What is nice about the understandably charged debate is that it seems to be playing out largely outside the confines of the U.S.-Israeli relationship and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Instead—and contrary to the misguided wishes of some—it is properly boiling down to an argument over what one specific criminal’s exact crimes were, and how much punishment those crimes merit. Lovers of justice should be pleased.

First, the “Free Pollard” side. Former deputy defense secretary Lawrence Korb (now of the Center for American Progress) several months ago called for Pollard’s release, saying Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s anti-Israel bias played an outsize role in Pollard’s harsh sentence; Gil Troy made the case for Pollard’s freedom in Tablet Magazine; 39 Democratic congressmen also lobbied for it. Since Bibi lodged his request (“Honourable president, in the name of the Israeli people I am turning to you”), Harvard Law Professor Charles Ogletree—the president’s onetime mentor—also wrote in arguing for a pardon. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey is also on-record on this side. Pollard’s defenders argue not that the honorary Israeli citizen was wrongly convicted—Netanyahu himself states, “Jonathan Pollard was acting as an agent of the Israeli government,” which government’s “actions were wrong and wholly unacceptable”—but that Pollard’s 25 years behind bars are commensurate with his crimes when you compare them to the offenses and terms of others who spied for friendly nations.

On the other side is much of the intelligence community, which insists that a full accounting of Pollard’s crimes would show them to be far more severe than most expect, and eminently deserving of a life term. A lawyer who had been involved in the case recently argued as much, and in 1999, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, relying on intelligence sources, argued, “[His] supporters are mistaken in believing that Jonathan Pollard caused no significant damage to national security.” Earlier this week, the ex-U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Pollard noted a Pentagon estimate that Pollard cost the U.S. between $3 and $5 billion and insisted, “That the country he spied for is seeking clemency is not only unprecedented, it is a joke.” Top intelligence hands from both parties (Sandy Berger, Geroge Tenet) have been reported as adamant that Pollard ought to stay in jail.

What I—who know little about the particulars of the Pollard case and next-to-nothing about U.S. intelligence law—cannot understand is why some Americans wish to see Pollard used as a chip: Most typically as a carrot, in which Pollard’s freedom is traded for some Israeli concession (this would have been the settlement freeze extension, before all sides gave up on that). It is one thing when the U.S. and other countries trade other countries’ spies for their own spies, which makes an internal logical sense. But to make one person’s life a part of grand diplomacy simultaneously elevates his stature and robs him of his humanity. Besides, simple justice dictates that if Pollard has served his appropriate time, he should be let go, and if he hasn’t, he shouldn’t be. Answering that question is tricky, but it is purely forensic—the normative principle of justice is set in stone (pun intended).

I can’t let this blogpost, by Steve Clemons, go uncommented upon. “If Netanyahu were to commit to collapse his government, reassemble with sensible pragmatists in the Knesset, and deliver definitively on an internationally-accepted two state arrangement between Israel and Palestine, then I would support releasing Pollard to the Israelis,” Clemons writes (“Steve Clemons asks a modest price,” Ben Smith quipped).

All due respect, but what planet is Clemons living on? He really thinks Netanyahu can do the political equivalent of snap his fingers (“Israelis and Palestinians say that they could do a deal—if both were serious—in just a few months,” Clemons relates, apparently credulously) and literally bring peace to the Middle East? I had heard that bringing peace to the Middle East was considered more difficult to achieve than that. And what if Netanyahu makes the good-faith effort Clemons demands of him and peace is not achieved because the Palestinian Authority won’t cut “the deal,” or Hamas takes over the West Bank after it does, or the Israeli people vote Netanyahu out before he can? Then I suppose Pollard would stay in jail anyway, because he would no longer be of use to us? Or would that instead be an argument for his freedom?

And why is it so easy for a neophyte like me to pick apart an ostensible foreign policy expert’s reasoning?

Far more sensible is James Besser’s suggestion: Either free Pollard, or keep him and explain—disclosing as much as possible, and more than is currently disclosed—exactly why he deserves to stay there. As one of the citizens he spied on and who is now paying for his incarceration, I am ready to be persuaded either way. I am not ready to see my fellow citizen, or any other human being, reified for the sake of an ill-defined and extremely long-shot diplomatic gambit.

