Response to Levitin Article in Yated Ne'eman

November 29, 1997

To: Editor Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz
From: Esther Pollard (Mrs. Jonathan Pollard)
Date: November 28, 1997

"Pollard Visited by Israeli Absorption Minister Edelstein"

, Yated Ne'eman, Nov. 28, 1997, p.90, D.D. Levitin

Dear Editor:

In the above article, D.D. Levitin twists and distorts the facts of the Pollard case. His distortions do harm to my husband and fly in the face of of the din of pidyan shvuyim that the G'dolei HaDor have applied to my husband's case. Four years ago (October 15, 1993) your own newspaper published a full page ad sponsored by all the Roshei Yeshivas calling upon all Jews to participate in the Mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim for my husband. A copy of a recent letter from my husband's rav, HaRav Mordecai Eliahu, shlita, on the matter follows. It is therefore particularly painful to my husband and myself to see falsehood spread by what is supposed to be a newspaper of the observant community.

Levitin starts with kernels of truth and then superimposes his own subjective views and inventions on the subject so that by the time he is done, the truth is no longer recognizable.

A few examples:

  1. With regard to the broken plea agreement, Levitin turns reality on its head. It was the US Government that flagrantly violated the plea agreement with my husband, and not the opposite as Levitin suggests.

  2. Without the Government's permission, Blitzer could not have gotten in to see Jonathan in prison. After granting all the necessary clearances and permissions the Government then claimed that the meeting took place without their knowledge, which is ridiculous, and used that as their excuse for violating the plea agreement.

    Contrary to what Levitin claims, the Government's violation of the plea agreement with Jonathan had NOTHING to do with anything that Jonathan said to Blitzer, only with the fact that Jonathan saw him at all- a meeting approved and facilitated by the government!

    It is therefore tantamount to spilling my husband's blood to make the wicked statement that Jonathan is still in prison because he abrogated the plea agreement and if he hadn't done so, "he would long ago have been set free".

    Furthermore, it is worthy of note that the judge based Jonathan's draconion sentence on a politically-driven damage assessment by then secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, and not on any violation of the plea agreement.

  3. As US NEWS & WORLD REPORT writer Richard Chesnoff's recent articles on his frustrated attempts to interview my husband for over a year now testify, the Navy has made it impossible for reporters to get anywhere near my husband for the last 10 years. (See Chesnoff on our website at My husband is prevented from doing any kind of interviews including telephone interviews.

    Therefore, Levitin's claim that Jonathan did a telephone interview recently is patently false and his claim that Jonathan has a "long history of making rash public comments that hurt his case" is not only false, it is vicious slander.

  4. Phil Baum speaks for a quorum of one. Every self-respecting newspaper including the Jewish Week of New York and The Chicago Jewish Star refused to publish Baum's comments because they fly in the face of the facts. Or in other words, they simply do not jive with what is known about the case today or with Apellate Court Justice Steven Williams definition of the case as a "complete and gross miscarriage of justice". And if that does not concern Baum, not only as a Jew but as an American who cares about equal justice for all, then that is his problem. But Levitin's treatment of Baum's misguided and myopic comments as if they deserved credibility and represented anyone other than himself, seriously calls into question Levitin's judgement and his motivation.

  5. Similarly Levitin's handling of Hoenlein's comments as if they were gospel, when they fly in the face of the documented record, and of irrefutable proof, is a sad commentary on Levitin's credibility. The Conference of Presidents has never placed the Pollard case officially on the agenda of any meeting with the president - and the message has not been lost on the president either. Hoenlein is free to dissemble, if he chooses, but a little research on Levitin's part might have resulted in a much more truthful presentation of the facts to your readers.

  6. Levitin uses quotes out of context to present an inaccurate and twisted picture of my husband's health.

The above are just a few of the examples of Levitin's distortions.

In a recent letter to Minister Yuli Edelstein my husband wrote:

"Mr. Minister, it is clear to Esther and to me that it is not by chance that G-d has sent an honest man into this affair, especially at this late date and at this particular moment in time. The only thing that is keeping me in prison are lies...."

And the worst lies of all are not the one being promoted by our enemies,but by those who claim to be "neutral". People like Levitin. If indeed Levitin is simply reporting the facts, then his failure to do his homework has done a great disservice to the truth and to my husband's fight for freedom. Shame on Levitin. Shame on Yated Ne'eman for publishing such unprofessional tripe when a Jew's life hangs in the balance over every word that is written.

For factual, up-to date information on the case, see our website. Both myself and Mr. Larry Dub Esq., (Jonathan's attorney) invite your contact for future articles.

Yours truly,

Esther Pollard
(Mrs. Jonathan Pollard)

  • See Also: Why Pollard is Suing the American Jewish Leadership