LEAVE RELIGION OUT OF JONATHAN POLLARD CASE; DEFENDER'S CLAIMS OF ANTI-SEMITISM FAIL TO COVER UP SPY'S ACT OF TREASON.

Byline: JONATHAN S. SHAPIRO Local View

BEFORE Jonathan Pollard, the most famous spy to work on behalf of Israel was Caleb, the man Moses sent to scope out the land of Canaan in one of history's earliest espionage missions.

There is, of course, one big difference between Caleb and Pollard.

Caleb was a hero. Pollard is a traitor.

A civilian U.S. Naval Intelligence officer, Pollard passed reams of secret information to Israel. This information was gathered by various American intelligence agencies over an extended period of time through various secret means and related to the military readiness of several Arab nations.

Arrested by FBI agents in 1985, Pollard pleaded guilty and received a life sentence. He is now serving that sentence in a federal prison in Butner, N.C.

Pollard has doggedly maintained that he got a raw deal. He has tried to convince the world - and perhaps himself - that he was a victim of anti-Semitism, that what he did was not serious and that he deserves to be pardoned.

Last month, the entire Middle East peace process ground to a halt as Israel demanded Pollard's release as a condition of signing the Wye Plantation agreement with the Palestinians. Israel relented, but only after exacting a promise that President Clinton would consider reviewing the case.

When and if Clinton gets around to doing so, he ought to remember a few facts about the Pollard affair.

First, it is not, as Pollard's supporters have suggested, the American version of the Dreyfus affair. French army captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused and convicted by his country of spying on behalf of Germany in 1894. Like Pollard, he was Jewish.

But the similarities end there. Dreyfus was absolutely innocent and eventually exonerated in court. Pollard is unequivocally guilty. There is certainly anti-Semitism in this country. But it had nothing to do with Pollard's conviction.

Pollard committed an extraordinarily serious crime. Sworn to protect the nation's secrets, he broke his word and the law. In so doing, he compromised the nation's intelligence gathering system and made a mockery of our foreign policy. It was not for Pollard unilaterally to decide what should be classified and what should not. It was not for Pollard to decide which country should get secret information and which should not.

Imagine that Pollard felt loyalty to Syria and released secret information regarding Israel's military strength to that country. The illegality of his actions would not have been any different. And the potential repercussions on our foreign policy would not have been any less disastrous.

Pollard's actions have put a terrible strain on the American-Israeli relationship. After decades of denials, Israel finally admitted Pollard was its spy earlier this year, an embarrassing revelation that seriously compromises Israel's reputation and credibility at a time it could ill afford it. Whether Pollard felt more loyalty for America or Israel is immaterial. He served both nations badly.

Pollard was not treated more harshly than other spies. Between 1984 to 1987, 27 Americans were charged with espionage - 26 of them were convicted. Consider these other spies: James Hall, arrested in 1988, was sentenced to 40 years in prison; John Walker, arrested the same year as Pollard, received two life terms plus 197 years; and Jerry Whitworth received five life terms plus 197 years.

A life sentence is undeniably harsh. And some spies did get less time. But Pollard is not the first defendant who can point to others who received less punishment than he did. Sentencing is inherently an imperfect science. Disproportion is not, by itself, grounds for a pardon.

Finally, Pollard's post-conviction conduct has been appalling. Rather than express remorse, he has proudly stated that he acted with courage, that it would have been cowardice for him not to break the law.

Moreover, he and his supporters have played the race card. They have suggested, without any solid evidence, that then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger went after Pollard in order to act out some odd form of self-hatred. (Weinberger is not Jewish, though several of his relatives were.)

Even worse, Pollardians have said that federal Judge Aubrey Robinson, who sentenced Pollard, only gave him life because the judge is African-American and wrongly believed that information Pollard passed was given to the apartheid government of South Africa. Such an unfounded allegation is precisely the kind of race-baiting Pollard claims he was a victim of and objects to in the case.

Prisons are filled with men and women who believe they have been punished too severely. Many of them are poor. Many of them are serving sentences for less serious crimes than espionage. Few of them deserve a reduction of their sentence. Fewer still will get one.

To award Pollard clemency, either out of some misunderstanding over the severity of what he did or as a matter of political expediency would be a significant insult to our justice system.

Pollard is neither a prisoner of honor nor an admirable hero. If he ends up serving his whole sentence, he will have no one to blame but himself.