to Israel until a fair agreement is reached?
ex-pat Morocco 6 hours ago
What a travesty! Nothing will be accomplished until Israel starts negotiating in good faith. The US should not even consider a release until after Israel signs and effectively and in good faith implements the conditions of such a treaty. We are being made fools of by Netanyahou.
Charlie Kay 6 hours ago
Way to play it Netanyahu! You get the release of Pollard in exchange for, well in exchange for absolutely nothing. The West Bank construction continues and peace talks plod along leading nowhere, which is exactly where you want them to go.
Frozy Boston 5 hours ago
This is an outrage. What has the Pollard case got to do with the Near East peace talks? If Israel is holding these peace talks as hostage against the US, the US should cut off all help to Isreal and let them manage on their own.
Andrew San Francisco, CA 2 hours ago
How's this...Israel can have Pollard AFTER they successfully conclude a final settlement agreement with the Palestinians.

Children should eat their vegetables before they're given dessert.

Steve Sailer America 5 hours ago
This is the funniest April Fool's Day hoax yet.

It is a hoax, right?

Somebody, please tell me it's a hoax.

It's not a hoax.

UPDATE: The NYT story I linked to above has changed significantly since yesterday. Now it leads off with Mr. Abbas' "defiance." The readers' comments are still there, though. Here is a new article from the NYT that maintains it's focus on the Pollard deal.

Poll

Should the US free Jonathan Pollard?

9%7 votes
90%64 votes

| 71 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Gotta run to a meeting. See you later. (0+ / 0-)

    The easily offended deserve to be easily offended.--God

    by Flyswatterbanjo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 11:48:47 AM PDT

  •  Spy swapping generally includes two spies. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM

    Pollard is the perfect example of dual loyalty.

    •  I need to point out (0+ / 0-)

      that dual loyalty is rare. It does exist.

      •  Pollard's loyalty was not towards Israel. (5+ / 0-)

        Intelligence reports have indicated that he provided information to up to 3 other countries.  He did it for money.  His only loyalty was to his bank account.  It has become convenient for him to claim Israeli protection, and convenient for some in Israel to claim him.   Do not confuse that with dual loyalty.

        With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:12:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Name the Nations. (0+ / 0-)
          •  They have not been publicly named, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, livosh1

            other than the Soviet Union.  The US cut a plea deal with Pollard to prevent an open trial, in which they would have had to bring this info up (as well as reveal how they knew that his info was getting to the Soviets).

            With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

            by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:25:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              <<>>

              The U.S. wanted to prevent an open trial because Pollard accidently stumbled upon a shipment of arms that was part of the Iran-Contra scandal -- almost a full year before the Reagan administration claimed the arms shipments began.

              Why else would Pollard accept a plea bargain from Casper Weinberger for what turned out to be a life sentence when, if he had been found guilty at trial, he would have been given a 30-year sentence -- the maximum according to the laws at the time?

              •  the plea agreement was for much less than life (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                unfangus, Adam B, livosh1

                He got life after he and his then-wife broke the plea deal by talking to the press without permission -- Pollard to Wolf Blitzer and his then-wife Anne to 60 Minutes.

                Judges don't take kindly to plea deals being broken. He gave a life sentence which means automatic parole in 30 years with credit for time served prior to sentencing. That means Pollard will be freed on November 21, 2015.

            •  Actually, the stuff he gave to the Israelis (4+ / 0-)

              the Israelis then gave to the Soviets in exchange for exit visas for Soviet Jews. At least that's what Sy Hersh reported.

              Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

              by milkbone on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:42:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Looks like it's fallen apart (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milkbone, whizdom, Brecht

    as Kerry has cancelled the rest of his trip.

    As long as the U.S. is the sole third party in the room, nothing will happen.  At least not with the current Israeli government.  

    "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

    by Paleo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:03:22 PM PDT

    •  One too many (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, Brecht

      kicks at the can.  It is amazing that they were able to string this along as they had.  They slow rolled during Obama's first administration, hoped for a Romney win, and go halfway through the second admin.  

