Friday, January 13, 2012

To Anger More Folks

I pulled on a tail or two a little while ago when I posted on the US decision to reduce its forces in Europe.  Well, that is probably nothing compared to this post.

Behavior like that I read in an old Washington Post today (because of a tweet related to other article below) makes me feel more strongly than ever that Jonathan Pollard is where he belongs.  Israel seems to be quite callous about not only spying in the US but trying to portray themselves as Americans as they spy on other countries. 
But a retired senior FBI counterintelligence official told SpyTalk, "They have always been extremely aggressive, and seem to feel they can operate whenever and wherever they want, in spite of being called on the carpet more than any other country by probably a factor of three times as often."
Also, see this piece.: "It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought."

I am a strong believer that when it comes to treason that if you do the crime, you do the time.

Israel can justify all kinds of stuff because they face an existential threat, but that does not make such policies right or smart or legitimate.  What they demonstrate is what is best for Israel and what is best for the United States can be entirely separate things.  So, if Israel wants to undermine American national security by having agents pose as Americans to try to get Americans to act against American interests, then Israel should expect that such policies have costs.  One such cost is having their recruits do serious time in prison.

I wouldn't mind trading Pollard for a serious foreign policy concession, like reversing the settlements in occupied territories (or whatever they are called these days).  But, otherwise, Netanyahu can just shut up about Pollard as long as Israel continues the behavior discussed in the article cited above.


MahmudNaqi said...

Umm- Today? the dateline on the article is 2010?

Steve Saideman said...

Ooops, was reading another piece, then hit someone else's lnk to this one.