predicament. it seems to me, it s actually pretty compelling, that if you can t get something consequential for pollard, why trade him? trade him for time. if you told me we re getting the fix to jerusalem borders, we re getting a framework agreement, i d be right there breaking open the champagne. if the president wants to let pollard go, let him release pollard on humanitarian grounds. served long enough, he s ill, let him do that. but don t conflate jonathan pollard s apples to peace process s oranges and undermine the morale of the peace process. if this makes it easier for prime minister netanyahu to make the kinds of concessions the palestinians want, the u.s. want, for domestic political reasons, because as you know pollard is a big issue over there in israel, a lot of israelis think he was betrayed by the israeli government itself. if this makes it easier for netanyahu to make those kinds of concessions, whether settlements or jerusalem or whatever, wouldn t that be worth it
the u.s. perspective? if the release of jonathan pollard would induce the prime minister of israel to fundamentally change positions on jerusalem borders, security and refugees so-called final status issues. well, absolutely. wolf, it won t. and you remember in the fall of 2010, the administration, in order to secure a two-month extension of the settlements freeze, wouldn t etch give the israelis f-35s and a lot of other military equipment for a two-month extension. this, wolf, is a tactic in search of a stratstrategy. pollard is like a fallen soldier to them. they abandoned him. as you know, you wrote the book on it. they abandoned him. their asking is not the problem. the issue is why are we acquiescing, and to buy time for a process that is fundamentally impaired. it s not a done deal yet. it sure isn t. we ll see what happens. i remember the y river talks.