Popping the Jonathan Pollard trial balloon

Politically smart. Strategically stupid.

That’s the early verdict on reports that President Barack Obama might try to jump-start the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations via some kind of clemency — from early release to an outright pardon — for Jonathan Pollard, the former Navy analyst who’s been in jail since 1987 for spying for Israel.

In a region where strength is often the most important language, experienced negotiators say that move would exhibit anything but. On the contrary, they say, the Pollard trial balloon itself might be the clearest sign yet that the peace process is essentially over once again.

The issue doesn’t fall along traditional Republican-Democratic, conservative-liberal, right-left lines. Every Israeli leader since Pollard was arrested has tried to get him out, and nearly everyone on the Hill who’s tried to be close to Israel has supported the idea, arguing that his sentence was overly severe and some level of forgiveness should be possible between two friendly countries.

(Also on POLITICO: U.S. talks with Israel on spy release)

Obama could arrange Pollard’s release in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, the kind of absurdly gigantic legacy achievement that American presidents can’t stop chasing even after decades of its proving impossible. And unlike nearly everything else Obama’s done as president, he could very possibly make the decision without having to worry about many, if any, negative press releases or cable television attacks.

For Pollard’s release to ever be used in negotiations, time’s running out: he’s expected to be released next November anyway, when he becomes eligible for parole on his life sentence in a North Carolina prison. (He was eligible for parole in 1995 but is presumed to deserve it starting in November of next year unless authorities make the case against it.) At most, Obama would be accelerating a process by 18 months after the 27 years Pollard spent behind bars.

And the president could use the release to help make amends with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he’s pressed into being much more publicly supportive of the peace process despite a relationship between the two of them that’s always struggled. Netanyahu would clearly love to be the Israeli prime minister who succeeded on Pollard, where all others have failed.

If this were the last stitch needed to sew up a final deal, that would be one thing. But as a ploy to keep negotiations going over a peace framework that’s really more of a working paper, those who’ve been part of prior talks aren’t impressed.

At this point, what Pollard’s being offered up in exchange for isn’t clear, but given the state of the talks, the answer appears to be less peace than some extension of the framework deadline, or perhaps holding off the Palestinians from making another statehood recognition at the United Nations in the fall.

“It shows a certain weakness and desperation, which is never good for presidents and secretaries of state,” said Aaron David Miller, a former State Department senior adviser on the region who was part of the 1998 negotiations.

(Also on POLITICO: Israel minister: Pollard opposes release for talks)

“If, after 30 years we think that Pollard should be released for humanitarian reasons, then we should release him now. We should not make his release part of a complicated negotiations with Palestinians and Israelis over some talks that may not last more than a few weeks anyway,” said Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser overseeing the Middle East for President George W. Bush. “If this were part of a peace deal, then you might say, ‘Don’t think you it’s worth it?’ But it’s being done for a pretty small achievement.”

Khaled Elgindy, a former adviser to the Palestinian negotiators, agreed.

“If true — and it’s a big if at this point given the administration’s denials — it would mean serious desperation on the administration’s part (and the total absence of even a shred of strategic thinking),” Elgindy said by email. “It’s actually worse than a Hail Mary, because there’s no hope of (and isn’t even aimed at) getting a touchdown.”