Esther Pollard: heroine or manipulator?

[Yerusha]

What is the informed Kahanist opinion (ie Chaim's) on Esther Pollard?

Pollard had two Rabbis - Rav Mordecai Eliahu and Rav Avie Weiss- neither of whom officiated at any wedding with Esther. They have no ketubah and no civil wedding certificate.


--------------------------------------------------
"We Don't Blame Jonathan"
by Ronen Bergman

(HaAretz daily newspaper March 1997)

Molly Pollard, Jonathan's mother, is an elderly sick woman with three heart attacks behind her. Her husband, Dr. Morris Pollard, takes her from place to place in a wheelchair. She is eighty two years old, weak, and her voice is barely audible. There is only one thing that she really wants, to meet her son Jonathan one more time. Eleven years have elapsed since that Thursday, November 21, 1985, when her son was captured outside of the Israel Embassy in Washington and was accused of spying for the State of Israel. On her last birthday, as told by daughter Carol, she sat opposite me and waited. Every time the phone rang she said to those around her in a voice full of hope, "Maybe it's Jonathan".
But Jonathan Pollard refuses to speak to his parents. His last conversation with them was a year ago. By telephone, he announced to them that since they refuse to the line of action that his new wife, Esther proposes, he is therefore severing his connection with them and is not willing to see them again. Molly Pollard says in a depressed voice: "We are broken-hearted. We don't blame him. He's been in jail for so long that everything must be forgiven for him. But it is such a pity that that wicked woman, who calls herself Jonathan's wife, made it her aim in life to disconnect our son from us."
A short time before that telephone call, his sister Carol got a similar message. At the same time, Pollard also fired his lawyer, Nancy Locky, and cut off his connections with the activists for his cause in Israel and in America, including Amnon Dror, chairman of the public committee for Pollard's release. In actual fact, he severed all his connections with the outside world, except for his wife Esther, who is currently his only channel to the outside world. Dr. Morris Pollard: "In retrospect I now understand that from the start she tried to dismantle our family. She and actions are making my son's release much more difficult. It is convenient for her to have him inside (prison), it gives her publicity. It's as if Jonathan doesn't have enough problems as it is, then comes this woman and complicated things even more."
The Pollard couple are not the only ones of this opinion. Many people, especially officials in Intelligence and in the Prime Minister's office, claim that Esther Pollard, whose former name was Eileen Zeits, is causing enormous damage for the release of the famous spy, who was convicted to life in prison. The way in which Esther presents Pollard as a hero who caused no harm to the national security of the US, together with the wild accusations in which she accuses the American government of, mainly of anti-Semitism - cause nothing but harm to his case.
Carol Pollard: "You have no idea how angry I am at Eileen. She ruined everything for us. In some areas, it is possible that the damage that she has caused to public relations concerning my brother is irreversible. She has turned Jonathan into a poster for the extreme right, and the worst thing she did was that she built a big wall between him and us, his family, who have dedicated the last decade for his release."
A few months ago, officials from the White House were quoted in the American Press, detailing some of the factors which caused President Clinton to pardon Pollard. Among them they stressed, that the White House is very upset with the radical statements that appeared in the media in the name of Pollard and his wife. Zeits-Pollard insists on naming President Clinton a "liar", as she has done in the past and also this week, when she talked to the editor of the magazine section of the "Ha'aretz" newspaper: "When Clinton refused the request for pardon he used a number of lies. First of all he claimed that he is tied to the opinions of his advisors, which is completely untrue. Secondly, he claimed that Jonathan caused damage to the US. Jonathan did not cause any damage to the US national security. I'll give you the example of Ames (sp?): In his case you can do a body count. In Jonathan's case, where is the harm done? Where, after 12 years, is the harm done?"
This kind of talk also distanced her from Pollard's lawyer. Nancy Locky the attorney, served in the past as senior prosecutor for the general D.A. office of the United States. She was chosen to represent Pollard following the recommendations of prominent lawyers in Israel, after she had been interviewed by them extensively and afterwards met with Pollard's family and with Pollard himself.
For Locky it was crystal clear from the start what the line of action should be: "For Jonathan and Eileen it was very important to say that he was a hero and that in fact he did not cause any harm in his actions. They thought that that would sound good to the Israeli public. That may be so, but to our regret, Jonathan is imprisoned in the US and not in Israel, and to say to the Americans that he is a hero, and that he is not sorry for his actions that caused no harm and that he would do it all over again, that is most wrong thing to say. Talking this way will never make him a free man."
