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.