Cotler to Netanyahu, “accept Obama’s terms”
I am speechless. This is so disgusting, its beyond words. Its a betrayal. To suggest its a matter of “favoring internal politics at expense of its int’l standing.” is to write off all Israel legitimate concerns and goals. F..k Israel’s international standing. Keep Judea and Samaria. Ted Belman
Friends of Israel to PM: Accept Obama terms, restart talks
By GIL SHEFLER, JPOST
In apparent criticism of Netanyahu, Ronald Lauder reportedly warns Israel against favoring internal politics at expense of its int’l standing.
Members of the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians gathered at the King David Hotel on Tuesday for a candid conversation closed to journalists dealing with the considerable challenges facing Israel in the international arena.
During the event, speakers pledged support for Israel, vociferously defending it against its critics, but in between the words of praise some genuine concern could also heard.
Irwin Cotler, the former justice minister of Canada and staunch friend of Israel, took the opportunity to give Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu some advice: Accept Obama’s principles and get talks with the Palestinians back on track, for Israel’s sake.
-
“I wasn’t criticizing Netanyahu for his inaction, but called on him to take up such an initiative based on the Obama principles, as incorporated in his communiqué issued by the G-8,” he said on the phone on Wednesday. “You have here not just Obama principles, but the G-8, supportive of such principles. Such an initiative would challenge the Palestinians to return to negotiations.”
Cotler spoke about the perceived disconnect between Netanyahu and the US president and suggested it might be time for Jerusalem to bend a little to mend those ties.
“I just said people think there’s been a cultural pond between Obama and Bibi,” he said. “At this point [accepting Obama’s principles] might be a good idea.”
World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder, whose organization sponsors the International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians, was also said to be among those critical of Netanyahu at the banquet.
According to reports in the media, the billionaire businessman said starting talks with the Palestinians may be a severe blow to Netanyahu’s coalition, but it was a necessary gambit. Lauder reportedly warned Israel against favoring internal politics at the expense of its standing in the world.
Some have speculated that Lauder’s alleged criticism may be related to Netanyahu’s decision not to appear at WJC’s Board of Governors meeting last week, an act several commentators believe was a deliberate shunning.
In a statement sent to The Jerusalem Post regarding his speech, Lauder reiterated his his “unequivocal” support for Netanyahu and “policies that seek to create a lasting peace in the Middle East.”
“The Prime Minister and I have been friends and colleagues for thirty years. Let there be no mistake. We stand united in the pursuit of peace and the protection of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. My position regarding the need for negotiations is absolutely consistent with the Government’s call for direct negotiations,” said the WJC president in the statement.
Meanwhile, during a short interview aired on Wednesday, Channel 2 reporter Dana Weiss asked Lauder about rumors of a split between him and the prime minister.
“We’ve been friends for 30 years and I expect us to be friends 40 more,” Lauder replied, without denying the rumor. “Every friendship has ups and downs.”
Thank you for your comment, Ted. When I said Yamit has proven himself unworthy of adult discourse I meant it, so you need not worry about my losing my cool; the guy convicts himself out of his own mouth and no reply from me to him will be forthcoming, except in the third person invisible.
Turning to his attempt to slime Wikipedia, he appears not to understand what he reads: “Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (December 2009)” There has been 18 months since December 2009 and no one has successfully demonstrated unsourced, poorly sourced, libelous or harmful material in their piece on Pollard. From my own direct experience I know that they respond immediately to allegations of the above, and have a lively side discussion among their volunteers to adjudicate such matters. Many of those volunteers have impeccable academic reputations for being unbiased, and quite a few are Israelis of no particular ideological bent. It is also routine for them to request further sources in controversial areas to leave the door open to evidence; no particular significance applies to that boilerplate in the Pollard article.
Wikipedia, for those who have not taken the time to understand it, is a community effort with extensive checks and balances. The Wikipedia community consists of those willing to do the hard work of producing a reliable encyclopedia, and that community is not only self-correcting but also both world-wide (including many Israelis), writing in just about every widely used language. I don’t suppose the extensive, literate, and thoroughly researched Hebrew content on many subjects was written by a bunch of anti-Semitten.
I did not know that WIKIPEDIA has priority over Mr. Pollard human rights, but then again, I am not well informed as to how “justice” works.
Since the super duper ultra secretisimos protocols are not available to the plebe, at least let the “context” and overall reasons for life w/o parole be known. Spare us generalities, gyrations with words. Facts will do just fine. I know passably well how information gathering worked then.
Not for a moment I accept your very elegant wordmanship David. There is no possible way that a quarter of a cnetury later anything known then by Pollard could be of much worth now. Not even structurally.
We ISRAELIS either by birth or Aliah have one thing in common that sets us apart from Galut Jews. Unless if we want to we do not buy shinola.
Unless if we receive bona fide evidence to the contrary, Mr. Pollard and the rest of us have been assaulted by a deviant “justice system”.
Mr. Pollard is held as a pawnable good item. But the fact is that the base acts against him makes the whole make belief ultra secret details the more less credible.
Au contraire mon ami. Let us engage in a thought experiment. Let us suppose that Pollard had either American accomplices or handlers in high places, whose names he continues to refuse to divulge. Perhaps some of them are still in high places. Then such knowledge would be considered extremely valuable by the US counterintelligence services, and if so were likely part of the plea bargain, which, let us suppose, Pollard did not honor. He should thank Hashem that he is in the U.S. where the worst that could happen is to be kept in a cell.
The matter is clearly not black and white; Pollard was not caught spying for Israel for altruistic reasons, and his history (op. cit. Wikipedia) shows that he is capable of quite a bit of er, um, deviant behavior with respect both to honoring security agreements he signed and motivations for violating them.
As to knowledge, let us suppose, for example, that Pollard had knowledge of certain sources and methods still in use. That information could be quite damaging to the U.S. Productive intel sources and methods often carry a Top Secret classification and above in just about every country, since their revelation could destroy their effectiveness, leaving a country deaf, dumb, and blind. Read any history of intelligence agencies for worked examples. It isn’t for nothing that Israel kept Vanunu locked up for a long time, and later regretted their permitting him freedom on the strength of his assurances.
I don’t allege any of the above is accurate; I assert that they comprise a logical case theoretically explaining behavior some may consider perplexing or even shameful. And we simply don’t have all the facts, but there’s enough in the historical record to make such speculations rational.
I should add that my views of the Pollard affair in no way vitiate my revulsion at Obama’s policies toward Israel and behavior toward Netanyahu.
The reason your views on the Pollard Affair upset so many of us and incensed Yamit, is that you are an apologist for those who want to keep him in prison. You keep speculating on the reasons why and thus support the incarceration.
Let the incarcerators say why. Istead you speculate as to why?
The pro-Pollard people see only injustice and are pressing for his release. The fact remains, justice is no longer served by his incarceration. Just the opposite. Yet you continue to speculate why he should remain there.
David: some more unedited quotes from our files. This was written by Jennifer Rubin and I believe appeared in the Jerusalem Post: Should Jonathan Pollard be pardoned?12/22/2010By Jennifer Rubin
KORB
Former U.S. officials are stepping forward to present evidence and arguments for Pollard’s release. Lawrence Korb, a former U.S. assistant secretary of defense, outlined the rationale for Pollard’s release in an interview with the Jerusalem Post:
Korb said he intends to make the case for releasing Pollard, a one-time US Navy intelligence analyst who gave secrets to Israel and is now serving a life sentence, when he visits the Knesset.
“Yes, he deserved to be punished,” Korb said, but added that the 25 years he’s already been in prison is sufficient considering the average sentence for passing classified material to an ally is seven years.
Pollard’s continued incarceration is a “miscarriage of justice” in Korb’s words.
To bolster his case, Korb intends to point to Weinberger’s own admission before his death in 2006 that the Pollard incident was “a minor matter” rather than as he had described in his impact statement on the damage Pollard did, which influenced Pollard’s sentence.
“Weinberger had almost a visceral dislike of Israel’s impact on our policy,” Korb recalled in trying to explain his former boss’s motives
DeCONCINI
Former US Senate Select Intelligence Committee chairman Dennis DeConcini wrote US President Barack Obama for the second time in five months this week, calling upon him to commute the life sentence of Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard to the 25 years he has already served.
DeConcini said he felt compelled to write Obama again, in order to follow up on a recent Congressional letter, signed by 39 Congressman, advocating Pollard’s release.
“I was on the Senate Intelligence Committee when Pollard was arrested, and subsequently became its chairman,” he said. “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.”
A source intimately familiar with the Pollard case said DeConcini’s letter was the first time someone who knows the classified information has definitively stated in their own words that the Israeli agent did not give any information to a third country, a charge that has been suggested in media reports.
DeConcini also wrote Obama that Pollard’s sentence was unjust given the shorter time served by agents of enemy countries and the plea bargain Pollard reached with the American Justice Department.
Speculation that explains seemingly perplexing behavior is no more inappropriate than assertions that demonize people without full knowledge of the facts. Adhering to a party line while ignoring material facts is the way of totalitarians, not free men. And in the Pollard record there are enough material facts to choke an elephant. This is not a matter of ‘my country, right or wrong’ but of simple fairness.
Howard: Let’s look at the history. In the cases of Bernon and Mitchell, and at least one other NSA traitor who toddled right down the street from the Naval Security Station to a foreign embassy, all the damage had been done. The target countries changed their cryptosystems. Thus a “normal” sentence followed by release would have been appropriate.
In the Pollard case we simply do not know whether all the damage has already been done, or whether there is the potential for even more if he is released.
The above post got locked before I could edit it. I wanted to add: That’s why I cited Vanunu.
You caught me again David,
Does the prosecution have evidence that others, outside the known person, and Israeli contacts helped Pollard and if so who are they? What you are telling us, David, is that Pollard is being tortured so he breaks and provides the interrogators with “evidence” fabricated or not.
Is a fishing expedition part of the due process?
You see David, a simple Senior-Fellow Engineer with extensive DoD and other agencies Programs awareness and training cannot possibly understand the complexities of the purported case, if any.
Knowing as I do the highly sensitive and correctly so, US Security apparatus and means, after the fellow got caught once slipping on his declarations he would have been closely observed and all of his activities, ALL OF THEM, recorded. I argue that the US knew long before they acted, about Pollard’s escapades…
One may assume that, wait! Were they setting him up from the word go?
We saw the surveillance cameras and audio capture security systems in fact lived within sytems like that for decades. Software security is also highly advanced. Ask Ross Perot’s folk…
Mr. Pollard has been intentionally set upon and regretfully all that has happened since stinks of blackmail, underhanded conspiracies and worse.
Pollard must be freed NOW!
And I should add that friends of Israel do not do a service for the country by being blind to fairness. The whole case for Israel and against Palestinian irredentism is based on fairness. Even Israeli policy toward Palestinians is based on fairness, not some touchy-feely idea of being Jewish-nice.
Shmuel: Sentences are based in part on whether the criminal cooperates with, or resists police. It is dishonorable to characterize that as “torturing him until he tells”. And there is no reason to assert a fishing expedition when one doesn’t know how much the security services do know; for example they may have physical evidence that he had accomplices whose identity he’s refused to divulge. If so, they aren’t going to reveal that in order to protect sources and methods. And as to “torture” he’s a convicted criminal; a cell isn’t torture. There is no assertion of hot pokers being… oh, well, I’ll leave it there.
Demonization for political purposes is nothing new. I’ll cite but one example: some years ago AIPAC attacked Cap Weinberger for not sending wounded troops to Israel, but instead to U.S. hospitals in Germany (further away). This was made out to be anti-Israel. I wrote him, asking for an explanation (as far as I know, he didn’t know me from Adam). I received a long reply, written in his own handwriting, which provided a satisfactory factual explanation that didn’t impugn Israel in any way.
But wait; it gets worse.
I sent the original to AIPAC. They simply ignored it.
Nothing in the above addresses whether Pollard would (note that I didn’t say ‘could’) do further damage if released, or whether he kept his plea bargain and identified all those associated with his espionage. To date no one with inside knowledge has come forward on those two critical topics. Yet those would be key issues in any parole discussion focussed on rehabilitation.
Who The Hell Writes Wikipedia, Anyway?
Is Wikipedia a reliable website?
No,it’s not!!
The first draft of each article is usually written by someone who is not very active on Wikipedia. They may or may not know a lot about the topic. After the first draft, a small, core group of jobless people work for free at making minor corrections like spelling and grammar, and meta-information. Those hardcore Wikipedians know nothing about the topics they edit articles on.
If the original author puts in some legit-sounding falsehood in the first draft, none of the Wikipedians will catch it. They might even put the article on Wikipedia’s front page, as happened to Mike Handel, who was supposedly a Nazi and a murderer. (Fortunately Mike Handel is fictitious; John Seigenthaler is quite real).
A false Wikipedia ‘biography’
By John Seigenthaler
“John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960′s. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.”
— Wikipedia
This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination. It could be your story.
I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious “biography” that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. There was more
Some Analyst you are! I know of a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Interested?
Wikipedia Content
1. Wikipedia contains incorrect, misleading, and biased information. Whether through vandalism, subtle disinformation, or the prolonged battling over biased accounts, many of Wikipedia’s articles are unsuitable for scholarly use. Because of poor standards of sourcing and citation, it is often difficult to determine the origin of statements made in Wikipedia in order to determine their correctness. Pursuit of biased points of view by powerful administrators is considered a particular problem, as opposing voices are often permanantly banned from Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s culture of disrespect for expertise and scholarship (see below) make it difficult to trust anything there.
2. Wikipedia’s articles are used to spread gossip, abet character assassination, and invade the privacy of the general public. So-called “Biographies of Living Persons” are often the result of attempts by powerful but anonymous editors and administrators at humiliating or belittling those real-world people with whom they disagree. Wikipedia’s “anyone can edit” culture has allowed baseless defamation of various individuals to spread widely through the Internet. When the family, friends, associates, or subjects of these biographies attempt to correct errors or insert balance, they are often banned from Wikipedia for “Conflicts of Interest”. Subjects of these hatchet jobs usually must resort to legal action to get the articles removed or corrected, a course not available to all.
3. Wikipedia over-emphasizes popular culture and under-emphasizes scholarly disciplines. Wikipedia contains more articles, of greater depth, on television shows, toy and cartoon characters, and other emphemera of popular culture than on many prominent historical figures, events, and places. Massive effort is spent on documenting fictional places and characters rather than science, history, and literature.
4. Wikipedia violates copyrights, plagiarizes the work of others, and denies attribution to contributions. Wikipedia contains no provision to ensure that the content it hosts is not the work of another, or that content it hosts is properly attributed to its author. It contains thousands of photographs, drawings, pages of text and other content that is blatantly plagiarized from other authors without permission.
5. Wikipedia, frequently searched and prominently positioned among results, spreads misinformation, defamation, and bias far beyond its own site. Wikipedia is searched by Google and is usually one of the top results. Its database is scraped by spammers and other sites, so misinformation, even when corrected on Wikipedia, has a long life elsewhere on the network, as a result of Wikipedia’s lack of controls.
Wikipedia Bureaucracy and “Culture”
1. Wikipedia disrespects and disregards scholars, experts, scientists, and others with special knowledge. Wikipedia specifically disregards authors with special knowledge, expertise, or credentials. There is no way for a real scholar to distinguish himself or herself from a random anonymous editor merely claiming scholarly credentials, and thus no claim of credentials is typically believed. Even when credentials are accepted, Wikipedia affords no special regard for expert editors contributing in their fields. This has driven most expert editors away from editing Wikipedia in their fields. Similarly, Wikipedia implements no controls that distinguish mature and educated editors from immature and uneducated ones.
