“accusations of anti-semitism when they argue that a man convicted of treason should remain in jail.”
Then why continue to rely on lies with statements that he was “convicted of treason” ?
Though harmonium and Eleutheria5 have been here longer than I have, I bid to zot, and that the lightning strike not once, but twice: the two of them, harmonium and the original poster, on an American conservative site, continually being apologists of an American traitor, and mocking patriotic Americans not only offended by the traitor, but by their behavior in advocating for him.
The only ones that have made an issue of his Judaism have been his apologists, particularly harmonium, playing the race card just like Mumia’s apologists do, as mentioned above, and as Pollard himself did, claiming “racial imperative” as the excuse for what he did: betraying the only country of his citizenship, for more than one foreign country.
Here on this thread harmonium has been apparently disingenuous, knowing the sources well enough to recognize where a list of them are from, without their being attributed as such, but still constantly requesting attribution, while mocking the way in which they’re referenced, and claiming another thread was a ‘hate fest without addressing those he considered had made it so, or seemingly having read or considered all the thoughtful information presented when evidence or justification was requested or demanded by these defenders of a traitor, as if any further were even necessary.
Someone above, in response to harmonium’s ‘showing their true colors’ jibe, pointed out what I had been thinking, that the true colors shown were red, white, and blue. What true colors did Pollard show, besides yellow, or green?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2733483/posts?q=1&;page=1
Information from American sources are rejected in favor of statements from Israeli officialdom. Pollard’s apologist harmonium in particular has claimed to be American though, which to me isn’t evident from a single thing he’s said, only mentioning it when asserting that his way of thinking is how ‘other’ Americans should also think about this traitor.
This happened in the Reagan era. In my opinion, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak dirty themselves even by mentioning the name of this filth, let alone advocating for him officially, or visiting him in prison. But that’s their prerogative as representatives of a foreign country. Pollard originally sought sanctuary in the Israeli consulate, but was turned away, at which point he was captured by our law enforcement. Israel did not want him then. Why now?
For thirteen years after this, Israel denied employing Pollard, lying to us that he was in league with ‘rogue agents’ but yet their promise to cooperate with our investigation, as part of the plea deal, beyond being breached by this fact, fell into harassment of our agents collecting information in Israel for this case. Pollard himself also broke the conditions of his plea deal, as has been described elsewhere.
These apologists of an American traitor have made mention often of proportionality for his crimes, but without mentioning or comparing him to Mordechai Vanunu, convicted as an Israeli traitor, who seems to have betrayed less than Pollard did, and who seems to have much greater justification to his claim to being a whistleblower or prisoner of conscience than Pollard does, though Pollard and his traitor apologists have tried that too when other gambits didn’t work. Can we have reference comments on that case?
Admiral Sumner Shapiro, along with three other former directors of America’s Naval Intelligence, in a position to know, felt strongly enough about this to jointly issue this statement:
“We... feel obligated to go on record with the facts regarding Pollard in order to dispel the myths that have arisen from this clever public relations campaign... aimed at transforming Pollard from greedy, arrogant betrayer of the American national trust into Pollard, committed Israeli patriot”