Convicted spy Pollard is released from prison after 30 years

[Morch]

Pollard admitted he did it for money. Som nam na for treacherously spying on your own country.

"After he was questioned by the FBI, Mr Pollard and his then-wife, Anne, sought asylum at the Israeli embassy in Washington but were turned away.

Israel initially denied Mr Pollard had spied for them, insisting he had worked with "rogue" officials,

But in 1995, Israel granted him citizenship, and two years later, they admitted he was their agent."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34876790

Sounds to me like Pollard picked the wrong spymasters as his friends, and the USA picked the wrong closest ally.

It's a pity the USA did not use their asset Pollard as a bargaining chip to put more pressure on Israel to come to its senses.

Israel is not the USA's closest ally, except in your post and those picking it up later on. Same goes for "most trusted". The UK would probably top the list in those terms, followed by the rest of the Five Eyes. On the other hand, the USA is clearly Israel's closest and most trusted ally, hence the stupidity of the action.

Other than reaffirming your obsession with bashing Israel over its conflict with the Palestinians, would you really advocate the USA releasing a traitor in order to further possible political aims in the Middle East? What happened to all them principals, higher moral grounds and ideals often proclaimed?

Israel's conflict with Palestinians. Yes, there is conflict, but the obsession is with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, how it deals with the conflict, not the conflict itself, per se. You yourself admit Israel's dealing with the situation is not good (yet you still support them in it?).

Prisoners are often exchanged for various political reasons. What's more important, punitive action against a traitor or political advancement with real material potential?

I agree that your obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is narrowly focused. It is also acknowledged that you rarely miss a chance to air your opinions.

Prisoners are exchanged for various political reasons, fair enough. Seeing as the usual stance exhibited by yourself tends to be aiming for a supposed absolute justice, this display of pragmatism is surprising.

Of course, USA citizens may feel differently about it. Personally, can't see how this would have been even remotely acceptable. Had the USA been in need of covering up one of its spying operations in Israel, a trade of sorts would make sense. Releasing a USA traitor in order to facilitate dodgy negotiations between two foreign groups (one of which the traitor spied for), and which do no directly concern the USA, is a bit over the top. Then again, re-reading it over....sounds convulsed enough to pass for USA foreign policy.

Guess that had Pollard been "traded" for the prospect of negotiations, it would have been condemned by the usual posters as "proof" of Israel's supposed control of the USA, and there would have been the usual moral lectures.

[Morch]

Pollard admitted he did it for money. Som nam na for treacherously spying on your own country.

"After he was questioned by the FBI, Mr Pollard and his then-wife, Anne, sought asylum at the Israeli embassy in Washington but were turned away.

Israel initially denied Mr Pollard had spied for them, insisting he had worked with "rogue" officials,

But in 1995, Israel granted him citizenship, and two years later, they admitted he was their agent."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34876790

Sounds to me like Pollard picked the wrong spymasters as his friends, and the USA picked the wrong closest ally.

It's a pity the USA did not use their asset Pollard as a bargaining chip to put more pressure on Israel to come to its senses.

Israel is not the USA's closest ally, except in your post and those picking it up later on. Same goes for "most trusted". The UK would probably top the list in those terms, followed by the rest of the Five Eyes. On the other hand, the USA is clearly Israel's closest and most trusted ally, hence the stupidity of the action.

Other than reaffirming your obsession with bashing Israel over its conflict with the Palestinians, would you really advocate the USA releasing a traitor in order to further possible political aims in the Middle East? What happened to all them principals, higher moral grounds and ideals often proclaimed?

I disagree with your "closest ally" nitpicking.

Yes indeed I would have used him as a bargaining chip.The man has served 30 years.

My ideal and aim is peace in the Palestinian Israeli conflict...what is yours?

Disagree all you like, still wouldn't change the the fact that the description is incorrect.

As for the prospect of Pollard being "traded" for negotiations, see my reply to Seastallion (above).

My ideal is to counter nonsense and opinionated agenda-driven posts, thanks for asking.

[Seastallion]

Pollard admitted he did it for money. Som nam na for treacherously spying on your own country.

"After he was questioned by the FBI, Mr Pollard and his then-wife, Anne, sought asylum at the Israeli embassy in Washington but were turned away.

Israel initially denied Mr Pollard had spied for them, insisting he had worked with "rogue" officials,

But in 1995, Israel granted him citizenship, and two years later, they admitted he was their agent."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34876790

Sounds to me like Pollard picked the wrong spymasters as his friends, and the USA picked the wrong closest ally.

It's a pity the USA did not use their asset Pollard as a bargaining chip to put more pressure on Israel to come to its senses.

Israel is not the USA's closest ally, except in your post and those picking it up later on. Same goes for "most trusted". The UK would probably top the list in those terms, followed by the rest of the Five Eyes. On the other hand, the USA is clearly Israel's closest and most trusted ally, hence the stupidity of the action.

Other than reaffirming your obsession with bashing Israel over its conflict with the Palestinians, would you really advocate the USA releasing a traitor in order to further possible political aims in the Middle East? What happened to all them principals, higher moral grounds and ideals often proclaimed?

