Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Dual Loyalties

From the transcript of an interview with Caroline Glick, Senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC, on the imprisonment of Jonathan Pollard (my emphasis in bold):

"I was in high school when he was arrested. And I saw in what he did a basic problem with American Jewry, in that if the United States is not acting as an ally for Israel, where is one's loyalty supposed to lay? I never understood why Pollard, feeling as he did about Israel, ever joined the US government, why he hadn't simply made Aliyah [immigrated to Israel]. In fact the whole Pollard issue was an important thing that led me eventually to decide to make Aliyah after I graduated from college. It seemed to me that if your loyalties are called into question, you have to be willing to make decisions. I never quite understood why he had betrayed the United States by passing secrets to Israel."

You might say that this is ambiguous, in that she may be questioning why he betrayed the United States. One of her three reasons for releasing Pollard makes it clear what she means:

"The second thing is how his case relates to American Jews - specifically those who work for the US government. Jonathan Pollard is a symbol that is used very much against American Jews. He is the symbol that is always in the background to constantly point a finger at them and cast suspicion on them for the claim of dual loyalties that make it very, very hard for Jews in Washington to operate without fear. It is a terrible situation."

Her logic is very odd. Releasing Pollard would not remove the problem of aspersions concerning dual loyalties of Jewish employees. In fact, it would probably increase the perception that such dual loyalties may exist. What releasing Pollard would do is cast a blessing on the kind of thing that Pollard did. In other words, it is the Zionist view that Pollard has to be released so that it is clear that the American government accepts the natural dual loyalty of its Jewish employees and forgives them if they commit treason in order to help Israel in cases where American policy diverges from Israeli policy. American intelligence networks and the lives of American spies are a small price to pay so that American Jews can feel good about committing treason for Israel. This is exactly the same mentality that underlies the current AIPAC scandal. It is amazing to read this only because the issue of dual loyalties is never admitted. Glick is suggesting that if you are an American Jew, and the interests of Israel are different than those of the United States, it is morally unacceptable not to commit treason against the United States. Where is one's loyalty supposed to lay? Her suggestion that he should have immigrated to Israel doesn't make any sense, as another of her points was that the information he provided was extremely important to Israel, and Pollard would never have been in a position to help Israel unless he was in the American government. If she feels that he ought not to have put himself in the position he found himself in, she also feels that, once in that position, there is no question as to what he should have done. If this view is shared by American Jews, how can the United States possibly take the risk of hiring Jews in positions where intelligence matters or sensitive information may be involved?

I hasten to add that I am sure that this is not the view of most American Jews. The problem still remains. If it is the view of a significant number of American Jews, how does the American government determine which category a prospective employee will fall into?

We can start to understand why Pollard has become so important to the Zionists (the heckling of Mrs. Bush while she was in Israel concerned Pollard). As far as they are concerned, he didn't do anything wrong. Since Zionism is morally right and determined by G_d, anything which helps their cause cannot possibly be wrong. In fact, Pollard would have done something wrong only if he hadn't betrayed the United States. Pollard's continued incarceration indicates that there are still at least some Americans who don't share this view. Since the Project of Greater Israel is one hundred percent dependent upon continued and completely unwavering American sponsorship and support, the Zionists find it intolerable that these American patriots are still in the American power structure. As long as anyone in the American government feels that American interests should prevail over the interests of another country, the Project is not safe. It is necessary to prove to the world, to Americans, and to Israelis, just who calls the shots in the United States. When Pollard is released - and I'm certain he will be - there will no longer be any question over who runs the United States, and the Zionists - not to mention their dual-loyalist friends in the American government, friends who have become quite prominent in recent years - can finally rest easy.