    •  Palis have been pretty stubborn too (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Al Abama, Mila18, livosh1

      like refusing out of hand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and demanding more and more releases of prisoners with blood on their hands.

      Imagine if Obama released Khālid Shaykh Muḥammad‎.

      •  More a matter (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie

        of keeping to agreements.  The prisoner release was to incent the Palestinians to agree to the talks with a hard end date of April 30 for a definitive resolution resulting a State, and without a settlement freeze.  Prisoners or settlement freeze, and Israel chose settlements.  Now they want to renege.  That has to have consequences.

        I admit to some bias against a Pollard release, being a serving Naval Officer during the Pollard Era, but if I thought Pollard's release would bring peace closer, I could live with it.   But this looks like releasing pollard to incent the Israeli gov to do what they already committed to do, and without any prospect of anything definitive doesn't seem wise.

      •  Jewish state (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Brecht, DavidMS

        here is what an expert says about your Jewish state remark...http://www.juancole.com/...

        "It ain't over till it's over."-Yogi Berra

        by mock38 on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:41:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting article that everyone should read (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WattleBreakfast, stargaze

          This "Jewish State" demand is just Israel moving the goalposts - again. Actually, it's worse than that:

          Actually, it isn’t clear what exactly Netanyahu’s demand entails or why he is making it. As I have pointed out, it is either like the US demanding to be recognized as a “white” state, or it is like the US demanding to be recognized as a “Christian” state. If it is the former, it is shameful and should be rejected. If it is the latter, it raises questions about the civil rights of non-believers (atheists and agnostics), which include at least 32% of Jews in Israel along with the 20% of the population that is Christian or Muslim. That is, the demand that Israel be recognized as a “Judaic” state would disenfranchise over half the population. . . .

          As I have said before, I have a dark suspicion that the demand for recognition of the Jewishness of Israel is a prelude to Avigdor Lieberman’s plan of making the 1.7 million Palestinian-Israelis stateless. If so, that is a crime and no one should assent to it.

          In any case, last week, both the Arab League and Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Netanyahu’s diction. It is a red line for them. Insisting on it will mean no agreement. If Netanyahu is insisting on it to forestall an agreement, he will succeed; but that will be a major failure.

          "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

          by Brecht on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:45:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Only states (0+ / 0-)

        get to recognize other states.

  •  We don't agree on much with respect to (7+ / 0-)

    the middle east, but we do appear to agree on this.  As far as I am concerned, Pollard should rot in a US prison until he takes his dying breath.

    With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

    by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:10:38 PM PDT

  •  why do we even bother with I/P "peace" talks? (7+ / 0-)

    Israel isn't going to do shit because A) they want all the land and none of the people on it and B) Washington would never make them do anything they don't want to do.  And everybody and their mother knows it.  But almost every president for the last 50 years at some point gets the itch and we've all got to pretend anything's going to change.

    Domestic politics is the continuation of civil war by other means.

    by Visceral on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:11:30 PM PDT

    •  Because Israel wants US in the room (3+ / 0-)

      That way, when push comes to shove, it's 2 against 1.  The last thing Israel wants is to have a real "honest broker" arbitrating the matter.

      "When dealing with terrorism, civil and human rights are not applicable." Egyptian military spokesman.

      by Paleo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:15:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  because it distracts people from the reality (7+ / 0-)

      of the constant expansion of the settlement enterprise, by dangling a tantalizing promise of "peace" in front of them--a promise that never becomes reality.

      "Natural growth" is still growth. Even if they don't build new ones.

      Liberal Zionists demonize Netanyahu and say "Oh look, we stopped him from building new settlements" and everyone gets to say they accomplished something. But the settler population continues to grow regardless.

      The two-state solution is dead, and it was the settlement enterprise that killed it. Israel is de facto one state, thanks to the settlers. The only question that remains is whether it will be an apartheid state or a democracy.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:22:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The US may not have a choice (0+ / 0-)

    http://www.nbcnews.com/...

    A separate federal law provides that a person sentenced to life "shall be released on parole" after serving 30 years of a life sentence. Because Pollard's time behind bars began when he was arrested in 1985, the Bureau of Prisons considers his release date to be Nov. 21, 2015 — 30 years to the day after he was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington.

