Letters to the Editor June 1, 2020: The second wave

Readers of The Jerusalem Post have their say.

By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters (photo credit: PIXABAY)
Letters
(photo credit: PIXABAY)
The second wave
Regarding “PM: Lockdown will return if coronavirus guidelines ignored” (May 31), congratulations to our Health Ministry director for shooting the biggest own goal for a long time.
Why on earth did they wait for somebody to appear in a very large secondary school with symptoms of COVID-19? Why did they not randomly test over a one-week period all the teachers and staff in such a large institution? Have they learned nothing from the care homes and the need for continual testing? We clearly should have learned by now that the heat does not kill the virus. If anything, it is the heat wave of the previous week that has revived the virus in schools.
What was the point of shutting down drive-in testing centers in big cities? Everybody knows that more densely populated areas are more dangerous. Learning to live with the virus does not mean twiddling one’s thumbs until somebody is infected, especially when we know that asymptomatic people can be infectious and this virus is contagious.
PETER SIMPSON
Jerusalem
The number of new virus cases on May 24 was five. Wonderful.
The next four days, the numbers of new cases were 17, 23, 36 and 79, the first time the daily count had gone up four straight days in over two months. The daily average over the last seven days went up 80% from the week before, the highest rate of increase since April 3 – and the rate had been decreasing since April 8.
Most concerning is that, due to the lag between the time someone is infected and the time symptoms develop and that person is diagnosed, infecting others in the interim, these changes likely reflect what was really happening weeks ago, when restrictions first started getting eased.
It’s likely the second wave has already started, but I see crowds of people acting as if the pandemic is over.
I don’t believe the economy needed to be shut down or needs to be shut down again, but the social distancing and face-covering regulations have to be observed and enforced.
It ain’t over until the fat lady sings and I don’t hear her.
ALAN STEIN
Netanya
Innocent until proven guilty?
“Trying times for the prime minister and country” (May 28) had much food for thought. However, it is unfair to compare Yisrael Hayom to Yediot Aharonot.
Writing “The attempt to pass legislation tailor-made to close down Yisrael Hayom – the country’s only largely pro-Netanyahu daily paper and Yediot’s main competitor – was an assault on the free press and democracy,” neglects to mention that Yisrael Hayom is indeed “free.” It is distributed free all over Israel by uniformed distributors. It cannot be bought.
 If American billionaire Sheldon Adelson wants to participate in the “marketplace of ideas” in Israel, let him charge a fair price for the paper and compete fairly with Yediot and other Israeli newspapers. We will then see the true circulation figures and drawing power of casino-mogul Adelson’s “pro-Netanyahu” newspaper.
Noni Mozes, publisher of Yediot, has legitimate business interests. He is justified in attempting to protect his “business.” Leveling the playing field, with all publishers having to charge for their wares is fair and better for democracy.
MOSHE PECK
Jerusalem
 
Regarding “Dershowitz on Netanyahu trial: ‘Israel should be deeply ashamed’” (May 25), Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz is once again standing up for Israel. The well-known American legal scholar says that Israel is the first country in history put a leader on trial for trying to get good media coverage, continuing that if this were to be a crime, then half of the members of the Knesset would be in jail.
“Let the Knesset pass statutes,” he says, knowing that they likely never will.
Dershowitz’s most recent and impressive appearance was at the beginning of the year, when he appeared before the US Senate regarding the impeachment trial of US President Donald Trump. Never one to let his personal or political opinions stand in the way of his professional dealings (he admitted voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election), he argued then as he does now in the Israeli 1000 case that no crime was committed.
DAVID SMITH
Ra’anana
The invention of a new crime unknown in international law on one flimsy precedent as means for indicting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is confirmation of his long-time complaint of bias against him by the legal establishment. While it may be difficult to approve of all of his tactical means of discrediting this bias, it no doubt underscores the severe personal injustice done to him, and the damage it does to the public trust in a central institution of the state.
