The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, may need to consider resigning. Recently, a report from The New York Times indicated that Jonathan J. Pollard, who was convicted of espionage in 1987, claimed to have had some “friendly” private discussions with Huckabee back in July. Huckabee confirmed that meeting on Thursday.
This situation seems quite unusual. While Huckabee has participated in significant diplomatic events, there’s no record of previous U.S. ambassadors having direct, private discussions with someone like Pollard—who was a convicted traitor to the country. This lack of public information raises eyebrows about the appropriateness of Huckabee’s actions.
Pollard was found guilty of supplying classified U.S. documents to Israel in exchange for money, and it’s been alleged that some of that information eventually reached the Soviet Union, according to journalist Seymour Hersh.
At the time of Pollard’s arrest, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger remarked on the serious damage Pollard had inflicted on national security by revealing critical information to Israel. He suggested that the volume of classified documents Pollard had could fill a sizable space.
Israel did admit its involvement and even offered a formal apology, but that came years later, in 1998, after Pollard had already been imprisoned since 1987. Pollard, who served a lengthy sentence, was paroled in 2015 and subsequently acquired Israeli citizenship while under parole conditions. He later moved to Israel, as his parole was not extended by the Trump administration. He remains a profoundly controversial figure in the context of U.S. intelligence.
The circumstances surrounding Huckabee’s meeting with Pollard are particularly troubling. Given the sensitive nature of the discussion, one wonders why Huckabee didn’t inform higher authorities or seek permission for such an engagement. The White House confirmed that it was unaware of the meeting and has publicly supported Huckabee, but still—shouldn’t there have been some communication with the Secretary of State?
It’s perplexing to consider what value such a meeting could bring to U.S. foreign policy. What does it accomplish in terms of advancing the nation’s interests? There’s a broader question, too, about why the U.S. might choose to engage with individuals who have previously undermined it.
Pollard described the meeting as a private occasion to thank Huckabee for his efforts in advocating for Pollard’s release. But even if that’s true, did Huckabee truly need to hold such a secretive meeting? It raises eyebrows.
Interestingly, Pollard has expressed no regret over his past actions. He’s gone so far as to criticize Trump, referring to him as “a madman,” and has made it clear that his loyalty lies solely with Israel. He has stated that he supports an “Israel first” policy and views his imprisonment as a consequence of that loyalty.
Ultimately, Pollard’s actions are viewed as treasonous. He put another nation’s interests above those of his own country. It’s worth questioning why Huckabee felt the need to engage with someone like Pollard in such a clandestine manner, even if it was purportedly just to say thank you. The mere fact that Huckabee met with someone who holds such views is troubling enough.
