ZIONIST FEDERATION LOBBY DAY A GREAT SUCCESS

One of the Zionist Federation’s flagship events took place last week, on Wednesday 8th February 2012. Organised in conjunction with the Christian Friends of Israel, 300 people gathered in Westminster for the annual Lobby Day of Parliament. This is always an opportunity for our members to meet and hear from Members of Parliament from all sides of the House on how they express their support for Israel in the heart of British democracy. It is also a great opportunity for some of our members to meet individually with their MP to talk about this point on a personal basis and to highlight some specific issues.

This year, the main issues that were raised directly with nearly 100 MPs or their assistants were the actions of the BDS campaign against Israel and to urge them to oppose any calls to boycott Israel in any form; and the need to force the Palestinian Authority to stop its state sponsored incitement against Israelis and Jews. We also supported a third issue, that was to highlight the plight of Christian minorities in Arab countries.

While private meetings with Members of Parliament were taking place, the main group were based in two committee rooms. When I write about the ‘main group’ what I need to highlight is that the popularity of the event meant that we had to take a second committee room in order to accommodate all of those who joined us on the day. We are delighted to say that we managed to fill both rooms to capacity and with standing room only!

Throughout the afternoon, the two groups were fortunate enough to be able to hear from a number of MPs and one Peer. Invited to speak for just a few minutes, Members ended up speaking for an average of 15 minutes before fielding a fair number of questions. Some speakers were even cut short in order to be able to accommodate the queue of MPs waiting to address the room! Even after finishing, the MP was then approached to speak in the ‘other’ room. It is great credit to both the work ethic of the MPs and the reputations of the ZF and the CFI that every request to speak twice was met with a positive response. I would like to record my personal thanks here to all the MPs who gave up their time to address us on the day.

With the MPs speaking with no prior agenda, the question of the Iranian Threat proved to be an issue that united virtually all of them. The British Government has lead the way in standing up to Iran on this matter and the message from the MPs was that it will continue to do so. The other consensual issue that came through was that it is vitally important for individual members of the public to develop relationships with their Member of Parliament. Don’t be shy is the message! An MP is there to represent their constituents and also to hear and understand about the matter that are important to them. So by keeping in touch with an MP on matters relating to Israel will keep them informed and highlight that there is support for Israel within their constituency. The strength of the Palestinian Lobby was mentioned and those attending the day were urged to work to balance their effectiveness by developing relationships with their MPs. Sending them an article here and a comment there can go a long way. Don’t be a constant pest or nag, but don’t be afraid to make your voice heard when you have something important to relay. If you do not know how to contact your MP, please follow this link and you will find all the necessary contact details for all the MPs in Parliament. ClickHere

Without wishing to promote any particular MP it is important that some of their messages are relayed in this report. For example, Nigel Dodds (DUP) said that it was important that the Party leaders spoke up for Israel, not just the individual Members. Andrew Percy (Con) said it was fair for the Foreign Office to criticise Israel where and when necessary but that it must be even handed with its criticism of both sides of the conflict. Luciana Berger (Lab) talked about her involvement with the International Committee of Jewish Parliamentarians and their efforts to work in coordination with each other. And somewhat poignantly, David Burrowes (Con) reminded us of Canon Andrew White’s statement that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christians can feel safe.

The morning training session took place at the Emmanuel Centre, a few minutes walks from the House of Commons, where we were addressed by Harvey Rose, Chairman of the Zionist Federation, Vivian Wineman, President of the Board of Deputies, and Alon Roth-Snir, the Deputy Ambassador of Israel. The day was chaired by Professor Eric Moonman, President of the ZF, and Geoffrey Smith, former UK Director of the CFI. Thanks must also go to Robin Benson, Head of Communications at CFI, for all his hard work in helping organise the Lobby Day with us.

Although there were a few negatives on the day in that the group was so large that we could not all fit into one committee room, and more people would have liked to have had the chance to meet with their MP face to face, the overriding sense was that the day had been a great success and helped to renew and encourage those attending. It can be quite demoralising sometimes when faced with what appears to be a tidal wave of anti-Israel sentiment, so it was good to be surrounded by so many people who share the same love and support for Israel and to hear that Members of Parliament not only share this view, but are also prepared to stand up and state that publicly. We look forward to an even bigger and better Lobby Day next year, but will continue to support and work for the benefit of Israel every day…with your help.