 Poor and perhaps even malicious legal judgment may not be a crime, but it should not be the basis for deposing a prime minister of the State of Israel.
SHALOM FREEDMAN
Jerusalem
I have read the excellent analysis of Yonah Jeremy Bob, but it leaves me confused at the end.
It seems that the concept of media bribery as a criminal, as distinct from an ethical, offence was only now enunciated by a single court in a case judged on other grounds. In English law that would be treated as obiter dicta and not creating any precedent.
Further, it means that we are prosecuting the prime minister on the legal fiction that what the court declares is the law was always the law, notwithstanding that no one knew that it was.
Plainly, Former prime minister Ehud Olmert knew that what he was doing was a crime, but could even his enemies say that Netanyahu knew? Is this now an absolute crime so that a person is guilty even though he reasonably thought that it was not an offence?
Politics is the art of persuasion and the limits between was is legally acceptable and what is not are, I would have thought, a matter for legislation by the Knesset, not the judges. On what basis did the earlier court consider that it had an obligation to deal with the matter, knowing the effect of its judgment on Netanyahu?
Bob does not say whether any other jurisdiction adopts a similar extension of bribery; if not, then why are we the first? Whether what Netanyahu did was sufficient to require him to resign is beyond my competence, but that he should be prosecuted for it astounds me.
M. RABIN LLM
Har Nof, Jerusalem
Annexation vexation
Regarding “Annexation: Is it worth the risk?” (May 31), the Jewish people were given sovereignty to Judea and Samaria at the 1920 San Remo Conference, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration. The League of Nations ratified this status in Article 22.
The UN Charter in Article 80 requires its member states – including every member of the EU – to honor these past agreements, which confirm the Jewish peoples’ sovereign right to Judea and Samaria. The Israeli government will simply be restoring the Jewish peoples’ sovereignty to Judea and Samaria in accordance with these international agreements and documents. Neither Jordan nor any other Arab entity has such a legitimate claim to sovereignty of this land.
“Annexation” has nothing to do with it, no matter how often the word is repeated and by whom.
 For the above-mentioned historical reasons, Eugene Rostow, former US Undersecretary of State and Dean of Yale Law School in a letter to The New York Times published on September 19, 1983 declared Israel’s rights to the settlements “unassailable.”
RICHARD SHERMAN
Margate, Florida
Here we go again – our enemies setting our agenda.
Sadly we can’t even get the term right. One does not “annex” what already is ours. Sovereignty, something that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have declared any time he wanted during a far-too-long tenure.
Our enemies already have us shaking with fear by re-starting their attacks and deadly balloons. Who can forget seeing our IDF actually running from terrorists – not to mention the shameful episode of the metal detectors placed on the Temple Mount after two policemen were shot by the Arabs. Netanyahu couldn’t wait to contact Jordan’s King Abdullah and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas and assure them every piece of equipment would be removed because Abbas had threatened that no Arab would enter the Temple Mount while the detectors were there. That says it all as to the betrayal of our leadership.
EDITH OGNALL
Netanya
Regarding annexation of part of the West Bank, Americans envision a possible eventual settlement with final satisfaction of Palestinian goals by the establishment of a state for them in parts of the disputed areas.
The fact that the US believes in the possibility of this scenario shows once again that they are still unaware, after all these years, and in spite of all the experience and evidence, that the one and only, Palestinian goal is to replace Israel altogether. All the American planning and effort should have been devoted to changing this Palestinian mindset, since until that is achieved, all the rest will achieve nothing.
The Palestinians have made this clear again and again over the years, but everyone ignores it, spending untold time, manpower and money chasing imaginary visions of peace.
The West cannot accept that Palestinians do not share the same worldview as the Americans and will behave very differently. The Palestinian leaders’ ambitions are based on deception regarding the historical and legal facts of the matter, as well as everything to do with Israel and Jews in general. As a result, their religious fervor and belief that there was and will again be a state of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, i.e. replacing the whole of Israel, is unshakable and will remain their driving force, at the expense of all other considerations, forever.