According to Locky, Eileen continued to encourage Pollard to think of himself in terms of a national hero. "She also went out and fed the press with these kind of proclamations. I wanted to silence her and I set up an appointment with her, by Pollard, in the prison. She sat there, sweet as honey, but with hatred in her eyes. We came to the agreement that everytime she writes something for publication, it will go through me first and must receive my go ahead."
A few days later, says Locky, she received an article written by Eileen that was to be publicized in the Ma'ariv newspaper. "There were all the same things there: He's an Israeli hero, a Jewish soldier abandoned by his country and really caused no harm to anybody. I edited the article, and sent it back to her. I was astonished to later see the original article published in the Ma'ariv, the one before my editing. I informed Jonathan that I am no longer willing to meet with her."
The relationship between her and Pollard is described by Esther-Eileen like a love story from the movies: "We first met in Israel, in 1971. We were both here in different summer camps from our respective youth movements and we met in the Gallile. After his imprisonment I saw a section in the newspaper inviting people to write to him in prison. I took up the offer and he answered me. I read his letter and I felt like I was looking in a mirror."
In an interview to the Jerusalem local paper "Kol Ha'ir", that was published in May, this year, Eileen Zeits has a somewhat different version which is also the one known to all involved in the case. To the journalist, Ronit Tzach, she told, that the relationship between herself and Pollard began when she first saw the above mentioned section in the newspaper, six years ago, meaning long after Pollard was arrested.
Dr. Morris Pollard: "It was I, to my great regret, who assisted in their acquaintance. Three years ago, she wrote me a letter requesting of me to set up a meeting between her and Jonathan. I wanted to get to know this wonderful woman who was interested in my son's well-being. I spoke to her on the phone and invited her out to our home. She refused. I offered to pay for her expenses to come and she still refused. Maybe I should have realized back then that there is something strange about this woman. On the telephone she was all sweetness, and would phone us very often. She succeeded in persuading me to put an effort in promoting her case. I turned to my friends in congress and they obtained for her an entrance pass to the prison. From the moment she first entered the prison walls, we no longer heard from her. She cut off all contact with us."
And the marriage? "Of the marriage to my son, I learned from others, not from her", says Dr. Pollard. "About two years ago I called her and asked if there is anything we can do to help. She said that she is taking care of Jonathan and that is was none of my business. We don't blame Jonathan. He's been in already 11 years, in a very frustrating situation. It is possible to understand him, when someone comes along who seems like an anchor, he's going to grab hold of it with two hands."
We know each other for six years and are married for three of them", says Eileen Zeits. "You have no idea how important Jonathan is to me. We can be separated physically, but emotionally I am never alone. I desperately miss him. Tonight I spoke to him on the phone and I said to him, I can face anything in the world except if something happens to you. Thank G-d, we understand one another. When I entered the relationship with Jonathan, many people put obstacles in our way. They tried to prevent me from giving information to Jonathan. They told me, this and this, you are not allowed to tell him.The people who were supposedly supporting him kept from me important information. I did not agree to this and I promised myself and Jonathan that I would never lie. Ever since then, I have never kept anything from him and I know that he is completely open with me."
She doesn't only have complaints about the US government, but also the government of Israel. "My husband is about to die, and the government of Israel is doing nothing about it. They don't give us time to be alone. You understand, they discriminate Jonathan on all levels. All our meeting take place under the watchful surveillance of cameras and prison guards. We want to have children very much. Time is running out, I am already 39 years old. Jonathan is also not young. There is no logical reason for the physical separation between us."
The Pollard family dispute the right of Esther-Eileen to use the title "my husband", when speaking about Jonathan. Carol Pollard: "This woman visited Jonathan one time and announced that she is engaged. I think it is very strange, because she announced this to he media and not to his family. I asked Jonathan on the phone whether this was true and he laughed. The next time she went to visit Jonathan she came back with this story about a wedding. I inquired at the prison and discovered that no such wedding took place. Since then, she photographed Jonathan and herself at the prison a few times at different intervals. Each time she reported that these pictures were taken at their wedding, even though she is wearing different clothes in each picture."
How important is it whether there was an official wedding or not?
"If she was a nice person, none at all."
Amnon Dror: "I met Jonathan a short time after the wedding. He told me he got married. I congratulated him and wished him well. I asked whether there was a rabbi and witnesses. Jonathan pointed to the heavens. In my opinion there is no importance to the question whether the two were officially married. It is enough that they see themselves as a couple."
Joe Miko, assistant manager to the federal prison in Batner, where Pollard is being held, told "Ha'aretz" that there is no documentation of any wedding that took place concerning prisoner Pollard: " If a prisoner wishes to get married with religious rites, he must formerly put in such a request to the prison's chaplain . This includes also Jewish prisoners. If he gets permission, a wedding is organized by us. In the security framework of the prison there is no possibility of holding such a wedding without our permission or without our knowledge. Also a civil marriage requires a permit. Every wedding is recorded in the prison's records and is documented, according to US law, including the archives of Batner's court house."
Eileen Zeitz reacts angrily to these words: "We had a completely Jewish wedding. The prison officials offered us also a civil marriage, but we turned them down. We are Jewish and we got married according to the Jewish Halacha. We had a rabbi at the wedding as well as two witnesses."
Is it possible to have their names?
"No. We know that if we give out their names, they will immediately become a target for attacks by the same people who claim they are working for Jonathan's benefit, therefore we are keeping the names secret. In any case, even Canada recognizes are marriage, as you can well see, the name Pollard is stamped on my passport."
From the immigration department of the Canadian Embassy in Israel it was stated, that a Canadian civilian can change his name or add another name, as it is written in his passport, as he wishes, after suitable registration procedures, even if he/she did not get the added name through marriage.
As opposed to the marriage with Jonathan Pollard, nobody disclaims the marriage between Eileen Zeits and Barney Scarf, a Toronto resident, 15 years ago. They were married for two years. According to Scarf, Eileen tried to separate me from my family. "She hated my parents, my sister and my friends. I remember asking her to go also to my parents' house for Seder night just for once. She refused adamantly. In the end, Eileen gave me a choice: Either her or my family and friends. Luckily for me, I wasn't in prison and I was able to get up and go."
Eileen Zeits thinks she is alone in the struggle to free Pollard. Everyone, she claims, but really, everyone, collaborated to silence Pollard with the purpose of him rotting in jail. This serious accusation is not only aimed at the US government, but also to the members of the public committee to free Pollard, headed by Amnon Dror, the Pollard family, and the government of Israel, both the previous and the present one.
"The only success the public committee had was to silence Jonathan" she claims. "Amnon Dror, the chairman of the committee, works for the government of Israel. That is also the reason why I went on a hunger strike, I wanted people to understand, to know what happened. It wasn't only a strike for Jonathan, but a final action that a desperate woman can do not only for Jonathan, but for any Jewish soldier."
Her accusations also concern the way in which donations were collected. "A whole system became very rich following the the money collected for Jonathan. All kinds of "Machers" in New York pretended to work for him, but in actual fact, were working in the name of the government of Israel to silence him. Until recently, all of Jonathan's lawyers were paid by the government of Israel. By the Public committee paying their salaries, they were also able to give them orders. Jonathan discovered that the people who were supposed to be representing him, the Public Committee, Amnon Dror, his lawyer and his family, were doing the opposite of what he was telling them to do. It drove him crazy and in the end he couldn't take it any longer, and he severed all contact with them."
Amnon Dror and Carol Pollard strictly deny this and displayed evidence that the money donated for the prisoner were used for his needs only. Says Dror: "It is inconceivable to even think, not for me and not for anyone who was close to Jonathan, to give advice to him whom to marry or whom to love. It is none of our business. If Jonathan chose, then we all blessed him on his choice. But since the day that Jonathan made contact with Esther Zeits, some things have changed, that have, in my opinion, a negative result in Pollard's chances for an early release. It has totally decreased the motivation of many of the people who were working for his release, including a thick wall that was built between Jonathan and his family, friends, lawyer and some very prominent Jewish leaders."
Dror has difficulty restraining himself upon hearing Zeits's crude accusations. "It may not be too early to tell", he says, "that political sources in the US headed by the president and his aides, were already willing a year and a half ago to release Pollard. Rabin was going to meet with Clinton and the general feeling was that the release is at hand. And then, within a few days there was a sudden turnover. I don't know how much the new aggressive policy of some of the well wishers of Pollard affected Clinton's decision to decline Pollard's release, but I so know from officials who determine in this mater, that it upset them very much that they were accused of discrimination, anti-Semitism, and abuse of a prisoner."