    That law says that parole must be granted, unless the parole commission determines that Pollard has seriously or frequently violated prison rules or concludes there's a "reasonable probability" that he will commit a crime upon his release.

    However, federal officials say, Pollard must seek parole in order for that 30-year law to take effect. Most recently, he waived a parole hearing that was to have been held today. Instead, Pollard and his defenders have repeatedly sought presidential clemency.

    •  What about that means there's no choice? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lady Libertine, merrylib
      That law says that parole must be granted
      Pollard hasn't sought parole
      Neither of these things means that we need to offer Pollard's release to Israel, to extend these peace talks.

      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

      by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 12:35:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pollard still has time to change his mind (0+ / 0-)

        But the point is that whether he's released next year is largely in his hands.  Which means that unless Pollard is an absolute glutton for punishment, the US has a rapidly closing window to make use of him.

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)


          the US has a rapidly closing window to make use of him.
          You don't offer up a craven traitor who, had there been a death penalty in place at the time of his conviction, would already be dead and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

          Particularly if you're getting nothing in return.

          (Watch out for those falling trial balloons, lol! ;) )

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 01:40:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rosenbergs were the last people executed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            by the US for espionage, although prosecutors tried and failed to secure capital punishment for Brian Regan.

            Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen were both convicted and sentenced after the federal government lifted the death penalty moratorium.  I don't see how you can conclude Pollard would have likely would have earned capital punishment if the moratorium had been lifted earlier.

            Regardless of what you do and don't do with persons convicted of espionage, within a year Pollard may walk free.

            •  Nobody needed a history of spies executions (0+ / 0-)

              I mean, it's always good to review history, even when it's just being put up to distract.

              Jonathan Pollard may walk free next year, IF he applies for parole. He'll do that under the actual rule of law we have. It is not necessary at all for it to happen as part of some bullshit politicking deal that gets the US nothing in return.

              He's been in jail this long. He can wait another year, assuming he's smart enough to apply for parole next chance he gets.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:20:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You asserted that Pollard would be dead (0+ / 0-)

                except for the moratorium on the death penalty.  That claim is dubious.  The history lesson illustrates why.  

                What does it matter if Pollard is released this year or next?  While this particular reed may not be to your liking, seems to me that you might as well get as much use out of him as possible before the balloon goes up.

                •  And? (0+ / 0-)
                  You asserted that Pollard would be dead
                  Yes, I did. In passing. And you knew that.

                  This is about the US being smart. You don't trade something for nothing. It's that fucking simple.  

                  "The balloon"  is going nowhere, no matter how much you huff and puff and blow air under it, hon--you're just not windy enough.

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:44:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The balloon is going up (0+ / 0-)

                    The November after next.  Sorry, but those are the facts.  And please don't call me "hon."

                    •  LOL! (0+ / 0-)

                      Obviously you're talking about a different balloon....

                      Sorry, but those are the facts.

                      Nobody here is really disagreeing about The Facts in your initial link, so I'm not sure what the point of puffing up your chest and pretending otherwise is. It's been pointed out repeatedly that the words you accompanied that link with were the actual problem, and it's been demonstrated why that is, several times now.

                      Is "the last word" so important to you?

                      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                      by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:07:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You seem to be interested in a fight (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not.  I provided some information to shed some light on US decisionmaking.  What issues you have with that are your own.  At the end of the day, of the US is going to make use of Pollard, they're on the clock.  End of story.

                        •  Just interested in pointing out sophistry (0+ / 0-)

                          you don't seem to like that.

                          What issues you have with that are your own
                          Indeed.
                          At the end of the day, of the US is going to make use of Pollard, they're on the clock.  End of story.
                          Said the anonymous poster on a blog, with his crystal ball shining brightly....  

                          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                          by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:19:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Sophistry (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL

                            I do not think that word means what you think it means.

                            No need for crystal balls.  We have these funny things called facts.

                          •  Oh, I think I do (0+ / 0-)

                            and I think you know it, too.

                            Go back and look at your comment that started this. You tried to assert that just because

                               

                            That law says that parole must be granted
                            that meant that the US must offer up Pollard in "a trade" for....nothing.

                            It meant no such thing. You still haven't addressed that, either--instead, you skipped all over hell and back, trying to deflect, to parry, to accuse, to obfuscate. But we have this little thing called "the mastery of the native language" at our disposal.

                            And so here we are, back where we started. And you're no closer than you were initially in being the least bit convincing. Stomping your little blog-feet and insisting "At the end of the day, of the US is going to make use of Pollard" won't make it so.

                            Unless you know something you're not telling. In which case, facts need to be clearly cited with actual links.  Your first one doesn't count, at least not until you address the fact that it bloody well does not say what you tried to say it did.

                             

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:44:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I'm pretty sure you don't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL

                            Also, it seems you have a habit of setting up strawmen.  Last I checked, no one argued " the US must offer up Pollard in 'a trade" for....nothing.'"

                            If the US is going to make use of Pollard, they have until November of next year to do it.  Otherwise, setting aside his voluntary waiving parole, he's free man.  That's a fact.  Why this distresses you so much is beyond me.

                          •  That's not what you said initially (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            whizdom

                            Diary title is (in part):

                            US offers to release convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, to extend peace talks
                            You asserted in direct response to the diarist, that
                            The US may not have a choice
                            and you posted this information from an NBC News article:
                            A separate federal law provides that a person sentenced to life "shall be released on parole" after serving 30 years of a life sentence. Because Pollard's time behind bars began when he was arrested in 1985, the Bureau of Prisons considers his release date to be Nov. 21, 2015 — 30 years to the day after he was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington.

                            That law says that parole must be granted, unless the parole commission determines that Pollard has seriously or frequently violated prison rules or concludes there's a "reasonable probability" that he will commit a crime upon his release.

                            However, federal officials say, Pollard must seek parole in order for that 30-year law to take effect. Most recently, he waived a parole hearing that was to have been held today. Instead, Pollard and his defenders have repeatedly sought presidential clemency.

                            I'll ask you again: What, exactly, in this article means that "The US has no choice"?

                             

                               That law says that parole must be granted
                               
                            Pollard hasn't sought parole
                            Again, neither of these things means that "we need to offer Pollard's release to Israel, to extend these peace talks."

                            Sophistry, writ large:

                            the use of fallacious arguments, esp. with the intention of deceiving.

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:05:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I suggest you look up the word "may." (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JNEREBEL

                            Congratulations on finally looking up "sophistry."  I suggest you do the same for "strawman."

        •  There's no "making use of Pollard." (0+ / 0-)

          Think of the hit President Obama would take politically for releasing him, under any circumstance. It's preposterous.

          The easily offended deserve to be easily offended.--God

          by Flyswatterbanjo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 05:22:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He knows he is safer in prison (0+ / 0-)

          than on parole and stuck in the US.  

    •  I think the officials are wrong on that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rduran

      I think the parole is automatic whether he applies or not, because it is in the statute that applied at the time.

      Pollard, however, is just a big enough martyr to try to stay in prison longer than 30 years. He has been eligible for parole for 18 but has waived every opportunity to seek it.

      •  I would guess (0+ / 0-)

        that's more along the lines of correct, though there still appears to be some dispute here.

        Even so, that would be all the more reason to not 'bargain' by using him as a "bargaining chip". What's the point, if he really does go free in...what is that, 18 months or so?

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:14:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those who dispute haven't read the law (0+ / 0-)

          18 USC 4206(d):

          "(d) Any prisoner, serving a sentence of five years or longer, who is not earlier released under this section or any other applicable provision of law, shall be released on parole after having served two-thirds of each consecutive term or terms, or after serving thirty years of each consecutive term or terms of more than forty-five years including any life term, whichever is earlier: Provided, however, That the Commission shall not release such prisoner if it determines that he has seriously or frequently violated institution rules and regulations or that there is a reasonable probability that he will commit any Federal, State, or local crime."

          http://www.gpo.gov/...

          It was hard to find this on the Internet because as I said it has now been repealed, but since Pollard was convicted prior to the repeal it applies to him. Unless Pollard has been a problem inmate, he will be released November 21, 2015. (No chance he will be committing another crime in the US because he will immediately make aliyah to Israel.) It is actually impossible for the government to change this law to keep Pollard in prison because of the prohibition in the US Constitution against ex post facto laws.

      •  Perhaps the issue is that what he really wants (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Flyswatterbanjo

        is a pardon or commutation which removes his conviction from his record, because he genuinely believes that giving information to Israel in exchange for money could not possibly be a crime for him, and parole doesn't get him that but a pardon does. So he can hold out, knowing that 2015 is coming, assuming that he puts in the paperwork for parole in that year. Or not, if he still wants the conviction washed out, so he won't be a convicted felon.  Perhaps in the age of Snowden, he thinks this is possible.  

        What Netanyahu wants is something really insulting to rub in Obama's face, releasing a convicted traitor to the US to the country to which the betrayal was done, because Bibi wants SOMETHING for the US putting him through this misery of talks in which Bibi has always known there will be no agreement permitted, because each time it starts he comes up with a nonnegotiable item, of which Jewish state recognition is just the most recent iteration.

        As it is, he is in a pickle because the obligation of the PA not to go to the Internationals had a end time limit of yesterday, and it does not help that the fourth of four installments of releases which Israel was to give in exchange for that not going to internationals was also due yesterday, and Israel did not perform and now wants MORE, MOOOOOORE, in exchange for even considering performing an obligation for which the full consideration from the other side is in hand.

        And he is in a double pickle since Pollard will not apply for parole at all, and you can't grant what he hasn't asked you to grant.

        I don't often write individual letters to the WH but this time I did, asking the President not to release Pollard.

  •  Might be entering another phase (6+ / 0-)

    http://www.nytimes.com/...
    NYTimes reports

    The fraught Mideast peace talks were thrown into confusion on Tuesday as a meeting between Secretary of State John Kerry and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority was canceled after Mr. Abbas moved to join 15 international agencies, a move vigorously opposed by Israel and the United States.
    ISrael should have taken the deal on the table.  This is going to be worse, and there are limits to what the US can do to block
  •  Of note (0+ / 0-)

    reports are that Abbas filed with 15 of the 60 or so bodies, but not the ICC or ICJ, there might be some daylight to work something out.

    A senior Palestinian official said the 15 agencies Mr. Abbas moved to join — out of more than 60 possible — did not include the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice, where many Palestinians hope to prosecute Israelis for what they consider war crimes, including the demolition of homes, arrests and killings of Palestinians, and the building of settlements. The 15 did include the Geneva and Vienna Conventions and agencies dealing with women’s and children’s rights, the official said.
    •  Meh. (0+ / 0-)

      Israel doesn't accept compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, and isn't a member of the ICC.  They've nothing to worry about from those courts.

      •  Travel bans (0+ / 0-)

        would bite if Israeli leaders were indicted.

      •  I think it would be more about investors from (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whizdom, lunachickie, Brecht

        EU countries (most EU countries are members of the ICC) pulling out of Israel to avoid criminal liability--they don't want their assets frozen.  It could be an avalanche.

        I think seeing that possibility is what prompted several European pension funds to divest from Israel this year.

        The easily offended deserve to be easily offended.--God

        by Flyswatterbanjo on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:09:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure about Isr not having any worry. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whizdom

        One of  the problems with the EU is that certain of them have borne the weight of war crimes and other crimes against humanity type charges, and these are still having one sort of benefit or another extracted from them two generations and more later. It is unlikely that the EU will accept the notion that what is a crime for them is not a crime when done by the State of Israel or this or that of its various governments. And they are looking at what happens when you ignore such abusive  and arrogant conduct, in the Crimean mess. And other countries are no longer available to take refugees forced out and kept out.

         Israel would not be pushing for promises not to invoke ICC and ICJ if they thought there was nothing to worry about. They've been pushing that since the beginning.