White House Notes ‘Serious Crimes’ of Israeli Spy [AFP]
Copy of Netanyahu’s Letter to Obama [Haaretz]
Netanyahu Seeks Pardon for Imprisoned Spy Pollard [Washington Times]
The Hidden Hand in the Free-Pollard Campaign [SpyTalk]
Price for Jonathan Pollard’s Release Should Be a Done Deal on Palestine [The Washington Note]
Netanyahu’s Pollard Letter: Israel’s Actions ‘Unacceptable’ [The Political Insider]
Related: National Insecurity [Tablet Magazine]

• The central if somewhat implicit logic of the piece may be that a. Israel will likely bomb Iran; b. it would be better if the United States bombed Iran; therefore c. the United States should bomb Iran. [Ben Smith]

• Matt Duss says an Israeli strike won’t really accomplish all that much (and is therefore unlikely to be undertaken). [Wonk Room]

• Steve Clemons thinks Israel is primarily intent on making the world think it will likely strike Iran rather than actually doing it. [The Washington Note]

• Joe Klein still completely opposes any and all airstrikes against Iran. [Swampland]

• Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett—whom Tablet Magazine columnist Lee Smith has had words with—say Goldberg’s implicit case for a U.S. strike is “flimsy.” [Foreign Policy]

• Fred Kaplan calls the piece “shrewd and balanced.” [Slate]

• J.J. Goldberg thinks the article, which does take care to acknowledge the potential consequences of a strike, still underplays just how catastrophic the aftermath could be. [Forward]

• Among other things, adds Matthew Yglesias, a strike could lead to a fantastic rise in oil prices, which could pummel the global economy. [Yglesias]

• Stephen Walt accuses Goldberg of trying to “mainstream” the notion of an Iran strike so that it will be more widely accepted if it comes, much as was done with the invasion of Iraq. [Foreign Policy]

• Goldberg himself gets the insight of air war expert Chuck Wald. [Atlantic]

• Next week, the Atlantic promises a blue-ribbon debate over the piece and its implications. [Atlantic Wire]

But it’s worth noting that the J Street crowd has, this week, appeared wholly uninterested in the minutiae and insider baseball that animates the Hill. At last night’s big $250-a-plate gala dinner, the 800-plus attendees cheered when recognizable members of Congress in attendance were named—Barney Frank, Keith Ellison—but kept up their chatter as lesser pols were thanked. And few people in the room seemed to notice when speaker Steve Clemons—who directs the foreign-policy program at the New America Foundation, a progressive think tank—let slip that Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican who gave the evening’s keynote address, had been tapped to co-chair of President Barack Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. (Though in fairness, they may not have been paying attention in part because Clemons walked onstage wearing a paper mask of Vice President Joe Biden’s face, in a Beltway Halloween joke that went over like a lead weight).

Attendees did, however, sit rapt as King Abdullah of Jordan congratulated their efforts via a video link. And the audience whooped and cheered later in the evening when one of J Street’s initial funders, New York attorney Victor Kovner, accepted the organization’s inaugural “Pursuer of Peace” award. Kovner, a longtime board member of Americans for Peace Now, was introduced with a video tribute that included photographs of Kovner standing with Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (not both in the same photograph, though). In his acceptance, he invoked both the U.S. Constitution and the prophet Isaiah as he talked about making sure that the state of Israel lives up to Jewish values, rather than just being a state full of Jews. “What we American Jews owe to Israel, what we owe to our friends and family in Israel, is our best advice,” he said, to loud applause. And then he wound up with a finale worthy of Elie Wiesel, repeatedly intoning “never again” as he said that, thanks to J Street’s existence, members of Congress would be free of fear when taking positions in favor of Palestinian rights, and the president would have the room to maneuver in order to strike a peace deal. Now that the conference is over, of course, the big question facing the organization is this: what next?

Hagel to Lead Obama’s Intelligence Oversight Panel [The Cable]