Here is a link to a report of the day that appeared in ‘The Jerusalem Post’. ClickHere

IRAN, ISRAEL & THE WEST: A BRITISH JEW'S PERSPECTIVE

The British embassy in Tehran is sacked. Britain severs its diplomatic ties, expels the
Iranian ambassador and all other diplomats to the court of St. James. It was something
of a courtly dance, the British clearly knew what to expect, there was no surprised struggle,
no hostages and there are signs in the backchannels that the Iranians didn't want events
to go as far as they did or, perhaps, Ahmedinejad or the Supreme Ayatollah is scoring points
off the other. Where does all this sit in the grand strategy of Britain and the Arab world?
By Howard Morris

First, of course, Iran isn't an Arab country.
Most of the time this seems an irrelevant
distinction but it's important in the Middle
East where Iran strives to be the regional super
power and to champion the cause of the
Shi'ite, a minority in Islam but in significant
places forming the majority, strung across
the area in a vast crescent. In Saudi, in Oman,
Bahrain, the UAE, among the Iraqi Sunni, Iran
is feared far more than Israel is loathed. The
Arabs don't want Iran to get the Bomb. That
we know.
And so to Britain. What are its Middle
Eastern goals? Competing factors tend towards
a balance but one that persistently
nags Israel, a strategic friend, to compromise
and concede. British governments are not
and never have been driven by the Jewish
vote. There are almost twice as many Jews living in Brooklyn as in the
entire United
Kingdom. With a UK population of around
60 million, the presence of 300,000 Jews is
immaterial and while we may have disproportionate
business and professional success,
it's still not enough to make the Jewish
vote, Jewish influence, a powerful voice in
Westminster - whatever our enemies might
say, and of course they do darkly mention
"cabals" and "media ownership," more of this
later.
We need oil, so, like the U.S., this drives
Britain to want to befriend the Arabs. And
the Foreign Office has a tradition of Arabism.
Being an Arabist is a thing in Britain, like being
an Anglophile in the U.S.
But off we went to war in Iraq. A war
from which Israel tried to dissuade us and
that a million marched against. We did that
because of the "Special Relationship" with
the United States. It led to the social democrat,
Tony Blair, making common cause with
the right wing President Bush and burning
his reputation and legacy with the left in
Britain in the process. President Obama, incidentally,
is far less of an Anglophile than
previous presidents - his father saw the
British repression of the Mau Mau uprising
in Kenya. Be that as it may, Britain is closer
politically to the U.S. than to Europe and it
is expedient for America to have an ally that
militarily punches above its weight. So we
won't get out of line with the U.S.
And Britain does respect Israel. The attitude
is sometimes coloured by stereotypes
and tropes about Jews. While Nazi type racist
anti-Semitism haunts the fringes of the
near irrelevant nutty right wingers, the real
anti-Semites are on the left. They see Israel
as America's proxy. They like their minorities
to be obviously suffering and dependent
and Jews seem to do so well. Hence the
BBC's institutional bias. It's full of socialists
who have given up every vestige of true socialism
in their own lives but retain a dislike
for the U.S. and all its works. Israel is seen by
them as a creature of the imperial powers, a
view shared by the left in Europe, a colonial
imposition. In contrast Americans see Israel
as an analogue of their own struggle for liberty
in their own land. So a Labour MP who
questioned the appointment of a Jewish
ambassador to Israel because his loyalties
might be divided and who raised some ugly
implications of conspiring groups of international
Jews, was forced to apologise. But the
mainstream media hardly touched the story.
Britain, whatever its left leaning media
might say, is a friend to Israel and itself a
tolerant country. Remember it was Britain
who gave the Balfour Declaration and even
though the Irgun and the Stern Gang fought
a bitter war against the forces of the British
Mandate I don't once recall my parents or
any family members having encountered
any anti-Semitism during the period before
Independence.
In the future? Well there is a significant
Muslim minority in Britain that is growing
and will be the majority in some places.
Among them are a sizeable chunk who are
disenchanted and militant and vehemently
anti-Israel and anti-British. Britain has absorbed
minorities before but this will be a
big swallow.

