Yediot Aharonot says that the certain circles are making an entirely unjustified fuss over the so-called Nakba
Summary of Editorials from the Hebrew Press
Yediot Aharonot says that the certain circles are making an entirely unjustified fuss over the so-called Nakba Law and explains that „The ‘Nakba Law’ neither refers to, nor bans the commemoration of, the Nakba. The law permits – permits, it does not require – the Finance Minister to reduce the state’s support for bodies whose expressly contravenes its values,” be such bodies Jewish or Arab. The author claims that the foregoing cannot be construed as racist and remarks that „One may mourn the creation of our state and even do so in public on Independence Day; however, the state is not obliged to pay for this.” The paper refers to the similarly fussed over „Acceptance Committees Law” and reminds its readers that the law declares explicitly that „An acceptance committee may not refuse candidates on the basis of race, religion, sex, nationality, disability, personal status, age, parentage, sexual preference, birthplace, outlook or political party affiliation.” The author believes that „Loud statements that the new laws have made Israel undemocratic would be no more than ridiculous were it not for the damage that they cause. Statements by Israelis to the effect that Israel is an apartheid state have immense weight in the global de-legitimization campaign against the Jews’ right of self-determination.” The paper concludes that „And if some among us declare, contrary to the facts, that Israel has passed laws against the Palestinians having their own national narrative or which ban Arabs from living in Jewish communities, this local fiction becomes an international fact.”
Ma’ariv cautions against focusing too much on issues such as funding for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s travels or the watches that Defense Minister Ehud Barak purchased while overseas and avers that „While the investigations need not be stopped, a sense of proportions is important mainly because otherwise truly important matters are overlooked.”
Yisrael Hayom believes that in addition to his Washington Post article, Judge Goldstone should have petitioned to address the UN Human Rights Council in order to express his newfound views. The author calls on Israelis „not to delude ourselves. No declaration or can undo the immense damage that Goldstone’s blood libel has done to the Jewish People. That he is a Jew who claims to be a Zionist lent the report extra validity in the eyes of many.”
The Jerusalem Post expresses sympathy with the doctors in their current strike, but states that “The issues are complicated and intricate, but both doctors and Treasury officials – who in the end answer to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is officially health minister – have an obligation to hammer out their differences without causing suffering to our nation’s sick.”
Haaretz reflects on the medical services strike, which began today, and states that “the time has come to deal with the real problems in the medical system.” The editor feels that a lengthy strike in medical services would cause great hardship for the public, and suggests that the sides agree to arbitration as a means to solving the dispute. The editor adds: “It is incumbent on the parties to sit down and reach agreement on an arbitration document to preempt a major doctors’ strike and thereby spare the public any unnecessary hardships.”
BreuerPress