2. Wikipedia’s culture of anonymous editing and administration results in a lack of responsible authorship and management. Wikipedia editors may contribute as IP addresses, or as an ever-changing set of pseudonyms. There is thus no way of determining conflicts of interest, canvassing, or other misbehaviour in article editing. Wikipedia’s adminsitrators are similarly anonymous, shielding them from scrutiny for their actions. They additionally can hide the history of their editing (or that of others).
3. Wikipedia’s administrators have become an entrenched and over-powerful elite, unresponsive and harmful to authors and contributors. Without meaningful checks and balances on administrators, administrative abuse is the norm, rather than the exception, with blocks and bans being enforced by fiat and whim, rather than in implementation of policy. Many well-meaning editors have been banned simply on suspicion of being previously banned users, without any transgression, while others have been banned for disagreeing with a powerful admin’s editorial point of view. There is no clear-cut code of ethics for administrators, no truly independent process leading to blocks and bans, no process for appeal that is not corrupted by the imbalance of power between admin and blocked editor, and no process by which administrators are reviewed regularly for misbehaviour.
4. Wikipedia’s numerous policies and procedures are not enforced equally on the community — popular or powerful editors are often exempted. Administrators, in particular, and former administrators, are frequently allowed to trangress (or change!) Wikipedia’s numerous “policies”, such as those prohibiting personal attacks, prohibiting the release of personal information about editors, and those prohibiting collusion in editing.
5. Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial body, the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt. ArbCom holds secret proceedings, refuses to be bound by precedent, operates on non-existant or unwritten rules, and does not allow equal access to all editors. It will reject cases that threaten to undermine the Wikipedia status quo or that would expose powerful administrators to sanction, and will move slowly or not at all (in public) on cases it is discussing in private.
6. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), the organization legally responsible for Wikipedia, is opaque, is poorly managed, and is insufficiently independent from Wikipedia’s remaining founder and his business interests. The WMF lacks a mechanism to address the concerns of outsiders, resulting in an insular and socially irresponsible internal culture. Because of inadequate oversight and supervision, Wikimedia has hired incompetent and (in at least one case) criminal employees. Jimmy Wales’ for-profit business Wikia benefits in numerous ways from its association with the non-profit Wikipedia.
State some of those facts that can choke an elephant.
How can you know if they are facts or lies?
Fairness has nothing to do with adhering the the constitution and the Bill of rights of every American citizen. I always thought it was about truth and justice not fairness. Fairness means unbiased but is the American government unbiased and impartial? You’re not.
Sumguy blows lots of smoke. Since the references in the extensively footnoted Wikipedia Pollard article check out, it presents arguments of Pollard sympathizers as well as detractors, any generic attack on Wikipedia for errors that slipped through elsewhere or were planted and not caught are irrelevant. And it is false that Wikipedia articles start out in general by being written by those who know nothing about the subject and and then reviewed for grammar and punctuation only. In the case of widely attended topics, the internal discussion is usually highly substantive, and is readily accessible to the general public, via the web. There is a special section for such discussions.
I know this of my own knowledge having followed some of those discussions on topics important to me.
Don’t take my word for it or even Sumguy’s; make up your own mind by reading the article and checking the references.
You believed Weinberger?
Why don’t you post Weinberger’s response here, so we can all judge?
Pls. elucidate because I’m not sure what you are talking about.
What damage?
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2003/112603.htm
Just days before the General Assembly of United Jewish Communities met, a U.S. District Court rejected Pollard’s request for resentencing or, for that matter, a fair hearing with the heretofore SECRET WEINBERGER MEMORANDUM unwrapped from its 19 years of secrecy.
The secrecy of the Weinberger Memorandum has always greatly bothered me. Why, 18 years after Jonathan’s incarceration, is he not allowed to know what is in that secret Memorandum which persuaded the trial judge to sentence him to life imprisonment? Why aren’t Pollard’s lawyers allowed to see this Memorandum? And why aren’t the American people allowed to know what is in it?
I kept trying to jog my memory about Casper Weinberger — then it came to me. President Bush, Sr. at the tail end of his presidency, had “pardoned” Casper Weinberger.
Pardoned him for what? I decided to do some background research. Thank G-d for Internet! The search I did revealed the information that President Bush, Sr. pardoned six people for their role in the Iran-Contra scandal. Casper Weinberger was one of them.
In addition, I found the following information about Casper Weinberger:
Weinberger was Secretary of Defense during the course of the Iran-Contra affair.
Weinberger was scheduled to go on trial January 5, where the contents of his notes would have come to light and may have implicated other, unindicted, conspirators. While never directly linked to the covert operations of the Iran-Contra affair, he is believed to have been involved in the cover-up of the ensuing scandal.
The mention of the Iran-Contra affair rang a bell. I had a vague memory reading about this affair in “The Secret War Against the Jews” by John Loftus and Mark Aarons. I went back to this book and very carefully re-read chapter 18, “The Iran-Contra Debacle”.
As a practical matter, Pollard had little access either to communications intercept or satellite data, let alone secret National Security Agency codes. His primary access was to U.S. Navy data banks on ocean shipping. In the spring and summer of 1984, Pollard noticed a pattern of vessels going back and forth from Greece to Yemen, where the PLO had a major base. Pollard never realized that he had busted the most secret White House operation of modern times. The summer 1984 Greek shipment was a dagger over Bush’s head.
