Letters to the Editor: Unfair decision

Strident feminists may see an unrepentant sinner, but sister, I am no less a feminist and I see a man sticking to his principles.

Letters (photo credit: REUTERS)
(photo credit: REUTERS)
Unfair decision
I was saddened that the parole board rejected former president Moshe Katsav’s request for release from prison after having served two-thirds of his sentence, “Ex-president Katsav’s request for early parole denied,” April 7.
The rejection appears to have been based on the fact that he has staunchly maintained his innocence, and because of pressure from women’s groups that releasing him was against the interests of his alleged victims and would not send a message of deterrence to others holding high office from committing the same crime.
Surely the fact that he has protested his innocence when an admission and a false declaration of remorse might, indeed probably would, have brought him early release, has to mean something.
Strident feminists may see an unrepentant sinner, but sister, I am no less a feminist and I see a man sticking to his principles.
During his time in prison Katsav has by all accounts been a model prisoner. At 70, and clearly a broken man, he in no way resembles the predatory rapist creeping up on an unsuspecting woman in a dark alley.
In fact there is no way that his early release could be considered by any rational person a threat.
So in spite of the much vaunted equality before the law it is difficult to think that in fact Katsav will have to serve out the rest of his sentence only because he is a former president, a decision that is clearly unfair and, in my opinion, vindictive.
Cruel behavior
The military prosecution is investigating the Hebron soldier as the worst criminal and like a terrorist. It is incomprehensible, that after the military court decided to release this soldier from prison, and keep him free in a military basis, the prosecution is appealing again and again against this decree.
Why? There is no plausible reason that this soldier will escape, or try to kill another terrorist.
So why this cruel behavior of military prosecution toward a soldier, who until yesterday risked his life for defending the people of Israel? The only sensible explanation I have for this eagerness of the prosecution is, that they want to impress B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence and other left-wing organizations, who surely applaud to this cruel behavior of the military prosecution.
I really wonder, to which degree the prosecution has adopted the “values of B’Tselem” and its conducting of this investigation according to their values and credo.
B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence can record new success in watching our so-called military prosecution’s behavior.
These organizations could not do it better than our military prosecutor.
Mr. Ya’alon, you should rather investigate these “laws and values” of your military prosecution, who do – in my opinion – a very biased job.
The outcry about newly delivered mothers preferring to be in wards with women of their own community “Smotrich supports hospital room segregation between Jews and Arabs,” April 6, is not remotely related to “apartheid.”
As a woman who has given birth to several children in Israeli government hospitals I can sympathize with the need for some quiet and privacy in the first two days after giving birth.
However the real problem, which all the commentators seem to have missed, is that there are, apparently, no formal approved visiting hours to protect patients, and shield the newborns from the risk of multiple infections carried in off the street by the general public.
In other hospital departments, such as cardiac intensive care, there seems to be little attempt to limit the many hours of public access in crowded multi-occupancy wards. Today the situation is now made worse by the nuisance of prolonged mobile phone conversations, and unlimited numbers of visitors allowed to each patient.
Not the answer
In reference to Daniel Goldman’s article concerning the morals of hospital segregation “Hospital segregation? Remember we were strangers in a strange land,” April 7, some time ago, I went to visit a friend who had major surgery on her knees.
The other patient in the room was entertaining people who had come to visit, and the noise level was deafening. My friend was in a lot of pain and finally, she was moved to another room.
Each patient should have consideration for the other. But it is the hospital who should set rules. They should only allow one or two visitors at a time for each patient and the noise level must be reduced. That way no one suffers.
Separating different people is not the answer.
Stir it up
Haven’t we got enough problems without having to make up others? Since the National Insurance Institute pays for the birth, there has been a growing competition between hospitals as to which one will provide the best service.
Therefore it’s imperative to let the mother choose how she wants to give birth, and yes, what her preferences are after she has given birth.
Mothers are only in the hospital for about 48 hours and then they go home to their family.
But the real question is were there even any Arab women complaining? I think not. MK Ahmad Tibi is just trying to stir things up and MK Nachman Shai should know better than to fall for this nonsense.
Love injection
With regard to “I stand with Israel” (Comment & Features, April 6), what an outstanding piece. I laud and acknowledge writer Yonina Pritzker.
What a wonderful injection of support and love for what Israel is all about, especially at a time when so many people, governments and even Jews are so biased against it. Most of them have never lived here and never experienced the wonder and miracle of this country. My heart cries for them! SHIRNA OSPOVAT Ashkelon On paper Regarding your correction of March 27, thanks are due to The Jerusalem Post and legal affairs reporter Yonah Jeremy Bob for being self-critical enough to reverse errors in Mr. Bob’s March 9 report “Palestinians try to turn US courts on Adelson, Abrams and anyone linked to settlements.”
The original report maintained that “US policy views settlements as illegal.” This was of course an error. The article now correctly refers to “US administrations have... characterized the settlements as illegitimate” etc.
Second, Mr. Bob’s March 9 story referred to “the two-state solution envisioned by UN Security Council Resolution 242.”
This also was an error since Resolution 242 makes no mention of any “two-state solution.”
Since errors on legal-diplomatic matters often dissipate and harm Israel, it is admirable that The Jerusalem Post promptly corrected these errors. The Jerusalem Post was also the only media organization to look into an allegation, widely publicized in Israel and abroad in 2008, that “settlers threw acid at a policeman” in Hebron. The Jerusalem Post was able to establish that this allegation had no basis in fact.
Such responsible media practices cannot be taken for granted.
Just weeks ago, Israel’s Government Press Office had to take a far wealthier media organization – Time Magazine – to task for refusing to correct a serious factual error. Hurrah then, for The Jerusalem Post.
The writer is spokesperson of the NGO Mattot Arim.