Eileen complains that the Public Committee is operating from generous government funding, while she is forced to dwindle her savings in her attempts to free Pollard.
"I will take this opportunity to declare that I was never employed in the past or in the present by the government of Israel concerning Pollard. I never received directives or orders. Our only sin is that we were successful in persuading the government to double their efforts in releasing Jonathan Pollard and to budget large amounts of money for this purpose. I don't think I deserve any thanks for this, but certainly not such criticism from one who insistently claims to be Jonathan's loyal wife."
Jonathan asked me to cover the cost of Esther's frequent visits to the prison. I informed him on the spot that the Public Committee will cover all of her expenses. A week later I received an official letter from Esther Zeits - "My husband and myself have reached the conclusion that we don't want anything from you, because it is clear to us that you are pretending that you want Jonathan's release, while in fact you really want him to stay in prison."
Zeits: "They tried to buy Jonathan. They succeeded in buying off his sister. They won't succeed in dirtying me with their money. Of course I refused to receive any money from them, and that's the real thing that frightens them. They know that they can't buy Esther." The conspiracy philosophy she associates the government of Israel with is very developed: "Israeli senior Intelligence agents, and I know their names, came to visit Jonathan in the name of the Israel Government and tried to persuade him to commit suicide."
Shai Bazak, media advisor to the prime minister, comments on the accusation with five words: "There was no such thing."
Lawyer Nancy Locky remembers slightly different tunes during the previous government. "Zeits tried to portray Jonathan as a symbol of neglect by the leftist government, especially of the late Yitzchak Rabin. I can testify that he, more than all the politicians, did everything he could to free Jonathan."
Zeits did not give the Likud government credit either. At the end of July, shortly after Benjamin Netanyahu formed his government, she started a hunger strike in front of the prime minister's office. Netanyahu received her in his office. She left his office encouraged and agreed to stop the hunger strike. She even praised the new prime minister. Now she claims, that Netanyahu promised to release Pollard by Rosh Hashana; now the holidays have passed, and Pollard is still imprisoned.
Shai Bazak, media advisor to the prime minister, states in Netanyahu's name: "The prime minister told Mrs. Pollard that he will continue with his efforts for her husband's release, though he had reservations whether his efforts would have immediate effect. From this, of course, it is clear that there was no promise to the effect that Pollard would be released by Rosh Hashana."
Following the meeting with Esther Zeits-Pollard the prime minister ran a thorough investigation about her. Various sources, including senior officers in the Intelligence Community, advised Netanyahu to renew to connection with Pollard's parents. Dr. Morris Pollard was even invited to meet the prime minister on one of his trips to the US, but his wife's physical condition prevented him from making the trip from Indiana to Washington. Instead he received a phone call from Netanyahu of which he describes as "very warm".
Zeits has still not gotten over the insult. "We made it completely clear to the prime minister who is Jonathan's sole legal representative", she says. We explicitly asked him not to contact his family. And what happens in the end? He comes to the US and the first thing he does is to call Jonathan's parents. If he really wanted to free Jonathan, why does he behave in such a manner? Why doesn't the prime minister's office answer my letters and faxes? They are purposely ignoring me, because they know that it is difficult to deceive me and they won't succeed in giving me stories like they tell his parents."
This doesn't end her claims. "Netanyahu could have released Jonathan a long time ago", she is sure. "He could have said that he will not forgive Clinton for his support of Peres, and that he will not come to Washington if he cannot take Jonathan back with him. How can he behave in such a manner? Something stinks here."
She also drags the pilot prisoner, Ron Arad into her accusations. "It's not that the government of Israel disappointed Jonathan personally. Jonathan represents the Jewish soldier who left for was and has not yet returned. How is it that the only soldiers we have managed to return were dead? How is it that we did not stop the release of terrorists until we got back Ron Arad? Jonathan is not alone. This is a group of people, of fighters who have served their country, and their country has not returned the favor."
Shai Bazak: "The prime minister has activated in the past and in the present for Pollard's release, while he was in the opposition and presently while serving as prime minister. In this framework, the prime minister met with Esther Pollard and with Dr. Morris Pollard and he spoke with President Clinton and other government officials in the US with the intent of bringing about Pollard's release."
His wife claims that you are ignoring her and not answering her inquiries.
"The prime minister himself met with Mrs. Pollard a few times and his office is in contact with her."
Esther Pollard claims that the manager of media in the prime minister's office, David Bar-Ilan, is the one who is blocking her way to Netanyahu and throwing difficulties her way. Bar Ilan is furious: "I don't block anyone's way to the prime minister. I operate according to the prime minister's directives. We organized the meetings between her and the prime minister, against the advice of many. When she first came to the prime minister's office, I was completely astounded to hear her claim that Pollard's family have outside interests in the matter. We asked Alan Dershowitz, who knows something about the American law to meet with her. He called us later, dumbfounded, and said that she declared in his face that the government of Israel needs to release Pollard in a similar fashion of the Entebbe rescue. Now this is something that is not altogether rational, to say the least."
Esther Zeits also criticizes the care he receives from the prison. "He is forever being discriminated against as o[opposed to the other prisoners. It is not even connected to the management of the prison. These are direct orders from Washington. Every other prisoner is allowed to wear a watch. Jonathan is not allowed. Every prisoner is allowed to wear a wedding ring. Jonathan is not allowed to. All the prisoners have radios. Jonathan doesn't have. he needs to get permission from Washington to receive a new pair of shoes. His old pair tore and he begged for new ones. They wouldn't give them to him. He asked the prison guards to lend him shoes just for my visits to him, so that I wouldn't see him wearing rags. They wouldn't. A year went by until he was granted permission and in the end we bought him new shoes with our own money. And that's how our good friends the Americans treat us."
And that's not all. "His prison has changed very much over the last year. They put dangerous prisoners in with him".
Was he attacked?
"I will only say that ever since arriving to jail, Jonathan learned how to fight, the prisoners antisemitism as well as that of the prison wardens. Before he was transferred to the prison he is in now, senior officials from Washington came to survey the prison to check where the most difficult work was so they could place Jonathan there. They put him with the material cutters, which has harmed his health very much. Afterwards he was transferred to the Optical factory, where he is forced to work without air conditioning, with chemicals that give him headaches and dizzy spells. By the way, Jonathan is sick today. He has a throat infection. The air in the prison is recycled, there is no ventilation or fresh air, therefore if a prisoner gets sick, everyone gets sick."
The prison authorities deny these accusations. Says Joe Miko, the assistant administrator of the federal prison in Batner: "We treat Jonathan Pollard in the same fair and humane way we treat all of the prisoners. He is not discriminated in any shape or form. It is not clear to us why Ms. Zeits has not complained directly to us before she turned to the media. As for the issues at hand: If Jonathan Pollard has no medical problems he may wear a wedding ring or watch if he wishes to do so. The story about the shoes is simply not true. We provide clothing as necessary. There is no request for a permit from Washington in order to receive new shoes."
About the work conditions Miko says: "Jonathan Pollard filed a request to work in the Optical factory. We granted his request. We have no documentation of headaches or dizzy spells from Mr. Pollard. In general, I would say that his physical condition is pretty good. The prison has a central air conditioning system that constantly blows in fresh air." Joe Miko wishes to clarify: "We do not operate in the Pollard issue through directives from Washington. He receives here equal treatment to any other prisoner."
Amnon Dror feels that some of Zeits's accusation can harm Pollard indirectly. "Some of the people who are operating for Pollard, in the government, in the White House, in the Justice Department and in the Prison services are Jewish", he explains, "and to accuse them of antisemitism is the most idiotic thing you can do. The Americans read these articles and are insulted, therefore it also harms Pollard. More than that, the conditions in the prison he is in now are very reasonable. In the previous prison, in Marion, the conditions really were bad, for Jonathan as well as for the other prisoners who were there. We were not ashamed to complain about it and we tried to improve the situation. But in Batner the conditions are much better."
Nancy Locky visited Pollard many times at the prison. "Besides the fact that it is a prison and you are not a free man there and must abide to the rules, the conditions right now are not too difficult", she says. "Jonathan has a telephone, radio, television and newspapers and altogether, in relation to a prisoner, his condition is all right."
The final breakaway between Zeits and the activists on his Pollard's behalf came when she demanded that Pollard be given an Israeli passport. Pollard supported the idea, but the Committee's members, as well as Locky, fiercely opposed the idea. According to them, sympathetic sources from the Law Office and from the Intelligence community in the US hinted that if Israel will give a passport and citizenship to an American civilian who spied against his country, it will look like an antagonism and would only put off Pollard's release even more.