Israel's conflict with Palestinians. Yes, there is conflict, but the obsession is with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, how it deals with the conflict, not the conflict itself, per se. You yourself admit Israel's dealing with the situation is not good (yet you still support them in it?).

Prisoners are often exchanged for various political reasons. What's more important, punitive action against a traitor or political advancement with real material potential?

I agree that your obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is narrowly focused. It is also acknowledged that you rarely miss a chance to air your opinions.

Prisoners are exchanged for various political reasons, fair enough. Seeing as the usual stance exhibited by yourself tends to be aiming for a supposed absolute justice, this display of pragmatism is surprising.

Of course, USA citizens may feel differently about it. Personally, can't see how this would have been even remotely acceptable. Had the USA been in need of covering up one of its spying operations in Israel, a trade of sorts would make sense. Releasing a USA traitor in order to facilitate dodgy negotiations between two foreign groups (one of which the traitor spied for), and which do no directly concern the USA, is a bit over the top. Then again, re-reading it over....sounds convulsed enough to pass for USA foreign policy.

Guess that had Pollard been "traded" for the prospect of negotiations, it would have been condemned by the usual posters as "proof" of Israel's supposed control of the USA, and there would have been the usual moral lectures.

You are not agreeing with me, you're spinning my words and in fact taking an opposite meaning from them.

I would have thought prisoners could be exchanged for any political reason and it should not matter what if the politics involved are serious enough.

You could be right, had Pollard been traded there may well have been reason to suspect the old puppet strings being pulled.

[Linky]

Yes releasing pollard as a negotiating bargain in the palestine conflict could have been a useful thing to do for the US. Seems daft to think the US is not really concerned as it is a 3rd party negotiation considering the US is consistently admonishing Israel's actions.

To think the US is not so concerned is to imply they are happy for the fighting to continue. Thats just a stupid way to think.

[Morch]

Israel is not the USA's closest ally, except in your post and those picking it up later on. Same goes for "most trusted". The UK would probably top the list in those terms, followed by the rest of the Five Eyes. On the other hand, the USA is clearly Israel's closest and most trusted ally, hence the stupidity of the action.

Other than reaffirming your obsession with bashing Israel over its conflict with the Palestinians, would you really advocate the USA releasing a traitor in order to further possible political aims in the Middle East? What happened to all them principals, higher moral grounds and ideals often proclaimed?

Israel's conflict with Palestinians. Yes, there is conflict, but the obsession is with the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, how it deals with the conflict, not the conflict itself, per se. You yourself admit Israel's dealing with the situation is not good (yet you still support them in it?).

Prisoners are often exchanged for various political reasons. What's more important, punitive action against a traitor or political advancement with real material potential?

I agree that your obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is narrowly focused. It is also acknowledged that you rarely miss a chance to air your opinions.

Prisoners are exchanged for various political reasons, fair enough. Seeing as the usual stance exhibited by yourself tends to be aiming for a supposed absolute justice, this display of pragmatism is surprising.

Of course, USA citizens may feel differently about it. Personally, can't see how this would have been even remotely acceptable. Had the USA been in need of covering up one of its spying operations in Israel, a trade of sorts would make sense. Releasing a USA traitor in order to facilitate dodgy negotiations between two foreign groups (one of which the traitor spied for), and which do no directly concern the USA, is a bit over the top. Then again, re-reading it over....sounds convulsed enough to pass for USA foreign policy.

Guess that had Pollard been "traded" for the prospect of negotiations, it would have been condemned by the usual posters as "proof" of Israel's supposed control of the USA, and there would have been the usual moral lectures.

You are not agreeing with me, you're spinning my words and in fact taking an opposite meaning from them.

I would have thought prisoners could be exchanged for any political reason and it should not matter what if the politics involved are serious enough.

You could be right, had Pollard been traded there may well have been reason to suspect the old puppet strings being pulled.

Thanks for making my point:

Pollard not released in order to facilitate talks - a missed opportunity for peace.

Pollard released in order to facilitate talks - an opportunity to further bash Israel

Seems like some can have their cake and leave it whole

Prisoners may be released to further certain political goals, usually when the prisoners themselves are considered "political". Spies and traitors are normally only exchanged for others. Can't off hand think of a case which involved a traitor being released by one country solely in order to facilitate negotiations between two other parties.

[Morch]

Yes releasing pollard as a negotiating bargain in the palestine conflict could have been a useful thing to do for the US. Seems daft to think the US is not really concerned as it is a 3rd party negotiation considering the US is consistently admonishing Israel's actions.

To think the US is not so concerned is to imply they are happy for the fighting to continue. Thats just a stupid way to think.

I think there's a difference between the USA administration and the American public.

A given administration's foreign policy goals, and the actions it is willing to consider in order to promote them are not always in line with what the public sees as right or useful. Releasing a traitor as part of promoting such a policy might not have been that popular with public sentiment. Guess that considering it from a utilitarian point of view is easier for outsiders.

There was no implication that the USA administration is not concerned. Whether the Israeli-Palestinian conflict bothers most USA citizens is different question. To a point, the latter does have an impact on the former.