US should not release Pollard for risk of internal strife

A high-profile espionage case, recently brought out from under the dust of three decades, has reignited a stack of controversial dynamite. Seeking an incentive for Israel to continue its peace negotiations with Palestine, the United States is considering releasing convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. Though the move would please many in Israel as well as pro-Israeli lawmakers in Congress, it isn’t a risk worth taking if true peace — at home, especially — is to be valued.

Design by Julien Nicolai

A Jewish American who had made it his dream to aid Israel from an early age, Pollard worked with U.S. naval intelligence between 1979 and 1985. This dream took on reality when Pollard met an Israeli fighter pilot, Col. Aviem Sella, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Pollard agreed to spy, starting out by passing secrets related to artillery developments in several Arab countries and later taking on volumes of more classified material. Until his arrest in November of 1985, Pollard had a bi-weekly schedule of deliveries that contained more than five suitcases of classified information at a time. He pleaded guilty to leaking documents and was given a life sentence in 1987.

Though supporters of his release argue that he only wanted to help an ally of the United States and that he has already paid enough in his past 27 years in federal prison, the reasons behind an early release don’t stand up to the standards to which we as Americans should hold ourselves.

By releasing Pollard under an entanglement of geopolitical reasons, the need to stand by the law is undermined — a dangerous move that will put the reliability of a government into question. From the outside, it would seem like the government has problems executing justice if it can’t enforce criminal sentences without being swayed by political matters.

The U.S. government is debating Pollard’s possible release in hopes of salvaging the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, according to CNN. The impasse lies over whether Israel will honor its promise to release more than two dozen Palestinian prisoners, including 14 Arab Israelis whom Israel has labeled terrorists. The initial schedule for release was March 29, but because of the delay, the Palestinians have threatened to end the talks, pursuing recognition at the United Nations instead.

There is no reason to release Pollard now at the risk of an internal battle at home. Ironically, to try to buy the continuation of peace talks with Pollard, the United States might very well disrupt peace at home, starting within our intelligence community.

Since Pollard’s arrest in 1987, he has maintained that he only gave information to Israel so it could protect itself from hostile Middle Eastern nations. Former Director of Naval Intelligence Adm. Thomas Brooks, however, thinks otherwise.

“Much of what he took, contrary to what he’d have you believe, had nothing to do with Arab countries or the security of Israel, but had everything to do with U.S. collection methods, to include most specifically against the Soviet Union,” Brooks told Foreign Policy. “I think what he did is exceeded only by Edward Snowden.”

What’s more, this isn’t the first time Pollard’s release has been used as a bargain chip. Former President Bill Clinton was prepared to release Pollard during the summit at Wye River, Md. in 1998 before intelligence agencies, most notably CIA Director George Tenet, spoke against it.

Peace at home should be given higher priority than matters overseas, and it seems like the intelligence community should be the best place to consult on whether or not he should be released, especially under such political circumstances. World peace starts at home.

Valerie Yu is a sophomore majoring in biological sciences and English. “Point/Counterpoint” runs Fridays.