Locky, the attorney: "As time passed I have become more and more convinced that she doesn't really want to see Jonathan on the outside. The present situation is ideal from her point of view; If Pollard is released, they will stop interviewing her. Her whole power rests on that he is inside, and you can quote me on this. Somehow it's always connected to publicity:Jonathan doesn't speak Hebrew and she translates for him incorrectly the articles publicized about him. We have transferred to him exact translations of our own and we discovered that she had them changed in a fashion that was convenient for her. That's how, for instance, she has changed articles that were connected to me from the moment that she had decide that I am in her way."
Also Amnon Dror has come across a similar problem. "It was confusing to me that in all my many visits to Pollard in jail there was a complete and excellent atmosphere of understanding, the relationship between us deepened until they turned into friendship. And here, as soon as I would leave the prison I would hear on the media a statement in Jonathan's name, that was totally opposite to what just happened just a short time ago in his cell. I learned my lesson and since then when I visit, I bring with me another person".
Amnon Dror and Locky the attorney prepared a five phase plan for the release of Jonathan Pollard, which included a request of pardon while admitting a commitment of a crime and a show of remorse. Just then Zeits appeared on the scene with the Israeli citizenship story. "I was against the request for the citizenship", says locky, "it was clear to me that it would not help anything and would only harm the case. I told this to Jonathan. He was silent and just said that Esther thought it was a good idea. Eileen for her part, told him that I told the press how much I am against the idea of citizenship. That was a gross lie, but Jonathan believed her, called me, and said only 'You're fired' and hung up."
Zeits: Jonathan hated Locky from the start. He also tried to fire her three times previously, but the Public Committee and his sister continued to employ her as if nothing happened. Only when we went with it to the press, they had no choice."
Amnon Dror: "That is complete nonsense! Jonathan himself interviewed Locky. He had an excellent relationship with her and from her part she became personally committed to his case. There were no particular problems between them, until she came on the scene."
After Locky's dismissal, Zeits hurriedly appointed the lawyers Larry Daub and Mordechai Ofri, who was publicized as the one who defended the prime minister's assailant( forgive his ignorance-BC), Yigal Amir (in the meantime Zeits gave up on the idea of using the services of Ofri and appointed another lawyer). The new lawyers turned to the previous minister of interior affairs, Ehud Barak, and requested he give Pollard an Israeli passport. Barak asked officials from the Law Office and other political figures whether granting Pollard a passport would help him in any way attain his freedom. The answer was negative. Barak refused the request as did Chaim Ramon who later took his place. Eileen Zeits went to the higher court to enforce Ramon to give Pollard Israeli citizenship. Ramon gave in and regretfully signed for a passport on Jonathan Pollard's name. It is not known whether this step had bearing on President Clinton's refusing to pardon Pollard.
Zeits-Pollard warmly defends her actions. "The minute the government of Israel granted Jonathan citizenship it became responsible for him", she stresses. "Because of his citizenship he now appears on one of the major principles of the government, just like the rest of the missing soldiers. For ten years he asked for citizenship in quiet ways, but those, who supposedly worked for him, but in reality were working for the government of Israel, silenced him. In the end he told me: 'Esther, you got to do this for me'. Everyone tried to torpedo this action and then he felt that he can no longer go on like this and he severed the connection with his family. It's a shame that Jonathan's parents are not satisfied being just a regular father and mother, to come and visit him, to look after him, instead they are forever trying to interfere with what we are doing for his release."
In her opinion, dealing with these issues shirk the real issue of freeing Pollard. "His relationship with his parents is not what matters now. When he is release from jail he can patch up things with his parents.", she promises. "I have two purposes in life: One, to free Jonathan and save his life. The second purpose is sanctifying the name of G-d and the Truth."
Amnon Dror is not angry at Pollard. "As long as Jonathan is in jail I forgive him in advance for anything has said or will say through his wife, words that brought great damage first of all to himself, and gave many who had dedicated their time and money for his cause a feeling of ingratitude. For he has been imprisoned for an extended length of time and under conditions where it is difficult to be level-headed. I will forgive Jonathan for everything, except for one thing which there is no forgiveness for. His attitude to his parents. His mother is ill and he refuses to speak to her. I tried to persuade him to speak to them, despite the anger he feels toward them because of all kinds of ideas that were put in his head. I told him, pick up a phone, and say hello to your parents. he said: 'No, they're not okay with Esther".

