Thursday, March 21, 2013


Bret Stephens seems to have turned against the Israeli right with an op-ed that's hostile to Jonathan Pollard without even providing exact proof Pollard was what Stephens claims. Specifically, Stephens says:
Regarding the Israeli interest: It does not help Israel to make a hero of a compulsive liar and braggart, fond of cocaine, who violated his oaths, spied on his country, inflicted damage that took billions of dollars to repair, accepted payment for his spying, jeopardized Israel's relationship with its closest ally, failed to show remorse at the time of his sentencing, made himself into Exhibit A of every anti-Semitic conspiracy nut, and then had the chutzpah to call himself a martyr to the Jewish people.
Query to Stephens: can you present any official police/medical records that state and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Pollard was addicted to cocaine? If not, then I'm not sure what he's trying to prove, other than that he's become a very stupid, poorly educated man. Not that drug addiction in itself is a reason to keep Pollard jailed, but by furthering these accusations, Stephens has stooped to just what he speaks of: conspiracies. He admitted to his offenses in a plea bargain, which he lost because of the late Caspar Weinberger's machinations.

The Jerusalem Post's said in Pollard's favor:
Bolstering the outpouring of support for Pollard’s release, a recently declassified 1987 CIA damage assessment puts the lie to American allegations that have been used for over a quarter of a century to justify Pollard’s continued incarceration.
If so, then why is Stephens resorting to such a dumb defense for keeping Pollard in prison? I've lost respect for him.

The National Post and Baltimore Sun have also published op-eds and a correspondent to the latter supports the position in Pollard's favor too. It's very sad how incredibly divisive a subject this has become, and how even some so-called conservatives buy into what was said years ago about Pollard so much, they're willing to stoop to propaganda for the sake of defending the position for keeping Pollard in jail. Why can't they admit that on a subject like this, it's possible that mistakes were made?

No comments: