third who had not been caught. He wasnwell placed in the Defense Ministry,nand still ‘active.'” Former CIA DirectornRichard Helms was recently askedn— in connection with the Pollard affair,nsays Green—whether the USngovernment should distinguish betweennthose who sell secrets ton”friends” or to “enemies.” Helms saidnno, “for the simple reason that wendon’t know about the security of thosenother governments.” (So much fornwhat Blitzer calls “friendly espionage.”)nNow, as someone who has writtennextensively about espionage and isnfairly well versed in the literature, as wellnas being a founding member of thenacademic Consortium for the Study ofnIntelligence, what do I think? Whatnquestions has Blitzer’s book raised in mynmind?n1. Pollard was traveling around Europe,nstaying at luxurious hotels, eatingnat three-star restaurants, buying jewelry,nflaunting his credit card, and in generalnliving far beyond his means. In Washington,ntoo, he and his wife lived lavishly.nIs this normal behavior for thenJeffrey HartnJActs ofnRecoverynEssays on Culture and PoliticsnA well-known scholar and writernprovides provocative commentarynon major American and Europeannwriters to recover the root valuesnof the Western tradition.n”Not content with being a finenteacher and distinguished scholar,nJeffrey Hart is today America’snfinest practitioner of thenhigh journaHsm that takesnseriously and makes inteIHgiblenthe intersection of politics andnculture.”—GEORGE F. WILLn$19.95nUNIVERSITY PRESS OFnNew EnglandnHanover, NH 03755 Ã¢â‚¬Â¢ 800-421-1561n28/CHRONICLESnaverage US intelligence employee? Is itnthe expected thing for an intelligencenemployee to walk out three times anweek with “suitcases” of stolen classifiedndocuments and to deliver them to an”safe house” for copying? Pollard wasnsupposed to be studying the possibilitiesnof terrorism in the Caribbean, not in thenMiddle East. I suppose one could arguenthat Pollard’s “need to know” gave himnthe right to ask for documents on Sovietnweapons systems and the military capabilitiesnof Arab countries. Nevertheless,nthe question remains: what was the USncounterintelligence system doingnthroughout all of this?n2. Pollard says he was pressured tontake $2,500 a month for his treasonablenemployment. Living as he did in a freencountry, he could have refused thenmoney. Even taking it. Pollard mightnhave stashed away these sums unused.nBut not only did he receive and spendnthe money, he accepted an Israeli offernof a Swiss bank account for futurenbonuses. And now that he sits in jailnIsrael has doubled his monthly salary,npresumably to make a nice nest egg fornhim when he gets out.n3. Blitzer says that Pollard took thenmoney because “it could be useful inngetting secret documents.” What doesnthat throwaway line mean? Was therensomeone else that Pollard felt could bensuborned to treason?n4. Blitzer says that even though,nupon his arrest. Pollard was orderednheld without bail, a professional bondsmannshowed up trying to get him outnon bail. Who was the bondsman, whonhired him — what’s all that about? Blitzerndoesn’t speculate.n5. It is meaningless to say, as Blitzerndoes several times, that the Israeli governmentn”has returned to the UnitednStates all such documents in its possessionnor under its control.” Don’t thenIsraelis have copying machines?n6. Since a good deal of money wasnchanging hands, it is difficult to believenthat Pollard’s was a rogue operation.nDoes Blitzer mean to suggest that anybodyncan walk into the Israeli treasury,nsign a chit, and walk out with severalnthousand dollars?n7. Blitzer makes a statement that Infind particularly indecent: “I felt thatnAmerican Jewry was partially responsiblenfor having created Pollard.” If JoenSobran had written that, I’d be jumpingnup and down with indignation. PerhapsnnnBlitzer will one day tell us how henapportions the responsibility.n8. This so-called lover of Israel alsontook secret documents and distributednthem to his social acquaintances and tonprofessional investment advisers, presumablynto help them in their businessnventures. Pollard did this, according tonBlitzer, in the hope of someday returningnto a career in private life.n9. I think Israel deliberately “betrayed”nPollard because it had no alternativento doing so. Had Pollard beennspirited out of the country to Israel, andnhad the US government demanded hisnextradition, could Israel have refused tonhand Pollard over?nThere are many morals to be drawnnfrom the Pollard affair, but thenmost important of them is this:nThe reason for the American-Israelin”special relationship” is that both countriesnare democracies, both countriesnshare common values. A large sector ofnthe American people, not merely Jews,nhave an affection for Israel. It is the landnof the Old Testament. There is a sensenof trust between both peoples, andnpresumably between the two governments.nThis trust, supported by Americannpublic opinion, has given Israel anunique status in American foreign policynand, indeed, even in American domesticnpolicy.nThat trust has been badly damaged,nas Blitzer concedes and as statementsnfrom leading Jewish organizations andntheir spokesmen confirm. Is the damagenirreparable? Those of us who value thisnsingle outpost of freedom and democracynin a hostile region can only hope thatnthis tawdry episode will be overcome.nWhy seemingly intelligent survivors likenShamir, Peres, and other Israeli policymakersnallowed it to occur in the firstnplace and, having done so, permitted itnto continue as long as it did, remains anmystery.nIn the Talmud, when certain questions,nafter long debate among thensages, were found to be inexplicable, thendebate ended with “tayku.” This is anHebrew acronym — Tishbi yetaresnkushiot vbeayot — meaning that onnElijah of Tishbi’s return to earth allnthese questions will be answered, andnthat until Elijah’s return there is nongood explanation as to why highlynintelligent people often do stupidnthings.