Howard is an English lawyer at a major international
firm, recently seconded to their New York office.
He is accompanied by his wife, Gaby. They have
two children, both in their twenties, back in the UK.

BEN WHITE-AMNESTY BOOK LAUNCH

Ms Kate Allen
Managing Director
Amnesty International UK
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard
London EC2A 3EA

12th January 2012


Dear Ms Allen,

We support freedom of speech and accept the right of people to criticise Israel’s policies. But we urge you to reconsider the appropriateness of promoting Ben White, whose book launch your organisation is due to host on 26th January, whose criticisms and whole approach to Israel go well beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct.

In 2002 he wrote “I have just provided a by no means comprehensive list of reasons why I can understand very well that some people are unpleasant towards Jews. I do not agree with them, but I can understand.” (“It is Possible to Understand the Rise in Anti-Semitism”, June 2002)

This appears to be a justification for anti-Semitism. Maybe you can’t see a problem with White’s statement; however, would you be prepared to host someone who had written “I can understand very well that some people are unpleasant towards blacks or homosexuals – I do not agree with them but I can understand”?

Further, in the same article White defended “alleged anti-Semitic remarks made by Jürgen Möllemann, the Deputy Leader of the FDP Party, when he compared the Israeli Government’s actions to those of the Nazi regime”. To White, these comparisons are merely “unwise and unsound” but “........not anti-Semitic. It does not make racist assumptions, nor does it smack of bigotism.” he wrote. This view is contrary to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia’s working definition of anti-Semitism which includes the drawing of comparisons between contemporary Israeli policy and that of the Nazis.

White was, himself, guilty of using descriptions of Nazi-type actions when he wrote in 2007: “Pity the Palestinians, who, in the name of a ‘social-democratic experiment’, had to endure massacres, death-marches, and ethnic cleansing.” There were no death marches nor ethnic cleansing and one alleged massacre, which is disputed, as opposed to several documented Arab massacres of Jews) Such comparisons, and the use of Nazi- related terminology, go beyond legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and are offensive to those who suffered so horrifically under the Nazis in ways which bear no comparison to what has happened in Israel. (“Boycott the Backlash, November 2007)
Perhaps you are unaware that White’s previous book “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide” was full of untruths and inaccuracies. Among the worst of these was his misquoting of Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, as saying “We must expel Arabs and take their places” Ben Gurion had actually said the opposite: “We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places.” Ben Gurion made it clear that he saw a future for Arabs living in a Jewish state. (2009, Chapter 2)
White also relied on dubious sources, one of them being an essay on Anti-Zionism by Roger Garaudy who was convicted of Holocaust denial in France in 1998.

White ignores inconvenient facts that don’t accord with his theories. The results of a survey conducted recently in September 2011 by leading Palestinian pollster Dr. Nabil Kukali of the Palestinian Centre for Public Opinion, contradict much of what White states. Only one-quarter (23 percent) of eastern Jerusalem’s nearly 300,000 Arab residents said they would "definitely" prefer Palestinian citizenship. Remarkably, 42 percent said they would actually move to a different neighbourhood if necessary in order to remain under Israeli rather than Palestinian authority, confirming results from a similar survey administered by a Palestinian pollster in November 2010. Participants offered several practical reasons for preferring Israeli citizenship: higher income, more employment opportunities, a better social safety net, including health insurance, pensions, and disability benefits and greater freedom of movement under Israel's jurisdiction. Indeed, two-thirds reported that they travel not just to West Jerusalem, but also to other parts of Israel every week. At the same time, more than half of the respondents said they were concerned about decreased freedom of expression and increased corruption under Palestinian rule. (Realclearworld.com, 23rd September 2011)

In 1949 there were 34,000 Christians in Israel; as at Xmas Eve 2011 there were 154,500, representing 2% of the population and being the only Christian community in the Middle East that is growing. Again, contrary to White’s dismal analysis, statistics show that over the years, the Christian Arabs have enjoyed the highest rates of success in the matriculation examinations, both in comparison to the Muslims and the Druze and in comparison to all students in the Jewish education system. (www.mfa.gov.il, Christians in Israel, December 2011)