To this day, Congress believes that the Israelis started the Iranian arms-for-hostage-deals in 1985. The problem with that is that Bush’s shipment through Greece took place an ENTIRE YEAR earlier. The Greek shipment in 1984 exposes the entire successful White House cover-up. Just recently have the Israelis begun to work out that they were dragged into Iran-Contra as scapegoats for a bungled Bush-British smuggling operation.
A few words about Casper Weinberger’s personal background:
His father was Jewish, but he seemed to go out of his way to oppose Israel on any issue, and to blame the Israelis for every problem in the Middle East. Weinberger’s anti-Israeli tilt was an underlying current in almost every Mid-East issue. Some people explained it by pointing to his years with the anti-Semitic Bechtel Corporation, with which the Bush family has always maintained very close ties.
Other people believed it was more complicated and had to do with his sensitivity about his own Jewish ancestry. Either way, it seems quite clear that the motivation for Casper Weinberger’s secret Memorandum is unadulterated anti-Semitism.
Sumguy writes
Ted: It is interesting that some here charge anti-semitism when by their own admission they have not seen the relevant material. That is the basis for my comment to you that such people discredit themselves and do not need me to do it.
It is not necessary to have access to codes to reveal to an adversary that his cryptosystem has been broken. All that is necessary is to pass on intel that could only have been obtained by breaking the target country’s cryptosystem. That is why it is good practice to paraphrase or redact raw intelligence before disseminating it. But even that isn’t foolproof if the core info was only transmitted encrypted.
The accusations of antisemitism of Weinberger were based on a long history of his behavior and attitudes towards Jews and Israel in particular. It just gives an explanation of why he set pollard up as it was completely in character. Do you want me to list all of the specifics of why he was considered to be an antisemite? I can, you must know by now. I have not encountered any Jew who did not think he was an antisemite except for YOU!! I forgot you are about fair and balanced, screw the truth.
You’re right the Chinese the Russians and the Israelis to name a few have busted Americas cryptosystem long ago. Must be American arrogance that they believe their own propaganda.
What again was the damage caused by Pollard?
David
This is no answer at all. Forget your speculation. Quote facts or statements justifying it by people in the know. Your speculation is irrelevant. Then we can decide on the credibility of the statements. Speculation is bullshit.
Justice must be seen to be done to be done. What kind of legal system is it that doesn’t allow the defendant the right of cross examination on Weinberger’s statement. What kind of legal system is it when One side gets to have an audience with the Judge (the secret report) in the absence of the other side. I call it undue influence.
I never heard that Pollard violated his obligations under the plea bargin. Did you. If not stop speculating. You can’t prove a case by speculating on the “perplexing matters.”
Ted: With respect you miss the point. Sumgai (if he posted under his full name I’d give him more respect), posted accusations against government officials based on equal parts of hearsay, speculation, and bias. I responded, making it quite clear that I didn’t assert the truth value of my arguments, to show that without bias or hearsay, logical speculation alone could not only refute his irresponsible accusations but also make the opposite case. I was using Aristotle’s method of teaching.
As far as I can tell his logic goes something like this: Pollard committed crimes no different from others. (He does not know this because the details are still classified). Then he received a disproportionate sentence. (Again, lacking the details of Pollard’s crimes, he has no basis for such a judgment) Therefore the explanation must be anti-semitism. (Again there are many other possible explanations.)
As to your inquiry as to whether anyone has claimed he violated his plea agreement, I refer you to the Wikipedia article: “Three weeks before Pollard’s sentencing, Wolf Blitzer, at the time a Jerusalem Post correspondent, conducted a jail-cell interview with Pollard and penned an article which also ran in The Washington Post headlined, “Pollard: Not A Bumbler, but Israel’s Master Spy.” published on February 15, 1987.[29] Pollard told Blitzer about some of the information he provided the Israelis: reconnaissance satellite photography of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) headquarters in Tunisia, specific capabilities of Libya’s air defenses, and “the pick of U.S. intelligence about Arab and Islamic conventional and unconventional military activity, from Morocco to Pakistan and every country in between. This included both ‘friendly’ and ‘unfriendly’ Arab countries.” Some commentators identified this interview as a blatant violation of the plea agreement.[30]”
That is the basis for my assertion that it is just as likely Pollard brought upon himself the consequences of a plea agreement violation, as it is that there was some Machiavellian, anti-semitic conspiracy to treat him with draconian unfairness.
The only person who claimed he didn’t violate his plea agreement was his wife, an indicted co-conspirator and hardly an unbiased source. Further, knowing how interrogators like to keep conspirators separated, it is likely she has no hard knowledge of all the details of his plea agreement.
Finally, although Pollard defenders are fond of citing high officials who think he should be freed, and try to make out a case of bias by Cap Weinberger, they conveniently omit to tell us that (Wikipedia): “Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as well as six other former U.S. Secretaries of Defense (Melvin R. Laird, Frank C. Carlucci, Richard B. Cheney, Caspar W. Weinberger, James R. Schlesinger and Elliot L. Richardson) spoke out in opposition to clemency for Jonathan Pollard.[34] They were joined by several senior congressional leaders.[34]”
Now I maintain that we still don’t know all the material details, and I render the old Scots verdict against Sumgai: “Not proven”.
