I hate to sound pessimistic, but in my judgment, Olmert will be using his last meeting with Bush to try and convince Bush not to release Pollard.

Pollard is an embarassment to the Leftist elite of Israel - he stands for good, clean idealism; he is a devout Religious Zionist; he is against Oslo; he screams out the injustice of Peres, Olmert, the Shmaga"tz; he supports Moshe Feiglin, for crying out loud!

No, Olmert has no interest in seeing Pollard released. He would much rather give him an honorable funeral in Israel.

that is why we have to do two things, each independent of the other:
1. try to convince Bush
2. try to convince Olmert.

And still, we have to believe Lev M'lachim b'yad hashem.

Of course, commuting the sentence should be sought. As an American, I feel he broke the law and do not expect (though I would be happy to see) special consideration. But as a Jew, I feel Israel is responsible for freeing Pollard.

The US routinely traded captured Soviet spies for American spies. Every time an American spy is caught in Israel spying for the US, that spy is sent home without even a slap on the wrist.

Israel could have traded for Pollard long ago. The wimpy failure of every PM since the incident is a shanda. Likud or Labor, it did not matter. Netanyahu and Sharon were no better than Olmert.

Israel is obligated to free its captives. Pollard is no different from Shalit or any captive Jew or Israeli soldier. Politics be damned. If Hashem is OK with heavy handed tactics by Israel, only good will result.

It's Olmert and the Israeli government who have to ask - I think Bush would agree to free him if Israel would accept responsibility for the incident. It's Olmert not Bush who needs to be convinced.

You know, I was stewing on this thread for a few days, and I have decided one thing: when I hear Americans (and it only every is Americans) equivocating and effectively criticizing Pollard for "breaking the law" - even if they do later qualify that with advocating that he should be let of on whatever grounds - it gets right up my nose. (I have some less polite ways of expressing how much it angers me, but you'll get the picture.)

Let's say you're walking down the street one day, and suddenly a guy next to you falls to his knees having an asthma attack. Then you notice in the car parked next to you is an asthma spray, and you know this will save his life - but you'd have to break the window and steal the pump. But how can you break the law? So you stand there and say to the guy as he breathes his last, "So sorry, I could have saved your life, but what can I do? I can't break the law!"

Such is the attitude of those who criticize Jonathon Pollard for spying on the USA and passing secrets on the Israel. You want to know why Saddam Hussein Y"S didn't get the A-bomb - and consequently why Israel only had to face an artillery of Scuds rather than nuclear warheads? Because Pollard had enough sense of moral values to know that sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law. And to enforce the law on someone who broke it in order to save countless lives is nothing short of sick.

I'm sorry to say it, but you Americans have WAY too much awe of your old country. To be sure, the US is probably the best place for a Jew in golus to be... but don't kid yourself that Esav now loves Yaakov. The US is punishing Pollard as a symbol of what the Jews can expect if they do things that the US doesn't like.

Shaul, you are probably right, and thinking back I was probably wrong at the time for my not supporting Pollard.
But I have come clean and said that despite my previous lack of support, I now do support him, without getting intop the detail sof the case.

the truth is, that I do not think anybody can get into the details of the case and make a decision because there is so much we do not know. We can argue the few details that are public knowledge, but with so much being unknown, arguing the little we do know is futile.

But I agree with you and I like your analogy. I was probably wrong for my lack of support previously, and hope that at least by changing my opinion later, I have made up in part for "abandoning my brother".