Yediot Aharonot
opines that „Ehud Barak’s campaign focuses on Livni because she is a real centralist, also acceptable to the peace camp and she has what the media researchers call, ‘Esthetic presence in the televised political theater’ – the same magic that a national leader cannot do without. Shaul Mofaz does not have it.”
Haaretz writes: „Shifting the discussion on the future of the settlements from the political arena into the realm of law, thus changing the crux of the matter from setting a border between us and the Palestinians to the legality of the settlements themselves, does not bring us closer to a diplomatic solution. Rather, it moves us further away. Focusing public attention on marginal issues, sending paperwork that proves property ownership from one lawyer to the next and distinguishing between a legal settlement and an illegal outpost are all means designed to preserve the status quo. Circumstances in the West Bank are conspiring to create one state with greater rights for Jews. Partition is becoming impossible to implement.”
Ma’ariv notes that, „The platform of the new government in Beirut transforms the violent struggle against the State of Israel into the official policy of Lebanon.” The editors suggest that, „Whoever wants to weaken it [Hizbullah], it would be good if they added diplomatic, civil and economic considerations to their strategy.”
The Jerusalem Post writes: „Venezuelan President Chavez, who heads a regime that controls over 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the largest of any country in the Western hemisphere, is someone who shows no hesitation in wielding oil – or the disruption of supply – as a political weapon. He has warned, for instance, that oil prices will soar in the event of a strike on Iran. Tempting though it may be, therefore, to dismiss Chavez’s ravings, we cannot turn a blind eye to them. We must protest his alliance with the region’s terrorists and tyrants and ensure that Chavez pays dearly for befriending them.”
Yisrael Hayom laments that, „In the wake of the surrender to Nasrallah, Israel cannot protest the release of terrorist murderers in Jordan and, given those facts, even someone who vehemently dismisses Ramon’s proposal will find difficulty in substantiating his opposition, because the meaning of this opposition is the preference for violent Nasrallah over negotiating partner, Abu-Mazen, and no rational Israeli is interested in this interpretation of the present reality.”
BreuerPress
Haaretz writes: „Shifting the discussion on the future of the settlements from the political arena into the realm of law, thus changing the crux of the matter from setting a border between us and the Palestinians to the legality of the settlements themselves, does not bring us closer to a diplomatic solution. Rather, it moves us further away. Focusing public attention on marginal issues, sending paperwork that proves property ownership from one lawyer to the next and distinguishing between a legal settlement and an illegal outpost are all means designed to preserve the status quo. Circumstances in the West Bank are conspiring to create one state with greater rights for Jews. Partition is becoming impossible to implement.”
Ma’ariv notes that, „The platform of the new government in Beirut transforms the violent struggle against the State of Israel into the official policy of Lebanon.” The editors suggest that, „Whoever wants to weaken it [Hizbullah], it would be good if they added diplomatic, civil and economic considerations to their strategy.”
The Jerusalem Post writes: „Venezuelan President Chavez, who heads a regime that controls over 100 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the largest of any country in the Western hemisphere, is someone who shows no hesitation in wielding oil – or the disruption of supply – as a political weapon. He has warned, for instance, that oil prices will soar in the event of a strike on Iran. Tempting though it may be, therefore, to dismiss Chavez’s ravings, we cannot turn a blind eye to them. We must protest his alliance with the region’s terrorists and tyrants and ensure that Chavez pays dearly for befriending them.”
Yisrael Hayom laments that, „In the wake of the surrender to Nasrallah, Israel cannot protest the release of terrorist murderers in Jordan and, given those facts, even someone who vehemently dismisses Ramon’s proposal will find difficulty in substantiating his opposition, because the meaning of this opposition is the preference for violent Nasrallah over negotiating partner, Abu-Mazen, and no rational Israeli is interested in this interpretation of the present reality.”
BreuerPress
