Saturday, June 16, 2007

A Clarification on my earlier post (re: Jonathan Pollard)

I have been contacted by the people working to secure a release for Jonathan Pollard. Apparently, they read something into my earlier post that I did not put there. Therefore I want to clear any ambiguity about what I said.

When the president of the shul was speaking, he was making the case that Jonathan Pollard was innocent of the charges upon which he was convicted. He was using *that* basis to make a comparison to Alfred Dreyfus. The people working on Pollard's behalf took my comments to mean that there is no basis for *any* comparison between Alfred Dreyfus and Jonathan Pollard, which is not what I said or meant to imply. I did not mean to say that Pollard and Dreyfus were not comparable at all, but rather that comparing Pollard to Dreyfus in terms of their *innocence of all charges* was wrong and deceitful, as even the people working to secure Jonathan's release acknowledge that he was guilty of (and only of) one count of passing classified information to an ally.

If my point was not clear and resulted in misinformation, I humbly apologize.

While I don't like to censor my commentators, I would greatly appreciate if people would, in the comments, stick to the point of what I said and not turn this into a debate on Jonathan Pollard, as that wasn't even the main point of my earlier post.

The Wolf


Anonymous said...

I did not mean to say that Pollard and Dreyfus were not comparable at all

F*ck that, they're NOT comparable. Pollard was GUILTY, Dreyfus was framed. Don't apologize for being right.

BrooklynWolf said...

Did you read what I wrote? I did *not* apologize for being right... I apologized for my last point being not as clear as it could have been. There may be grounds to compare Pollard to Dreyfus, only NOT in terms of total innocence.

One can remain correct and still have been ambiguous and unclear. My apology was for that. I just wanted to clarify my point so that we all understand each other.

We all (even the Pollard team) acknowledge that he was guilty of the crime that he was convicted of. Now that we all agree on that, can we please NOT turn this into a debate on the innocence or guilty of Jonathan Pollard?

The Wolf

Lion of Zion said...

i don't think the dryfus-pollard comparison is a fair one for a different reason. those who liken pollard to dryfus lack any historical perspective. dryfus's situation must be considered within the immediate context of a country rife with popular anti-semitism. in a wider context, the dryfus debate (he did have many vocal defendants) was used as a focal point (just one of many) in the struggle between french liberals and conservatives.

the pollard case can't be compared on either of these two points. his convention does not represent a wider endemic anti-semitism, nor (do i think) is it easy to find a line of demarcation between those who support him and those who don't.

shavu'ah tov