Yediot Aharonot says that „In the last week, Obama has presented the Middle East with a bridge to an optimistic future.
Summary of Editorials from the Hebrew Press
Yediot Aharonot says that „In the last week, Obama has presented the Middle East with a bridge to an optimistic future. His speech was received with sharp criticism from three foci: Netanyahu’s bureau, Bashar Assad’s presidential palace and Hamas headquarters.”
Ma’ariv declares that „No longer will they try to fool around with us and sell us the ‘new,’ ‘different’ Netanyahu, who leads the courageous battle against Moshe Feiglin and his band of Feiglinites.” The author believes that „The Likud, with Netanyahu at its helm, is moving more towards the extreme right,” and predicts that „In the next elections the Left-Center bloc will have an easier time presenting an alternative.”
Yisrael Hayom asserts that „Whoever read Obama’s AIPAC speech yesterday could have received the impression that large swaths of the speech were taken directly from bank of speeches of his predecessor in the White House, George Bush, or even from the heritage and wealth of phrases of the leaders of the Zionist movements throughout the generations.”
The Jerusalem Post wonders why President Obama omitted any mention of the Palestinian refugee issue in his recent speeches, and notes that “The Palestinians’ stubborn insistence on demanding the ‘right of return’ for millions of ‘refugees’ within Israel’s borders marks a refusal to accept Israel as the Jewish state.” The editor states that “This outrageous demand, coupled with the fact that Hamas, an anti-Semitic terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel, is an equal partner in the Palestinian people’s official political leadership, are the real obstacles to peace,” and adds: “If Obama is truly sincere in his desire to facilitate peace, he must acknowledge this and do everything he can to remedy the situation.”
Haaretz declares that a new Education Ministry program that would have Israeli junior high and high school students adopt memorial sites and soldiers’ graves, is flawed and unnecessary, and states that “Adoration of the dead, heroic and exalted as they may have been, is a death cult and not the heritage of life.” The editor feels that it is part an effort by the state educational system to instill lessons of nationalism and militarism in the students at the expense of civil and humanist education, and states that “The education minister would do well to quickly shelve the gravesite adoption program and devote all his energies and the resources of his ministry to more essential tasks.”
BreuerPress
