“…Who is this Uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?”
David – Son of Jesse, circa 1050-BC
I know all you raging Zionists out there were inclined to shout that at your monitor when you read Kerry Patton’s recent article about Israel, titled “Spotlight: A Contrarian View Towards Israel.” Hell, I actually did it. I guarantee you I am the most rabid, raging Zionist of the bunch, only my attitude isn’t religious or politically founded – Israel earned my loyalty.
Now that we have that out of our systems… let’s address the article for its merit or lack thereof… If you haven’t read it, please link over there and do so. Otherwise none of what I am about to say will make any sense.
To the author’s credit three very important facts were included in the article – facts that the “I’m a Christian and I love Israel” crowd and the “political friends of Israel” crowd would never tell you, even if they knew. I applaud him for addressing these issues. I just wish he had done enough research to present them with accuracy and in entirety.
Good journalism forces you to consider the other guy’s perspective and either accept it or debunk it, thereby either confirming your own belief or forcing a change to your understanding. Controversial articles like this are one of the reasons Havok Journal is worth reading.
HJ is the journalism of years gone by – the stuff a reader can sink their teeth into and shake the flavor out of. Today, true news outlets are few and far between. The Havok Journal is such an outlet and promotes reasonable different aspects of the same story, even those topics that will cause uproar.
What a unique concept: Give your readers a balanced perspective and the opportunity to come to a conclusion of their own.
At some point one of the authors here is going to offend you… it will probably be me; but consider what happens inside your head when the tone or topic of any article offends you. If there is any reason or logic to the content it also forces you to contemplate and confirm your own position… so thank that author – agree with him or not – he just made you smarter.
The majority of Americans would give you that bovine look if you asked them about the Liberty incident. Some might recognize Pollard’s name but, like this author, are under the false belief that Pollard sold secrets to Israel. Before I correct the factual errors in the article I must give the author credit for bringing these, too often forgotten, issues to light.
- Israel spies on the US – Jonathan Pollard is an American who spied for Israel.
- Mossad has no problem affecting sanctions of any kind, any place, any time – Including CONUS. If Mossad wants you – Mossad’s gonna take you.
- The US Warship Liberty was attacked by the IAF in 1967, killing 34 US sailors and wounding almost 200 more.
The remainder of the assumptions and statements presented as fact, are not and are full of holes.
In the author’s defense, the statement that Pollard was “caught selling thousands of secrets to Israel” is an easy mistake to make. If one does not understand US law, specifically the basic structures of case law and criminal procedure, such errors are almost inevitabile.
Pollard never sold secrets to Israel. He was indicted, plead guilty and was convicted on one count of violating 18 U.S. Code § 794c. There was no charge of or evidence of selling secrets presented in the indictment or subsequent legal procedures.
Wikipedia falsely states that Pollard pled guilty to selling secrets, he did not. Pollard always maintained and still maintains that he never sold anything to Israel. He also attempted to withdraw his guilty plea when he realized he was not under Mossad protection and would not be deported to Israel.
Casper Weinberger misspoke using the phrase “Sold Secrets” in his sentencing statement and the original FBI report is cited in the government sentencing statement which also makes the incorrect assumption of sale. This is where Wikipedia and other non-academic, poorly vetted, research sites will land you – Not to the case – Not to the facts – Not to reliable information.
As you can see, by the links I provide, the actual case documents are available from any number of resources. Such omissions of fact are standard with Wikipedia. Reading the case and the actual documents make it clear Pollard never sold secrets any more than a deployed FSO or Recon Marine sells enemy secrets to the US. They, like Pollard, are on salary it is their job – They do not get paid by the secret – Neither did Pollard.
Pollard was a run of the mill contract asset, and he was paid just like any other Israeli contract asset in the 80’s. The indictment cites a small monthly salary from which he also had to cover operating expenses.
A disbursement of $1500 to $3000 monthly was common back then. Any asset would also be required to make a few “vacation trips” to facilitate equipment training and communication. They were usually provided items of value to use as gifts and trade. Rolex watches and gold rings were a common accouterment.