You have announced on your website: “What many in Israel call ‘the demographic problem’ White identifies as ‘the democratic problem’ which goes to the heart of the conflict: Israel's definition not as a state of its citizens, but as a Jewish state.” Despite the fact that the rights of minorities are guaranteed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence and by Israeli law, and that Israel’s Arabs participate equally in all aspects of the State, White has a problem with Jewish sovereignty. White’s actions are motivated not by a true concern for the Palestinians but rather an irrational obsession with and hatred of Israel. If he were truly concerned with the rights of underprivileged people, why, in all the time that he spent living in Brazil, have we been unable to find any articles by him on the terrible discrimination and persecution suffered by those in the Favelas and by the native peoples in the Amazon region?

Why also does he defend Sheikh Raed Salah, a racist and anti-Semite who (inter alia) claimed the Jews baked the blood of children into their holy bread, claimed 4,000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11, laughed at the memory of taunting a Jewish teacher of his with a Swastika and wrote a poem referring to Jews as “monkeys and losers” and being “the bacteria of all times”. Why does he associate with Azzam Tamimi, who has advocated suicide bombing, has told students he “longs to be a martyr” and that Israel “must come to an end”?
For all these reasons, I and many others cannot understand why Amnesty is giving White a platform to propagate his abhorrent and mendacious views unchallenged, and I would urge you to reconsider your support for this event. Alternatively, you could postpone it in order to put on a revised event that would enable a genuine debate to take place with a speaker who holds a different view to that of Mr. White, for example, Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh who lives in Israel.


Yours sincerely,


Harvey Rose
Chairman


cc. Jewish Chronicle
London Jewish News
Jerusalem Post
Haaretz
Evening Standard
Jewish Telegraph

ADVERTISING WATCHDOG CONDEMNS WEBSITE OF PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY MISSION TO UK

The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled that the website of the Palestine Authority Mission to the UK was misleading.
 
The violations of the CAP Code included an interactive graphic showing Palestine covering the whole territory from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing Israel from the map. The website also described Jaffa as “a Palestinian Arab city … military occupied by Israel since 1948”. There were also misleading statements regarding Jerusalem, Hebron and Bethlehem.
 
The website was changed shortly before the ruling was confirmed.
 
Alan Aziz, Director of the Zionist Federation said:
 
“We welcome this finding and thank the members of the ZF who submitted complaints. It is vitally important that the British public receives accurate information about the Middle East.”
 
Jonathan Turner, Head of the ZF’s legal group, said:
 
“The ASA should be congratulated on its careful and impartial scrutiny. Too often we are on the defensive against attacks on Israel and Israeli organisations. As this ruling shows, those who attack us should pay more attention to failings in their own camp. We will examine the revised website as well as other advertising and if necessary make further complaints.”
 
We have images from the website prior to it being changed available upon request.
 
The Zionist Federation has spokespeople available for comment at your disposal both in the UK and in Israel. During office hours please email Stefan@zfuk.org or call 020 8202 0202. For out of office times please call Stefan Kerner on 07767 370 620 or Alan Aziz on 07768 946 868.
 
 

WHAT MESSAGING WORKS

There is much debate over what words and lines are effective when discussing the Israel Palestinian conflict and how an advocate for Israel can put their case in the most favourable manner.

Recently, ‘The Israel Project’ has run a number of focus groups to find out what messages work with the general public and how best to present Israel’s case. The most recent research was carried out with British University students and the preliminary results may come as a surprise to some readers.

Although the general anti-Israel message does seem to have had an effect in the overall perception of the conflict, the specifics of roadblocks, settlements and other such activities were not brought up those being surveyed as reasons for this sentiment; more it was a general sense that Israel had committed humanitarian violations which had, in turn, disenfranchised the Palestinians. Yet despite this, there was no consensus of one side being right and the other being wrong. Those surveyed saw things in shades of grey rather than black and white.

Perhaps reassuringly, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) did not appear to have made much traction with any students beyond those attending particularly aggressive campuses; and boycotts, particularly academic ones, had very little support both as a concept and as an effective technique to pressurise Israel.

What we can learn from this is that we do not necessarily need to be overly concerned about dealing with specific attacks and accusations made against Israel by our opponents and should concentrate on delivering a simple, positive message about Israel in order to counter them.

The strongest messages appeared to be centred around the inclusivity of Israeli society and Israel’s leading position in alternative energy and technology advancements. Among the students surveyed, the fact that Muslim and Christian Arabs have the right to vote and serve in the parliament proved both surprising and very encouraging. And although the students did not see Israel’s scientific strengths as reason to become supportive of the state, the issue does allow the discussion to become broader based.

The weakest message for this particular group seemed to be the religious one that G-d gave the Land of Israel to the Jews and they have lived there for thousands of years.

Also, there is a consideration to be made about discussing the advances and contributions Israel has made to the world in such a strong manner, as the natural response to this was that if it was so good then it must be able to solve the conflict if it really wanted to.

Overall, what we can take from the focus groups is that students who may not instantly become pro-Israel are open to discussion and that the BDS movement have been quite successful in creating a general negative image of Israel without the use for specifics.

Moving forward, although the focus group, where these result emanated, concentrated on university students and its findings are very preliminary, there is no reason to limit the conclusions to just this demographic group. These ideas can be conveyed in debate with other groups as well and should be used as a guide rather than the rule for all cases.




With thanks to ‘The Israel Project’ for organising the focus groups and for producing the results.

BEHIND THE LINES: POLLARD'S PLIGHT

BY GIL HOFFMAN, THE JERUSALEM POST
November 11, 2011

Ahead of 26th anniversary of Jonathan Pollard's arrest, an exclusive
look at year-old clemency request reveals how his case was mishandled.

Following the release of Gilad Schalit from the clutches of Hamas in the
Gaza Strip, one of the questions most often asked to spokesmen for
Israel who address audiences in the United States is why Israeli agent
Jonathan Pollard remains in an American federal prison.

Pollard will enter his 27th year in captivity on November 21, even
though the median sentence for those convicted of passing classified
information to an ally is just two to four years.

No one else in American history has ever received a life sentence for
this offense.

Successive Democratic and Republican regimes in Washington can be blamed
for not commuting Pollard's sentence. Some hold American Jewish leaders
responsible for not taking a public stand on Pollard until recently and
still not taking enough action.

The last seven prime ministers of Israel undoubtedly could have each
made Pollard a higher priority.

But an exclusive look at Pollard's request for clemency from US
President Barack Obama, which he submitted a year ago, tells a deeper
story of intrigue, legal misconduct and the interference of an American
defense secretary known for being anti-Israel.

Pollard filed his request for clemency last October and over the past
year added seven supplemental filings with letters to Obama calling for
his release from many current and former senior American and Israeli
officials. After a plea from Pollard's wife Esther, Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu followed up with his own formal request three months
later.

A White House spokesman confirmed in May that such requests tend to be
answered within six weeks. He has not said why Obama has been dragging
his feet.

Clemency requests were also filed in 1992 to thenpresident George Bush,
in 1993 to then-president Bill Clinton, and in 2008 to then-president
George W. Bush. The first two announced that they had denied the request
to commute Pollard's sentence.

George W. Bush left office without responding to the request at all.

While the US Board of Prisons web site lists a "presumptive parole date"
in 2015, following 30 years of Pollard's sentence, the US Justice
Department is expected to oppose parole, so Pollard is unlikely to
apply. If he did apply and was rejected, it could bar him from
requesting parole for another 15 years and harm chances of persuading a
president to grant clemency.

Those close to Pollard warn that due to his poor health, he may not
survive four more years in prison. His clemency request reveals for the
first time his long list of ailments: Diabetes, nausea, dizziness,
blackouts and ongoing issues with his gall bladder, kidneys, sinuses,
eyes and feet. He also suffers from Meniere's disease, which causes him
to lose consciousness and fall without warning.

Despite an exemplary prison record, applying for parole is also not an
option for Pollard because of a severe impediment unilaterally imposed
by the US Justice Department preventing his pro bono attorneys, Eliot
Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, from seeing key documents that were
submitted to the judge before he was sentenced in 1987.

Requests for the lawyers to have access to Pollard's file have been
rejected even though both lawyers obtained the appropriate "top secret"
security clearances.

Since the lawyers have not seen their client's entire court file, those
opposed to parole have free reign to say anything about Pollard without
the risk of being contradicted by the documents.

Explaining that their client was not seeking to exonerate himself via a
pardon, Pollard's lawyers wrote in the clemency request that "while
there are serious and substantial issues surrounding the sentencing
process, Mr. Pollard has exhausted his remedies in the US court system.

His sole remaining avenue of relief from his life sentence is executive
clemency."

The request lists Pollard's offense as "conspiracy to deliver national
defense information to a foreign government," but Pollard stressed in
his own words: "I was never charged with, nor did I plead guilty to
harming the United States or aiding a foreign government that is an
enemy of the US."

Pollard has expressed his remorse for his crime on multiple occasions
and also made a point of reiterating his remorse in the document. The
loyalty that he expresses to the US sounds surprising from a man who
hasn't exactly been treated well by American institutions.

"I have never, to this day, lost my love, respect, and gratitude for
everything this country has given me," Pollard wrote. "I deeply regret
what I did.

While my intention at the time I committed this offense was only to help
protect Israel and never to cause damage to the US, I have long since
come to understand that what I did was wrong and that I should have
acted on my concerns in a more appropriate, legal manner."

Pollard received a life sentence on March 4, 1987, despite a plea
agreement he signed a year earlier in which he committed to plead guilty
and cooperate fully with the investigation against him in return for a
commitment by the American government not to seek a life sentence.

Prior to the sentencing, the Department of Justice which revealed that
no concrete harm had been done to the US as a result of Pollard's
espionage.

But then-American defense secretary Caspar Weinberger submitted a
46-page classified declaration two months before the sentencing that
apparently claimed the opposite. Just one day before the sentencing he
submitted another, shorter letter to the judge in which he falsely
accused Pollard of causing at least as much harm to American national
security as had spies for the Soviet Union who were given life
sentences.

Portions of the Weinberger declaration that are in the public record
indicate that it consisted largely of projections of possible future
harm.

Pollard's lawyer at the time, who had full access to the document,
responded to it by saying that "Secretary Weinberger nowhere alleges
that the US has lost the lives or utility of any agents, that it has
been obligated to replace or relocate intelligence equipment, that it
had to alter communication signals, or that it has lost other sources of
information, or that our technology has been compromised.

Indeed the memorandum only discusses the possibility that sources may be
compromised in the future."

Years after other agents were convicted of revealing information that
Pollard was accused of leaking, his current lawyers wrote in the
clemency request that it is likely that many of Weinberger's projections
never came to pass and that scrutinizing his declaration would confirm
that.

"The passage of nearly a quarter century has demonstrated that the
anticipated harm to the US has not materialized and never will," the
lawyers wrote. "Inasmuch as Mr. Pollard's life sentence was premised, in
substantial measure on these projections, commuting of the sentence
would be just and appropriate."

Weinberger's downplaying of Pollard's case in a 2002 interview with
journalist Edwin Black substantiated the lawyers' belief that the harm
Weinberger projected did not materialize.

"The Pollard matter was comparatively minor," Weinberger told Black.
"It was made far bigger than its actual importance."

Weinberger's deputy at the time of the Pollard affair, Lawrence Korb,
who is currently one of the most outspoken advocates for Pollard's
release, recently said that "Weinberger had an almost visceral dislike
of Israel."

If Weinberger's declarations were so damaging, why didn't Pollard object
to the last-minute submissions, rebut them or request a hearing at which
the government would have had to prove Weinberger's charges or withdraw
them? The apparent answer is that Richard Hibey, the lawyer of Lebanese
descent whom Israel paid to represent Pollard, did not tell him that he
was entitled to any of those approaches.
Pollard's clemency request includes a lengthy opinion written by former
federal judge George Leighton of Chicago in which he blamed Hibey for
not preventing the life sentence Pollard received.

"The evidence shows that the government engaged in serious misconduct
that went unchecked by an ineffective defense counsel, Richard Hibey,
and that these constitutional violations severely prejudiced Mr.
Pollard and resulted in his life sentence," Leighton wrote. "He was
deprived of effective assistance of counsel as a result of his counsel's
failure to deal competently with unproven, highly damaging eleventh hour
factual assertions made by the government in a supplemental declaration
of secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger submitted the day before
sentencing."