Like most of Sumgai’s frothing, his assertion that the Chinese, Russians, and Israeli have broken American cryptosystems long ago is completely bogus. As a sometime member of the IACR and attendee at crypto conferences where some of the world’s greatest experts present papers (including an Israeli inventor of the widely-used RSA system, Adi Shamir), I can tell you that there are mathematical proofs of the robustness of sensitive cryptosytems. Of course it depends on good security for keying materials, the use of good algorithms, and sufficiently long keys, and the use of one-time pads only one time. But flaws in any of those protocols does not constitute “breaking” a cryptosystem, but working around it.
Don’t forget that the NSA, with its army of cryptanalysts and technology often undreamed of, is split into two parts: 1. Trying to produce foreign intelligence and, 2. protecting US traffic. In doing the second, communications security, they subject proposed systems to the array of techniques used to probe vulnerabilities of others’ ciphers.
As far as is known by experts in the field, sufficiently long key systems readily available to private actors are robust against brute force attack for many years against both known and hypothetical computers. That’s why suborning of code clerks is necessary, and why the NSA has limited resources that require triaging traffic.
The only possibility for successful attacks against some of those systems is speculated to be quantum cryptography, although the basic physics (which aren’t classified and are the subject of much open research) haven’t yet come close to providing a practical working solution.
Before making irresponsible assertions, it would be wise to visit the professional literature in journals and books in order to have at least minimal grasp of the subject matter.
You obviously have studied this in great detail. I have not.
As for the crimes he committed, they are irrelevant. He only pleaded guilty to one or two ( I am not sure exactly). His sentance should have been based on what he pleaded guilty to.
“Some commentators identified this interview as a blatant violation of the plea agreement”. Hardly proof of anything. If he violated his plea bargain, he would have been accused of same by the authorities. As far as I know, he wasn’t. Therefor he didn’t.
Then again , the authorities must have peen pissed off that they couldn’t throw the book at him because of the agreement, so they would have done what they could to make the case that Pollard violated it, if only by innuendo, so they wouldn’t be bound by it.
When Weingarten submitted his secret statement, I don’t recall that it was submitted because of an alledged violation.
It is not for you to defend the authorities, it is for them to defend themselves. It is for us to defend Pollard because he was a friend of Israel or because his punishment is cruel and unusual. Even murderors don’t serve their full sentance.
Plea bargain? I am of the understanding that the State vacated the plea, if I am wrong let me know.
If the State performed that, the whole argument by “comentators” is worthless. (Again).
David. Hardly anyone agrees with you on this and even less we agree with the perenially untrustworthy US leading Jewish Community leadershit.
Every day that goes by as the people in Eretz Israel work to cement a very strong State now developing natural gas and oil fields besides a superb High Tech industry, food industry, medical care, agriculture, chemical, pharma industry, militay industry, etc, we move farther and farther away from the cheque book “Zionists” and totally away from unJews overseas and here.
To be honest with you, many here much rather see Russian/Eastern European marginal Jews making Aliah than Aesop frog like creatures from “Western” countries.
The former WORK!. Just across the street lives a family of such marginal Jews. Yet he does garbage collecting crew work in the early mornings and also as a master musician trains youth on music. He is a phenomenal piano and flute player. We all sit in our park grounds near his home to hear the concerts.
There are thousands of those people slowly integrating here. Doctors, mathematicians, physicists, you name it.
GROBBE MAJERS with links far too deep overseas are really not material… as I see it.
Pollard must be freed w/o linkeage to any form of concessions.
The horrors that a putrid core of folk there allowed, much as they tried with the French Jew Head of the IMF, must be fiercely addressed.
FREE POLLARD NOW!
Ted: With respect you can’t have it both ways. Both agreed sentences and prison conditions are part of a plea agreement. If one violated it, then one gets harsher parole consideration and more difficult prison conditions. You don’t go back to court if you already have a sentence within which the conditions of violation of a plea agreement can be imposed without further judgment. This is so for any felon, not just espionage cases.
By the way, many years ago before I got my Doctorate and became an economist, during my U.S. Army service I was the American equivalent of an Israeli 8200. That’s how I became interested in cryptography. Later in life, when I worked in the shipbuilding industry where we were competing for billion-dollar construction contracts from the U.S.Navy, and next when I was in the oil industry with extremely valuable secrets, such as bidding for drilling rights, I continued my professional interest in that area.
Sumgai made some completely false claims as to the limited access Pollard had. As his own interview with Wolf Blitzer claimed, he had far more access than those false claims. In fact that is how he was caught; apparently he was using his courier access to remove a vast range of documents beyond his work assignment area and that got noticed. Reading the history, I think he was given many chances during his government career, for actions that have gotten others’ security clearances pulled permanently, and had them sent either into exile, or to keep a desk in an unclassified area warm.
Why do I sense an intolerance for dissent from the party line here, even from a proven friend of Israel. I’ll cite but one example; on one of my visits to Jerusalem, my friend Teddy Kollek, whom I knew from the Aspen Institute, called me in my room at the King David, quite upset, and asked me to come to his office right away. When I got there, he told me that the Fluor Corporation had given a million dollar grant to the Institute for a Middle East studies program on condition that no Israelis participate. He asked me if there was anything I could do.
