1. The decision to release Jonathan Pollard from prison, announced this week, is a timely decision. For a number of years, it became clear that the insistence on keeping him in prison was, to put it mildly, suspicious. Pollard was sent to prison for all the right reasons; he was kept there for understandable reasons — up to a point. At that point, his imprisonment no longer seemed logical. It felt vindictive, petty, unbalanced, political, puzzling — to many observers it felt anti-Semitic. And although no clear proof was ever provided with which to back such a claim, serious people were quite certain that such motivations played a role in Pollard’s endless saga.
2. The day of the release will be a good day for Pollard and a good day for those wanting the U.S. to be a just country. It will not be a good day specifically for Israel, and it will not be a good day specifically for the American-Jewish community. Just think about all those Jewish students on campus — the Jewish students who face a hostile environment because of their support for Israel. The day of Pollard’s release will not be a good day for them.
3. I suspect that some people in the U.S. and in Israel will not resist the temptation to celebrate Pollard’s release when it comes in November. But celebration would be misplaced. It will contribute nothing to the tense relations between the countries.
4. Pundits will write that the release has some connection to the issue of Iran. Again, I see no proof of that. But suspicious circumstances are a fertile landscape on which fields of conspiracy theories grow.
The strange and unexplainable insistence to keep Pollard in prison for such a long time raised the question of anti-Semitism. The fortunate timing of the release — when talk of the U.S. and Israel is at its peak and when the administration wants to prove to its critics that it isn’t inherently biased against Israel — will also raise questions.
For many years, U.S. administrations toyed with the idea of releasing Pollard as a reward for something — a peace process, a pullout, a breakthrough.
A year and a half ago, I wrote that “Pollard has always been a bargaining chip. The U.S. offered him as such, and then backtracked, in the mid-1990s, when Bill Clinton was forced by his CIA Chief George Tenet to reconsider his offer to [Prime Minister ] Benjamin Netanyahu — or face a scandal prompting resignation.” I wrote this when the U.S. was again considering whether to use Pollard to reinvigorate a lagging peace process.
The U.S. administration thought about Pollard in political terms (the Obama administration and administrations before him). So it should not come as a huge surprise that outside observers also started thinking about Pollard’s imprisonment as a political issue, and that many of them might apply a political meaning to its ending.
5. Israel gains nothing from Pollard’s release. Nothing. Netanyahu gains nothing from it. In fact, for Israel, the release is a distraction from the battle to stop the Iran deal.
Israel does not gain, because the release is a reminder to Americans — at a crucial time — that Israel, while being an ally, is also a country with interests that aren’t always compatible with those of the U.S. When battling over Iran, Pollard is a disruptive symbol.
Netanyahu gains nothing because it is clear that Netanyahu did not much contribute to Pollard’s release. The release is not a reward for something Netanyahu did, and is not a tool with which to assist Netanyahu to make an unpopular move.
6. Two years ago, news came out that the U.S. was monitoring the phones of allied foreign leaders. The response was harsh; the American public was outraged. I wrote an article at that time, comparing the response of Israelis and Americans to the situation.
“The difference between outraged Americans and impassive Israelis is striking, and illuminating,” I wrote. “It is the difference between a society that is concerned for its privacy no less than its security, and a society that won’t hesitate to trade some privacy for more security.”
The Pollard case had nothing to do with privacy. But differences in approach and culture remain — and will reveal themselves in the coming months and after Pollard’s release.
Americans — as was well documented by historians — always felt that spying on other people is somewhat indecent. At times, you get the sense they still feel that way. They understand that spying is part of life, but treat it as somewhat dishonest and undignified. For Israelis, spying is a more pressing necessity, and less of a burden on their conscience. They also better understand that, at times, one has to monitor the moves of allies as well as enemies.