The most problematic mistake by Hibey, who later represented the
Palestinian Authority in American courts, was that after the sentencing,
he did not file a onepage request for an appeal within the required 10
days. This barred Pollard from ever appealing his life sentence, and as
a result, there has never been any direct appellate review of the
sentencing.

Lauer and Semmelman, who became Pollard's lawyers in 2000, have
attempted unsuccessfully to bring the case back to courts, but their
efforts have been rejected on procedural grounds, leaving clemency by an
American president as the only way Pollard can leave prison alive.

"After nearly 25 years, we respectfully suggest that further
incarceration of Mr Pollard would serve no purpose," Lauer and Semmelman
wrote Obama. "Any deterrent effect on others based on the sentence's
severity has been accomplished."

www.jpost.com/Features/FrontLines/Article

ARTICLE BY SIR MARTIN GILBERT TO COMMEMORATE THE 94TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ZF IN 1917

In the autumn if 1917, the British War Cabinet, desperate to persuade the Jews of Russia to urge their government to renew Russia’s flagging war effort, saw a future Jewish Palestine as an inducement and stimulus to the patriotic zeal of Russia’s Jews. To this end, Britain, encouraged the possibility of an eventual Jewish majority in Palestine, even if – with the population then being some 600,000 Arabs and 60,000 Jews – such a majority might take many years to emerge.
On 24 October 1917, the Foreign Secretary, A.J. Balfour told the War Cabinet: ‘The vast majority of Jews in Russia and America, as, indeed, all over the world, now appeared to be favourable to Zionism. If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America.’ On November 1, a senior Foreign Office official noted that the Zionist leaders then in Britain were prepared to send ‘agents’ to Russia and America ‘to work up a pro-ally and especially pro-British campaign of propaganda among the Jews.’
The Balfour Declaration was issued the next day, November 2. To secure the results hoped for by the Foreign Office, Vladimir Jabotinsky agreed to go at once to Russia, to stimulate Russian Jews to urge their government not to pull out of the war, and leave Britain and France in danger of defeat at the unfettered hands of Germany. Weizmann agreed to go first to the United States and then to Russia, to rouse pro-war sentiment among the Jewish masses in both countries. But on November 7, before Jabotinsky or Weizmann could set off, the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd and withdrew Russia from the war.
Publication of the Balfour Declaration had been delayed a week so that it could first be published in the weekly Jewish Chronicle on November 9. It was thus issued too late to affect the Bolshevik triumph. It did, however, encourage American Jews, especially those born in Russia, to volunteer to fight in Palestine against the Turks as part of the British Army. Yitzhak Rabin’s father was among those volunteers.
The Balfour Declaration had nothing in it about Jewish statehood. On 31 October 1917, Balfour told the War Cabinet that while the words ‘national home … did not necessarily involve the early establishment of an independent Jewish State’, such a State ‘was a matter for gradual development in accordance with the ordinary laws of political evolution’.
On 3 January 1919 agreement was reached between Weizmann and the Arab leader Emir Feisal, stating that that all ‘necessary measures’ should be taken ‘to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil’. In taking such measures, the agreement went on, ‘the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.’
On February 27, in Paris, Weizmann presented the Weizmann-Feisal Agreement to the Allied Supreme Council of the victorious powers, which wanted to know if a Jewish ‘nationality’ would involve eventual statehood? Weizmann told them: ‘Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.’ On July 5, Balfour informed the British general then in charge of Palestine that land purchase could continue ‘provided that, as far as possible, preferential treatment is given to Zionist interests’.
When Winston Churchill was asked, in 1937 by the Royal Commission on Palestine, whether a Jewish majority had been intended by those who, like himself while Colonial Secretary in 1922, had been responsible for the evolution of the Mandate, he replied: ‘Certainly we committed ourselves to the idea that some day, somehow, far off in the future, subject to justice and economic convenience, there might well be a great Jewish State there, numbered by millions, far exceeding the present inhabitants of the country and to cut them [the Jews] off from that would be a wrong.’