Donnybrook wrote:Well, I know how much pleasure you get out of writing your posts and didn't think any input from me could add to that pleasure. Also, taking care of a sick husband tends to sap one's social graces. I apologise and will try to expand my "very interesting" a bit for you but I can probably only summon some random thoughts.
This Rotem seems to have gotten a worse deal than the Czech tourist who started the last big fire. I wondered why that was. The Czech did admit to starting the fire and did seem genuinely horrified at what he had done. But he paid his small fine and went home. His government did offer some sort of restitution, although I can't remember if it took the form of just money or also sending experts (in fires? in parks? in reforestation?). I did search around and try to see if anything ever really happened about this but only found references to their promises and nothing concrete about what they actually did or didn't do.
The roughly US$10,000 is way beyond the sum mentioned as the maximum fine under the Ley de Bosques (or Ley del Bosque?) which the media told us, was all they would be able to squeeze out of him. This, in fact, led to some barn door reactions by authorities and promises to give the law some teeth in the future. This, in turn, made me wonder why it seemed preferable to Rotem (or his lawyers, or the Israeli government) to avoid the court proceedings if it was not going to be a big deal financially and he couldn't be jailed for longer than 60 days (not that I would want to spend 60 days in jail). According to his lawyers there was little direct evidence to link him to the fire. If that was so, why not go to court and watch the government try to win its case? Even if they won, the consequences did not seem catastrophic.
The fact that part of the deal was for Rotem to remain in Chile for two years and actually have some hands on time with the reforestation - or whatever the plan is - was also interesting to me. Perhaps I missed something along the way as I have mainly used your posts to follow the story, but I don't remember anyone mentioning the possibility that the outcome of the legal issues included remaining in the country beyond the time before the trial. It seemed the plot was simpler than that and would end with a slap on the wrist for Rotem and a cheque from the Israeli government.
Since some of the things you mentioned were surprising, I found them interesting. I probably should have included a thank you with my comment as you took the time to write such an informative post, one which interested me. So, a belated thank you. In future, if I cannot summon more than a couple of words, I will mutter my "very interesting' to myself for fear of causing offense by the paucity of my input.
Sleepless nights. As they say, tell me about it.
Ooops -- I hope you know that I was just kidding. That the lame attempt at humour wasn't missed. And thanks for keeping the matter going.
To recap the fire and aftermath caused by the Czech, you are correct, the Czech government donated about US$1 million for the reforestation. There is now some dispute about what CONAF did with the money. It remains to seen what the value will be of the Israeli fund and contributions on the ground. That is, will there be more people taking pictures of reforestation "ceremonies" for world press, or will the Israeli programme actually accomplish something useful for the recovery effort?
There are comments now that the Israeli plan has a great deal of public-relations content whereas the 2005 Czech events seemed to be mostly "we're sorry, here is a cheque, we are still sorry" and no massive attempt to use the events as a goodwill campaign. As far as the option of going to trial as a cheaper solution for Rotem, while the fine was low, the negative publicity would have negatively affected the Israeli community. As noted in some of the other discussion, there is considerable ill-will toward Israeli tourists in the Patagonia, much of it probably well-deserved, though it is rarely overt and public. However, since the news of the recent fire there have been some rather visible signs of that animosity.
Despite the 2005 fire events, there is no evidence locally of any anti-Czech sentiment. So I think that the solution that was orchestrated by the Israeli government is in large measure a public-relations effort and part of a general goodwill show, rather than just the matter of extracting one Israeli national.
You mentioned the "small fine" under the current law, as was paid by the Czech. At the time there was some outrage at the small maximum amount that is provided under the law: about US$300. And there was some bluster in the Chilean government about making the penalties for such fires more significant. However, neither the Lagos government (in power at the time) nor the following Bachelet government took the matter seriously and no reforms were enacted. The present government appears to be working up steeper penalties for those who cause fires, but legislation that doesn't have the politically-correct cachet doesn't move very quickly through the Chilean legislative process.
Again - the attempt at humour might have been a little cockeyed and I hope it didn't upset you. And best wishes for the ailing husband you are caring for.
Saludos and best wishes from the Patagonia,
/px
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed
