Debunking Some of the Lies Against Yonatan Pollard

The Lies That Just Won’t Die

By Avraham Weissman

Unraveling the Tangled Web of Deceit That Cost Jonathan Pollard His Freedom for 35 Years

For decades, Jonathan Pollard, the only American ever sentenced to life in prison for passing classified information to an ally — a crime with a median sentence of two to four years — and a small core group of loyal advocates, led by his wife, Mrs. Esther Pollard, fought a double, uphill battle. They sought to reverse what impartial observers have long referred to as a gross miscarriage of justice and obtain his freedom. Simultaneously, they also had to contend with a steady stream of misinformation seeking to distort the record.

Even now, after the draconian parole restrictions were finally lifted, 35 years after he was arrested, detractors seeking to promote their own agendas are still actively spreading false stories about what really happened all those years ago.

In this investigative report based on declassified government documents and exclusive interviews with a source close to Jonathan Pollard, Hamodia implodes old myths. The evidence reveals previously unknown details about the Pollard saga — details that expose a truth so sinister that some parties are still trying to obliterate it.

Two weeks have passed since attorneys for Jonathan Pollard finally received notice that the parole restrictions have been terminated, and his wife, Esther Pollard, received authorization to cut the infamous tracking device from his wrist. Through his lawyers, Jonathan released a statement of gratitude, and his wife wrote a statement of her own, as well as an exclusive, moving op-ed for Hamodia, based on the words of Nishmas.

Neither of them is giving interviews, but a close friend of the Pollards, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Hamodia that Jonathan is deeply hurt by the misinformation campaign that is still being waged against him.

“After 35 years of unspeakable suffering, they still won’t let him live in peace. It is high time, once and for all, to set the record straight.”

Perhaps the most painful and insidious of the slurs that has repeatedly been hurled against him is the claim that Jonathan first offered to sell classified material to South Africa and Pakistan, and only after they turned him down did he begin supplying material to Israel.

According to his detractors, this signifies that he was a paid mercenary, not someone acting out of concern for Israel.

The most compelling proof that refutes this baseless claim is found not in arguments that Pollard or defense attorneys have made, but in court filings by the prosecutors and declassified intelligence agency documents.

The Grand Jury Indictment

Sometime after his arrest, a grand jury returned a 14-page indictment against Pollard. Since the defense has no opportunity to take part in grand jury proceedings, these documents tell only the prosecutor’s side of the story. In addition, prosecutors often seek to include in the indictment as many relevant accusations of wrongdoing as possible in order to strengthen it.The indictment against Pollard, which was later made part of the court record and subsequently obtained by Hamodia, is harshly worded, and accuses him of a “conspiracy to commit espionage,” a crime more serious than what he ultimately pled guilty to as part of his plea agreement. What is telling about this document isn’t merely what it contains but what it doesn’t contain. The entire document refers solely to Pollard’s passing classified material to Israel, without even alluding to any dealings with any other countries. If at any time he had sought to illegally pass information to other countries, this would have been included in this indictment as well, as each attempt would have been considered a separate crime.

The CIA Damage Assessment Report

Another key document, which was mostly declassified many years after Pollard’s arrest, is an internal report prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1987 to evaluate the damage caused by the Pollard affair.

The 166-page document, which was obtained by Hamodia, includes a section entitled “Pollard’s Assignments and Security-Clearance Actions With Naval Intelligence, 1979-85,” which details every significant aspect of Pollard’s employment history for the agency. The report, which, like the indictment, represents only the position of the government and does not give Pollard a possibility to challenge or refute any of their claims, presents a lengthy account of Mr. Pollard’s interactions with the Israelis.

Nowhere in this lengthy document does it even hint that Pollard attempted to sell classified information to Pakistan or South Africa, and it quotes Pollard — who had been polygraphed extensively during his post-arrest interrogations — as being motivated by a concern over Israel’s security, as American officials “failed to follow established disclosure guidance by withholding information releasable to Israel.”

The DeConcini Letter

In December of 2010, former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini wrote a letter to then-President Barack Obama, urging him to commute Pollard’s sentence.

“I was on the Senate Intelligence Committee when Pollard was arrested, and subsequently became its chairman,” DeConcini wrote. “I am well aware of the classified information concerning the damage he caused. Pollard was charged with one count of giving classified information to an ally, Israel. He was never charged with nor to my knowledge did he ever give any information to a third country.”

The Real Story Behind the Pakistan Allegations

How did the debunked claim of a Pakistani connection start in the first place? In an exclusive interview with a source close to Pollard, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the extreme sensitivity of the case, we learned of a previously unknown detail of the case that helps provide one of few remaining pieces of the anguish-filled puzzle known as the Pollard saga.

“In the summer before his arrest,” the source related, “Pollard traveled to Israel, where he met with Rafael Eitan, who served as the head of Lakam, the intelligence agency under the auspices of the Israeli Defense Ministry that Pollard was working for. Eitan was recovering from eye surgery, and the meeting took place in the Beilinson Hospital in Tel Aviv.

“Eitan complimented him on the material he had given Israel, stating that it had been crucial to [maintaining] the security of Israel and had far exceeded expectations. He also gave him clear instructions that in case something [went] wrong, Pollard was to stall the investigators as long as possible by ‘confessing’ to being a Pakistani spy in order to give time for the Israelis on the team to get out of the country. Eitan pledged that Pollard himself would then be exfiltrated and taken to Israel, leaving the Pakistanis with the blame for running an agent in Washington.

“As part of this precautionary effort, Eitan told Pollard to get a hold of some hundred-dollar bills with bank of Karachi stamps on them and leave them around his apartment, as a red herring to throw the investigators off track,” the source continued. “At a routine work-related event, Pollard managed to get himself photographed with a Pakistani military attaché and made sure that the picture was placed prominently in his apartment.”

In November 1985, when it became clear that the Americans had become aware of the operation, Pollard followed the instructions he had been given. After he stalled the FBI long enough for the entire Israeli team to flee the country, Pollard called his contact number for his own instructions.

It was only then that he found out — to his utter shock — that there was no escape plan in place for him. Instead, he was told to come to the Israeli embassy in Washington.

The guards were awaiting him, and after he identified himself, the gates opened and he was allowed to drive into the embassy compound — an extraterritorial jurisdiction into which the FBI could not follow him.

For the first few moments, it appeared that all was well, that the Israelis would keep their word and offer refuge to their agent.
Then someone came out of the embassy building and whispered something into the ear of the chief of security. He glanced at Pollard and then avoided his gaze.

What Pollard did not know at the time was that embassy officials had contacted Eitan and asked him what to do.

In a 2014 interview with Haaretz newspaper, Eitan recounted his response.

“I immediately said — ‘Throw him out,’” he recalled. “I don’t regret it.”

“Do you know who I am?” Pollard asked the guards who had been tasked with throwing out their own agent.

They nodded.

“Do you know what they are going to do to me?” he queried.

They nodded again.

“I have an instruction to ask for your last report,” the chief of security told Pollard.

For a moment, Pollard didn’t know whether the man was joking. He shrugged and gave in his last report.

The guard then pointed to the gate and told him, “You have to leave the embassy and walk in through the front door.” Dozens of FBI agents had now massed outside the embassy, awaiting their prey. Pollard pleaded with the guards, but to no avail. He was forced to leave the compound and was immediately taken into custody by the FBI.

Jonathan Pollard had kept his word, but Rafi Eitan had cruelly broken his promise.

Pollard subsequently learned that the FBI took the Pakistani red herring so seriously that they sent a considerable contingent of agents to the Pakistani embassy in Washington at the same time that they followed him to the Israeli embassy.

After months of polygraphing and ruthless interrogations, it became clear to the American investigators that a Pakistani connection never existed. Furthermore, even Judge Aubrey Robinson, who sentenced Pollard to an unprecedented life sentence — for a crime with a median sentence of two to four years — recognized and acknowledged that Pollard acted for ideological reasons and not because of money. This is made clear by the fact that Robinson did not fine Pollard, a penalty typically imposed on those who have spied for mercenary reasons.
The other canard hurled against Pollard had to do with an allegation that he provided information to South Africa. Again, there is no mention of this in indictments or in any of the other court-related documents.

Continue reading…

From Hamodia, here.

More Bayesianism in Torah Literature

We have mentioned the Chazon Ish already.

Another example is the various (often Chassidic) statements similar to the one by Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer (in a letter to Rabbi Chaim Elazar Waks):

ויש לראות גודל התכלית הזה שהקלי’ גוברת גם בצדיקים היותר גדולים לבטל הטוב הזה…

That is, the greater they are, the greater the proof against their own position…

Please Help Families Considering Aliyah Get Needed Information!

If you have availability to be contacted by phone or email by pre-screened families from YOUR hometown in the U.S. or elsewhere that have questions about your community, schools, shuls, parnassah opportunities, we need you!
If you have 5 minutes or five hours per week, any amount of your time can be critical in giving an American Chareidi family the advice, support and guidance that they need to make their Eretz Yisrael dream into a reality.

Moshe Feiglin on the Corona Vaccine Threat

‘You’ll have to kill me before you stick a syringe in me’: Feiglin distrusts COVID vaccine

Moshe Feiglin calls for herd immunity and to protect at-risk populations, attacks government: ‘Worse failure than Yom Kippur War.’

Mordechai Sones , Oct 29 , 2020 11:49 AM
Former Knesset Member Moshe Feiglin called to introduce a “herd immunity” policy in Israel while protecting the elderly and at-risk populations, doubts the promised COVID-19 vaccine.

In a Facebook post today, Feiglin attacked government and coronavirus cabinet policies.

“This is a worse failure than that of the Yom Kippur War,” he wrote. “The number of deaths is already the same, but there, in 1973, the war ended and everyone understood there was a failure – a failure of the ‘conception’.

“The problem is that the coronavirus cabinet and decision-makers are physically blocking any other opinion. With real terror,” he said. “It’s forbidden to express another opinion there. And I know this mostly from the inside, from professionals who sit there on committees. There’s no humility or ability to hear opposing viewpoints.”

He called for a policy of herd immunity: “The doctors I met call to focus all resources and efforts on protecting the elderly and sensitive populations only,” he wrote. “In this way, it will be possible to continue the full functioning of the rest of the population, which will be exposed to the virus and develop resilience, with no significant morbidity or mortality. Like this: Overall mortality will decrease, a devastating economic crisis will be avoided, and the end of the crisis can be expected when ‘herd immunity’ is created.”

Even if there is a COVID-19 vaccine, Feiglin suspects it: “You’ll have to kill me before you stick a syringe in me with this vaccine,” he wrote.

In his remarks, Feiglin compared the situation in Israel today with the situation in Sweden, where a policy similar to the one he hopes for has been applied. He said that from now on he would continue to make comparisons between the countries and even promised: “To be continued.”

From Arutz Sheva, here.

Corona Vaccine VERSUS Bitachon

“God Watches Over Fools” Explained

The concept of שומר פתאים השם is being touted as a reason to take the experimental vaccine and not worry.  We are being told that because “most experts and the greatest experts” have decided that the risks are minimal, and the dangers of not taking the vaccine are severe, we must listen to them and vaccinate.
Unfortunately this ruling is based on fundamentally flawed reasoning and a complete distortion of the concept of שומר פתאים השם.  Here are links to two excellent in-depth treatments of the concept in Halacha, the main principles of which I will summarize below.
There are two opposing principles in Halacha which must be reconciled in all situations so that we can live healthy, balanced lives.
1) We have an obligation to protect our lives and wellbeing from danger.
2) We must trust in Hashem to protect us.
If we take extreme, abnormal measures to protect ourselves from danger, we demonstrate a lack of trust in Hashem.  Such measures have unintended consequences that compromise one’s mental health and ability to live a normal, productive life.  We are not supposed to be hypochondriacs or live with paranoia.
Indeed, such fear is a sign that one is a sinner (see Berachos 60A).  The righteous live with purpose and confidence, and put their trust in God.
On the other hand, we are not allowed to expect God to protect us without taking reasonable measures according to the situation.  Behaving in such a fashion requires miracles (of the more open variety) to be protected, and we are not allowed to rely on such miracles.  Even if a reckless person is protected, it detracts from his merits.
The shiurim I provided above illustrate these fundamental principles through a variety of halachic sources. According to the poskim, the following variables all impact the balance between what are considered reasonable risks to take, what is considered dangerous enough to avoid, and when to rely on God:
1. Is it a definite and immediate danger?
2. Is the behavior one that all of society has accepted as normal?
3. What is the likelihood of being harmed?
4. What are the benefits of the behavior?
These criteria must be weighed to determine the proper balance of appropriate risk, appropriate protective measures, and trusting in God.
A few examples will help illustrate this and provide clarity for our situation.
1. It is more dangerous to ride a car or fly in a plane than to go for a walk or stay at home.  However, the dangers are extremely remote, all of society has accepted these modes of transportation as normal, the likelihood of being harmed is close to zero, and the benefits of these modes of transportation are great.  Therefore, these risks are entirely acceptable and one should rely upon  שומר פתאים השם.
2. One is more likely to suffer an injury from playing sports or riding a bike than other forms of exercise. Some sports, like tackle football and boxing, have an extremely high risk of injury, including serious injuries, and are not advisable.  Others have less risk of injury and extremely low risk of serious injuries.  Bike riders, for example, have a greater risk of being hit by a car or suffering a head injury even with a helmet, but overall, with proper precautions, these risks are minimal.
At the same time, these activities have important health benefits, they provide a recreational and social outlet, and in the case of bike riding an inexpensive mode of transportation as well.  The risks involved are low and entirely acceptable, and therefore here too one should exercise caution but otherwise rely upon שומר פתאים השם
When it comes to activities with greater danger, the benefits must also be greater to justify the risk.  For example, one should not go into a jungle to hunt wild animals, for the danger is great and the benefits are minimal at best.  However, one may hunt animals for the sake of his livelihood or the performance of a mitzvah.  These primary benefits justify additional risks.
Similarly, we know that some workers will die during the construction of roads, bridges, tunnels, and other critical infrastructure.  However, the benefits to society far outweigh the risk to any individual worker, and therefore one is allowed to work in construction and rely upon שומר פתאים השם.
With these examples in mind, let us consider the current situation.  The coronavirus is real; we know quite well by now that it can cause long-term health problems and even death. We would be wise to take reasonable precautions to protect ourselves from it, as we would with any illness.  At the same time, we must avoid measures that are extreme and unduly harmful in their own right. We must find a reasonable balance, and then rely on שומר פתאים השם.
Some noted rabbis have urged people to take the experimental vaccine.  They claim that the risks of the vaccine are minimal, the risks are accepted by society, the benefits are great, and the dangers of not taking it are severe. Therefore, one should take it and rely upon שומר פתאים השם.
Unfortunately this is a faulty application of the concept.  The risks of the vaccine are largely unknown and cannot possibly be fully known for many years.  Many thousands of doctors all over the world have raised serious red flags about it, and their opinions cannot be cavalierly disregarded.  Not only are they being disregarded, those who express concerns are being mocked, censored, and punished.  That is hardly reassuring, nor the manner in which new drugs and treatments should be introduced under any circumstances.
In fact, governments are threatening to restrict the basic human rights of people who refuse to take the vaccine  This should be considered far more scary and dangerous than the coronavirus itself.
The benefits of the vaccine are hardly overwhelming.  At best they reduce the chance of developing a severe case of coronavirus if one is infected.  The same benefits can be achieved by boosting one’s immune system and other treatments that have proven to be highly effective and safe.
The risk of coronavirus cannot be compared to smallpox, which killed as high as 20 percent of some populations, nor can the benefits of this vaccine — which are minimal and achievable through other means — be compared to the smallpox vaccine, where there was no alternative.
Indeed, considering the low likelihood of developing a serious case of coronavirus without any intervention, the ease with which one can reduce the likelihood through safe and proven means, and the many unknowns and possible dangers of the vaccine, one cannot in good conscience urge people to take the vaccine and rely on שומר פתאים השם.
Just the opposite!  One should boost his immune system, demand that safer, proven treatments be readily provided as the primary option, then live with normalcy and confidence, and trust God to protect him.
If, down the road, one or more vaccines are truly proven to have tremendous benefits that far outweigh the risks, and are far superior to alternatives, they should be recommended.  We are not there yet.  Not even close.
In the meantime, compelling people in any way to take this vaccine, or restricting their basic human rights for choosing not to, is extremely unethical and must be challenged.  The restrictions that have been imposed upon us to this point are tyrannical and have caused overwhelming suffering and even death in a variety of ways.
We must be allowed to earn a living, spend time with our loved ones, socialize, and live our lives without hysteria and paranoia.  No political leader or rabbi has the right to take this away from us.
I will conclude with two particularly interesting sources that I stumbled upon just yesterday in my regular learning purely by “coincidence”.  They come from Yerushalmi Terumah Chapter 8.
There is a lengthy discussion about the dangers of leaving wine, water, and certain foods exposed.  It begins with the Mishna on page 42A, and I encourage those who are capable to look it up.
At the time there was a clear and present danger of snakes poisoning their liquids in particular, and the Gemara outlines the balance between reasonable precautions and risks in different situations.  Although poisonous snakes are not a concern for us today in most places, the principles are extremely relevant.
The Gemara on page 42A relates that Rabbi Ami had guests, and apologized for not serving them the pasteurized wine he had, for he had left it uncovered.  Rav Bibi said “Bring it and I will drink it.”  Rabbi Ami replied “One who wishes to die should go die in his own house.”
Rabbi Ami had both scientific and halachic cause for concern, and considered his wine forbidden to drink.  Rav Bibi was not concerned, and considered the small benefit of drinking the wine worth the risk that it had been poisoned.  The flow of the sugya indicated that the halacha was with Rabbi Ami; the dangers were serious enough and likely enough to outweigh the benefit.
Significantly, Rabbi Ami allows Rav Bibi the right to take inappropriate risks, just not under his roof.  This too is illustrated throughout the sugya.  Chazal outline the boundaries of Halacha in these areas, but do not impose societal restrictions or limit people’s right to take chances — even inappropriate chances.  People are left with the right to decide for themselves what risks to take.  One’s freedom and independence to make such decisions must remain sacred.  (For those who wish to split hairs, according to the Torah we are allowed to leave our homes without a mask even if there is an infinitesimal chance that we might be carrying an infectious illness.)
An even more remarkable source appears on page 43B. The Gemara relates as follows: “Rabbi Yanai was extremely afraid of snakes, and he would raise his bed atop four buckets of water (to prevent snakes from climbing onto his bed).  One time he stretched out his hand and found a snake by him.  He said ‘remove them from me, שומר פתאים השם.'”
The Penei Moshe explains that Rabbi Yanai cried out for someone to remove the snake, and that God had watched over him.  (This is in fact cited in one of the shiurim linked above.)
The other commentaries, including Rav Eliyahu from Polda, Rabbi Shimon Sirilio, and Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky all explain as follows: “Remove the buckets of water, for I might as well just trust in God.”
Rabbi Yanai had taken extreme measures to protect himself from snakes, measures that were considered by others to be over-the-top.  Despite these measures, he could not completely eliminate the danger, and Hashem showed him that the benefits of taking extreme measures do not justify the effort, expense, and other costs.  One should use normal measures to mitigate the risk — measures that do not upend his life and mental condition — then focus on living his life and rely on God.
This is what we should all be doing, and this is what we should be demanding our elected officials allow us to do.  We should not be taking experimental drugs to lower our risk of catching a serious case of coronavirus from 0.0001 percent to 0.00001 percent.  We should not be plunging one third of society into poverty.  We should not be restricting people’s basic rights to leave their homes, see their loved ones, socialize, pray, learn, and live their lives.
It is immoral — it is downright cruel and a violation of human rights — and it is completely against the Torah and our tradition.
We must take reasonable, proven precautions whose benefits are fully justified, then we must live our lives like normal people and rely on God to protect us.
If you believe this is correct, please share these words as widely as possible, organize, stand up, speak out, avoid unnecessary experimental drugs, and take back your life.
Chananya
___________________