I was the Chief Economist of an international oil company at the time, and immediately returned to my room and called Los Angeles. ARCO’s President, the late Thornton Bradshaw, Z”l, was outraged, called an Aspen board meeting by phone (it was a Sunday), and they voted to reject Fluor’s money. (At the time, Fluor had big contracts in Saudi Arabia.) The scandal made the New York times that week. (In those days, a million dollars was real money.)
Shmuel: It is fashionable for some Israelis to indiscriminately attack American Jews as if they all had no role in major contributions to Israeli security and well-being. I believe you used the phrase “Grobbe Machers”. There is an attempt to demonize such Jews, especially those who only visit and give money, if that, and the old cry of ‘If you love us so much why haven’t you made Aliyah?’ is heard in the land.
Such individual behavior suggests a difficult childhood, and resentment of the father, later writ large in adult life. We don’t take it seriously, and neither should you.
Since Pollard is a sensitive subject here, I’ll try to limit further posts on that particular topic, in the interest of not upsetting friends. I have zero ability to affect his treatment, so no one should get their necks out of joint at this analyst’s disagreements.
Shalom u’vracha;
David
But flaws in any of those protocols does not constitute “breaking” a cryptosystem, but working around it
A distinction without a difference in my context.
Dept. of Defense and Homeland Security confirm Lockheed Martin hacker breach
“Considering the lack of clarity on what data was stolen and details on how the breach was accomplished, it is gonna be pretty difficult for us arm-chair analysts to figure out what actually happened. Even with detailed logs and forensics, as an experienced security handler I shudder at the thought of analyzing this type of case.
If this really gets back to SecurID being compromised by disclosure of implementation or implementation flaws, then I don’t think it is hyperbole to say the security community will be shaken to its core.”
Reuters) – Lockheed Martin Corp, the U.S. government’s top information technology provider, said on Sunday that a “tenacious” cyberattack on its network last weekend was part of a pattern of frequent attacks on it from around the world
Lockheed is the Pentagon’s top supplier by sales. It builds the F-16, F-22 and F-35 fighter aircraft as well as the Aegis naval combat system and THAAD missile defense.
A U.S. Defense Department spokeswoman, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel April Cunningham, said Saturday night that the Pentagon was working with Lockheed to gauge the scope of the May 21 attack. The impact on the department had been “minimal and we don’t expect any adverse effect,” she said.
Neither Lockheed nor the U.S. government has commented yet on the possible origin of the attack.
Not impressed!! In your excessive need to impress by name dropping you invariably choose the wrong names, LIKE TEDDY KOLLEK. I too as many many others knew TK but I would be to ashamed of the fact to broadcast it on any public forum.
Kollek was British informer
Former mayor of Jerusalem helped British troops in their 1940s crackdown against right-wing underground Zionist groups, Irgun and Stern Gang
Although many of Kollek’s testimonies were omitted, his name appeared on the file in which he is referred to as “the source.” His codename was Scorpion.
Reviewed Your published resume. Seems you have a problem holding a job. Hmmm. I wonder why?
On the subject of American Jews and Israel, Israelis often misunderstand some American Jewish positions. When some American Jews suggest annexing Judea and Samaria, or not giving in to some unreasonable Palestinian demands (for example), they are not trying to tell Israelis what to do. They are expressing their deep, emotional upset at some current events because of their seminal attachment to Eretz Yisrael. Such involvement should be taken by Israelis with love, not resentment.
Yamit now stoops further to personal attack and sliming. Ten years in each major position, and accepting White House honors to take a government exchange job in between, is hardly “difficulty holding a job”.
I think he should be censured by the moderator.
As we have been trying to hint, there are US spies planted here. Much as Kollek was later identified as a real stinker so have been Dayan and other of them “principals” for other reasons. The foreign power centers shifted from Britain to the US and Dulles did not stitch w/o thread. Naturally others assumed the role held by Kollek, I say.
Pollard is not kept in there only because of US creeps, others may be also interested on Pollard being there not here.
It is interesting how certain inveterate slimers here try to turn an anecdote about protecting Israel into a personal attack on Teddy Kollek. They are starting to discredit Israpundit’s useful and important work, by association. I suggest a stronger moderating role, filtering character assassination out, is in order.
If I were as paranoid as some here appear to be, I would think they were Arab “plants”. In effect they might as well be.
TO YAMIT 82 PLEASE DO NOT INSULT DAVID. I KNOW HIM AND SOME OF HIS WORK. HE IS NOT “NAME DROPPING” HIS CONTACT LIST IS FANTASTIC. DAVID & I DISAGREE PROFOUNDLY ON POLLARD & I BELIEVE ON THIS ISSUE DAVID IS WRONG.
WE ALL AGREE ON MUCH . LETS FOCUS ON WHAT HELPS ISRAEL SURVIVE
THANKS FOR YOUR PASSION ,THOUGHTS & INFO
TED I’M GRATEFUL TO YOU. I CIRCULATE MANY OF YOUR ARTICLES WITHIN THE DOD & MORMAN COMUNITIES & TO SEVERAL JEWS WHO IN TURN CIRCULTE THEM FURTHER.
In turn I should say that I know Howard well; he is a certifiable genius who has made many contributions to defense, science, and technology, and held some of the more senior positions in America’s institutions.
I consider it an honor that Howard thinks I’m wrong about Pollard. Nevertheless we disagree.
Yamit posts
He appears not to grasp the distinction (and there is a big difference) between breaking a cryptosystem and a cyberattack.
I am honoured to have the participation of both Lt Col Howard and David Sternlight in our comment threads. I am dishonoured to have Yamit make unbridled ad hominem attacks on any commentators. Yamit as I have noted you were way out of line and not for the first time. I banned American Eagle because of his penchant for doing so. Don’t make me moderate all your comments. You know the rules. Stop attacking our commentators personally. Last warning.
I might add that you, Yamit, have much knowledge to add here, also. I value your contributions always. Why screw it up by your emotional excesses.
An apology to David would be in order.
David Sternlight & Lt. Col Howard: Given the unique knowledge both of you appear to have concerning the Pollard matter, I am interested in your take on reports that Caspar Weingberger recanted his testimony by affidavit that he submitted to the court that as a result of which, the court ignored the joint sentencing recommendation of the prosecution and defence counsel and sentened Pollard to life imprison.
That information came to light in many reports I recall reading which I think was several or so years ago.
The following article is representative of the reports regarding Weinberger’s recantation, which includes the following statement:
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=50394
What if anything do you know about this reported revelation about Weinberger that was made public?
That revelation is extremely significant for it speaks to Weinberger in his official government capacity contributing to a miscarriage of justice surrounding Pollard’s sentencing.
Weinberger’s recantation goes to the heart of the argument being made by those advocating for justice for Pollard by releasing him now, yet it seems that is not the case.
What say both of you?
Bill: That is new information to me. If it can be substantiated, it might change my view of Weinberger, though it does not explain the many Secretaries of Defense opposing clemency for Pollard. I do have an open mind on the issue and am amenable to new (to me) information, but not to emotional attack, yelling and screaming. Thanks for your helpful comment.
Kolek record as “scorpion” is a matter of published material disclosures. Not invention.
I am generally familiar with security procedures including those embedded in the most advanced military and intelligence gathering systems.
We do not need name dropping or care much about others resorting to that.
I served as a soldier in the IDF and received the OT LEBANON for our field operations during Lebanon I.
I am a former Invited Consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, (retired).
Published by the University of Tel Aviv and many others.
Serve by invitation as Graduation Officer on behalf of the Education and Labor Ministries.
Some of my work as a Senior-Fellow Engineer on behalf of the US Department of Defense M.A.P has been Patented.
I have been part of Engineering Excellence Teams advancing what later became the F-22 and other aircraft.
Now a little name dropping… And I had lunch at the facility where I worked with President Bush, Powell and others. At the same table that is. That was during the Golf War. I was then as free with my views as I am today. The President was aware of that. The Corporate VP, my boss, informed them in advance…
Still neither there or here I buy into BS.
I am hardly a plant for the Islamics such as the one elected there. I take that silly comment with a smile.
WHo was elected by 80% of the Jews there? The one with the birth certificate as well as several of his close associates.
US residents are welcomed to convey privately their views. They are not welcome to become items with the Gray Lady or in the media networks there postulating views for or against Eretz Israel to ingratiate themselves with their Galut associates. They are neither welcome to intervene on Israeli political activities.
I do not do that in the US and expect foreigners to refrain to do so here.
Even Olmert plainly delivered that message to the US Jewish leaders.
Still, Pollard has been abandoned by the Jews in the US and assaulted by vicious enemies of us all.
The abandoning bit is a standard procedure by the Jewish/// community there since at least “rav” Weiss’s times and Nahum Goldman epoch.
FREE POLLARD NOW!
Shmuel: Your attack and advice to American Jews is unhelpful both to this discussion and to the State of Israel. Please think before waving banners in the air.
Can Israel “go it alone”?
Israel can exist to some degree or other without U.S. support. Its record in science, technology, and defense hardware is near-unparalled.
Nevertheless, Israel needs trading partners to survive, and although it may be successful under American indifference, it cannot be successful under American hostility.
Let’s be a bit more careful about posturing here or elsewhere, please.
I am reminded of the famous joke about Israel’s darker hour, when at a cabinet meeting it was suggested that the way out would be to declare war on the U.S. and then be rescued after the inevitable defeat, by the traditional U.S. post-war reconstruction funding.
In the story, the Prime Minister was said to have responded, “But what if we win?”
I don’t attack but present facts regarding the unbridled negativity of the so called US Jewish community which voted 80% in favor of a mortal enemy of Israel. And still would vote for the same item by a margin of 55%.
Not long ago the same aggregates financed the Gazan take over of farms set up by Israeli Jews.
Many on a US ship now detained in Greece are members of that community…
In the other hand you plainly said we are agents for the Islamics, remark that I demand you retrieve.
You seem unable to internalize that others, just as qualifed if not more qualified than you call things by the names that we feel apply. We do not particularly feel we need your approval to think or act as we do.
The US Jewish leadership on its vast majority has caused untold harm to us all here. FACT.
People like Friedman, gangs such as JStreet, and a multitude of other such trash including Ross, Indyk, Rham Emmanuel, etc, are enemies. FACT.
I doubt very much that Israel will in about two years from now have much in common with the US administration if the same elements are voted for by the Jewish community again.
Please return to a few weeks back when Mr. Netanyahu presented to the one with the birth certificate a sequel of realities that fellow will have to live with. (If Netanyahu holds on to the line).
Meanwhile work for the release of Pollard and stop trying to find ways to justify the ghastly acts against him.
FREE POLLARD NOW!