        And now they've breached a deal which delayed doing that, intentionally, and demanding consideration for being willing hereafter to perform a deal whose benefits in accordance with its terms they have received already, while their own performance is incomplete. The time for PA not to move to such Internationals has expired and they have the right to go forward, and nothing to keep them from doing it since Israel has just refused to honor its half of a deal on this very subject.

  •  Death penalty was never considered for Pollard (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rduran

    and I can believe that Caspar Weinberger is being cited positively on this site.

    •  Death Penalty (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rduran

      wasn't an option, there was a moratorium, that's why it wasn't pursued.  

    •  The US Code that he was convicted under (3+ / 0-)

      did specify the death penalty for this offense as a maximum, but we will never know if he would have got that sentence.  

      He is refusing parole because as a parolee, he can't leave the country.   He is holding out for clemency.   The Gov is still trying to get him to disclose what he did hand over unlawfully, and he isnt cooperating.  

      •  We can make a fair guess (0+ / 0-)

        Ames and Hanssen didn't get the death penalty.

      •  I thought he was (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        whizdom, Spiffydigs, Portlaw

        holding out for clemency because he was just being willfully stubborn ;)

        He is refusing parole because as a parolee, he can't leave the country.
        Did not know that. Thanks for the info!

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 04:47:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But the death penalty did not apply to Pollard (0+ / 0-)

        18 USC 794(a)

        (a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

  •  This whole idea (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    merrylib, Christy1947

    is blowing up, it may have the effect of reducing sympathy for Israel.  Ouch.

  •  Two things (0+ / 0-)

    I'm with the commenter who said that Pollard can be given up after the Israelis sign on the dotted line, not before.  

    That last comment is by Steve Sailer, who will never, ever be cited approving on Daily Kos again, I can promise you that.  I'm a smidge closer to his views than most people here, so take it from me that he's poison.

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 02:41:42 PM PDT

  •  Don't you think Abbas is a brilliant negotiator? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mila18

    Look at everything he's gotten.

    He got 75 inmates free, some of whom are admitted murderers, just for agreeing to talk to Israel, all without conceding anything whatsoever.  

    He was never forced to even make a single constructive proposal about anything.  And he never even had to directly talk with Israel or shake hands with Netanyahu, he just communicated through American intermediaries.

    He made Kerry and Obama's framework agreement go down in flames.  He even was able to reject the idea that a peace agreement would permanently end the conflict.

    He won't suffer any negative consequences whatsoever.

    And nothing stops him now from turning to the UN for help.

    The guy's a genius.  He totally outplayed Netanyahu and Kerry.

  •  Talk about a bad deal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whizdom

    I would only trade that traitor for something like the Israeli evacuation of Settlers from Hebron.  Those settlers are some of the worst of the religious nationalists.  It would need to be a deal that puts two powerful factions within the conservative bloc into conflict.  It could weaken the more nationalistic elements.  

    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

    by DavidMS on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 06:01:02 PM PDT

  •  Pollard is a traitor. No release. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Flyswatterbanjo

    Okay, the Government says you MUST abort your child. NOW do you get it?

    by Catskill Julie on Tue Apr 01, 2014 at 08:16:15 PM PDT

  •  If he somehow gets parole... (0+ / 0-)

    I hope we can make his life as miserable as possible by making his release absolutely draconian. He's one of the biggest scum bags out there. And our dear friends the Israeli's passed on whatever they had to our BFF's of the time, the Soviets.

    I really was a big supporter of Israel at one time. Now I'm really getting the picture that they can't be trusted with anything. Maybe a one state solution with full right of return wouldn't be so bad...

  •  Wow. One day later, and the NYT has significantly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stargaze

    changed the article I linked to in the diary. Pollard's name is no longer in the headline…and surprise! Now it's all Abbas' fault. The new headline is, "Abbas Takes Defiant Step, and Mideast Talks Falter."

    However, the comments are still there…

    I guess the PTB saw how much Joe Q Public was repulsed by the idea of freeing Pollard…in exchange for nothing.

    The easily offended deserve to be easily offended.--God

    by Flyswatterbanjo on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 06:54:54 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site