[Zelhar]

Pure lashon hara regurgitated out of an old hasretz hack job.

[Yerusha]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198791

"People were highly dissatisfied with the official Pollard organization run by Esther Pollard and in fact, suspected her of sabotaging all alternative efforts to liberate her spouse. Esther Pollard's interfered with demonstrations, speakers and even one webmaster working on behalf of justice for Jonathan Jay Pollard.

     They don't know what her motivations are, perhaps they are just a personal need for attention, perhaps they are more sinister, but with Esther Pollard at the helm, no new evidence has emerged that could possibly result in Pollard's release. Recent excitement over the revelations that Pollard was sitting for the crimes of master spy Aldrich Ames, as written by John Loftus, are not revelations at all. They are the exact claims in a prominent Maariv article from 1985, since repeated often in the Hebrew press.
     
They insist that the Americans came down hard on Pollard because he exposed the Bechtel Corporation's production of chemical weapons in Iraq.
     
In the same lockup for the same crime was Ari Ben-Menashe, who wrote a tell-all book called The Profits Of War. He became a primary source for Seymour Hersch and Joel Bainerman, though far from their only one. All have been besmirched by the official Pollard organization but that doesn't mean their facts are all wrong.

Pollard, himself, insists that he started his spying in July, 1984. Loftus and Aarons have him identifying an arms shipment in April of 1984. That would make the Hersch/Ben Menashe claim that Pollard began his clandestine work in 1981, more plausible.

       But once one excuses the inconsistencies, a very consistent story emerges. Pollard thought he was helping Israel protect itself and that his material would fall into honest, trusted hands. Sadly for him, it fell into the grimy paws of Shimon Peres and he used it to create a crime empire, broadly called Iran Contra. It is the fear of exposing Peres and his cronies that is the real reason why the Israeli government has made no sincere effort to free Jonathan Jay Pollard.


In 1987, a government commission of inquiry headed by Abba Eban issued its report on the Pollard Affair. It concluded that the man most responsible for the fiasco was Shimon Peres, who became Prime Minister in late May, 1984. He was not only apprised of Pollard's intelligence, he read it daily. Receiving smaller portions of blame were Defence Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

      This long buried report is, naturally, long forgotten because Peres spent a good week denying every word in it and arranging the end of Eban's political carrer. But let us not forget, the official investigation conducted by the Israeli government concluded that Peres was the chief culprit."

[Binyamin Yisrael]

This is a Chillul Hashem. I remember in 2003 when Barry Chamish wrote an article with stuff he made up about Esther Pollard. I was on Chamish's and Pollard's mailing lists back then and received an E-mail from the Pollard list saying that Barry Chamish made up lies about Esther Pollard and that Chamish's article belongs in the garbage.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Pure lashon hara regurgitated out of an old hasretz hack job.

correct.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Haaretz, the "Israeli" newspaper founded by Goebbels.

[Yerusha]

Does anyone anywhere still have real reason to fear Pollard talking when he walks out of Butner, sufficient to attempt to preempt or to stop that walk?