CHARLES SMITH
Moshav Shoresh
 
Perhaps the same standards should be applied to the European Union countries that oppose Israeli annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria.
Germany needs to unannex Sarre, (which the Germans persist in referring to as “Saarland”) and restore it to France. Belgium needs to unannex Walonreye (Wallonia). France needs to unannex Corsica, Burgundy, Guadeloupe, Guiana, and New Caledonia. Spain needs to unannex Catalunya (Catalonia), Melilla, and Ceuta. Portugal needs to unannex Madeira and Açores (Azores). Italy needs to unannex Sardigna (Sardinia) and Sicilia (Sicily). Denmark needs to unannex Føroyar (Faroe Islands) and Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland). Finland needs to unannex Åland and Karjala (Karelia).
As for the ex-EU member United Kingdom, whose misadministration of its Mandate deprived Israel of Judea and Samaria in the first place, those there who so vocally object to the reintegration of that territory into Israel (including certain members of the Royal family) would do well to direct their energies towards the UK’s disannexation of Ulster, Gibraltar, and the Malvinas.
KALMAN H. RYESKY
Petah Tikva
In “An open letter to Gabi Ashkenazi” (May 25), the writer says, “The most urgent priority is to ensure that in the window of time between July and November, no unilateral moves are made that irrevocably exclude a future arrangement based on the two-state principle.”
Since nothing that the Jewish people and the State of Israel have done since accepting the UN Partition Plan in 1947 has had the result of bringing the two-state principle closer to fruition, this suggestion is egregious, insulting and promotes a fictional conception of the peace process.
An item totally missing from the article’s advice is to resurrect the San Remo Resolution to show that Israel is acting in accord with international law, a point that has been ignored by Israeli diplomats.
Interestingly, the main framers of that resolution, the United Kingdom and France, are among the major deniers of its implications regarding the Jewish people’s right to this territory and the legality of its actions.
Of course, that reflects their pro-Arab stance going back many decades.
HAIM SHALOM SNYDER
Petah Tikva
Regarding “Jordan: Israeli annexation will create apartheid state” (May 28, front page), I nominate Jordan as this week’s winner of the chutzpa award.
There already is apartheid in Israel – it’s in all areas controlled by the Hashemite king and the Abbas/Hamas terror states. There is a “no Jews allowed” policy in all of these areas.
Jordan, an artificial state established for the non-indigenous Hashemites, is occupying approximately 75% of biblical Israel; land originally designated for the Jewish state. After the War of Independence, Jordan occupied Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem for only 19 years. Upon capturing the Old City, they banished all the Jews and spent those 19 years of occupation destroying all of the Old City’s synagogues and a major portion of the Mount of Olives Cemetery.
They now have the chutzpah to threaten Israel’s declaring sovereignty over its own lands! Apparently, any Jewish sovereignty, for live Jews or even dead Jews, upsets them.
Here’s one Jew living in Samaria who is quite happy to upset them!
SAMMY HIRSCHMAN
Karnei Shomron
Hail to the chief
In “Move over Yuli - here comes Miriam” (May 27), Greer Fay Cashman mentions worthy candidates for Israel’s next president: Yuli Edelstein, Isaac Herzog, Miriam Peretz and even Benjamin Netanyahu.
I’d like to add another possibility: Avishai Braverman, who served as president of Ben Gurion University of the Negev from 1990 to 2006. Braverman raised Ben Gurion University (BGU) from its status as a dusty backwater to its current status as an internationally acclaimed and powerful university. Scholars and students now strive to attend BGU. BGU served as a catalyst for the development of Beersheba to its current metropolitan/cosmopolitan prowess.
I saw Braverman at work while I chaired the Physics Department. His enthusiasm, motivation and dedication inspired everybody who came in contact with him. He deserves consideration.
PROF. EMERITUS YIGAL HOROWITZ
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev