What has been happening in Israel in recent weeks vis-ŕ-vis the contacts regarding Gilad Shalit’s release is gross interference by the Military Censorship in the political debate,
Summary of Editorials from the Hebrew Press
Yediot Aharonot declares that „What has been happening in Israel in recent weeks vis-ŕ-vis the contacts regarding Gilad Shalit’s release is gross interference by the Military Censorship in the political debate, the details of which need not be kept from the public,” and asserts that „The censorship is preventing the existence of the debate and is thereby taking a position.” The author believes that „When the Censorship prevents us from publishing details of the negotiations, an emotionally charged public debate takes place, based on disinformation published in foreign newspapers,” and adds that „In such a illusory reality, the families of terrorism victims and right-wingers can claim that Netanyahu is capitulating to Hamas and Netanyahu’s senior people can claim that he is conceding much less than Olmert.” The paper avers that „Only the lifting of the censorship’s heavy hand will allow us to know who is right.”
Ma’ariv says that the results of yesterday’s referendum in Switzerland, in which 57% of the national electorate and 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons voted to ban the construction of new minarets, means that „Europe is waking up” from the „cultural and ethical relativism” that allowed radical Islam to plant itself firmly on the continent. The author cites several recent books and suggests that „Muslims are not the problem, being conciliatory towards radicals, petro-dollars and Arab political pressure is the problem.” However, the paper criticizes the Swiss for reacting in a collective and symbolic fashion against all Muslims instead of taking specific steps against radical and extremist imams. The paper suggests that the Swiss referendum will merely allow the radicals to claim that all Muslims are being persecuted and victimized and adds that „Europe needs to fight the radicals; yesterday it took a wrong step, in a fight against Muslims.”
Yisrael Hayom criticizes Likud ministers Limor Livnat, Moshe Cahlon, Gilad Erdan, Yuli Edelstein and Silvan Shalom for speaking out against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ten-month suspension of new settlement construction only after it was announced and says that „They, thereby, took no risk upon themselves.” The author believes that „[Prime Minister] Netanyahu need not be concerned about them” at the moment because his position in the Likud Central Committee is strong and no Likud minister is currently willing to risk his or her seat. However, the paper advises the Prime Minister to tread warily and cites past examples of internal dissent in parties that led to splits and/or changes of government.
The Jerusalem Post discusses the first year in office of Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, and finds that despite the fact that he „thinks of himself as a CEO more than a politician,” and is „proud of the fact that he does not wheel and deal,” nevertheless „the mayor’s lack of political acumen – especially in dealing with the volatile haredi community – has cost the city dearly even when, at the end of the day, the collective interest wins out.” The editor hopes that „Barkat will come to appreciate that running this city requires him to hone his political acumen so that he is not repeatedly blindsided by controversy. He needs to keep lines of communication open with the rabbis, politicians, mukhtars and neighborhood activists who can help him head off trouble as he implements his agenda of jobs, housing… and tolerance.”
Haaretz criticizes the opposition of several Likud members to the temporary settlement freeze, and believes that their failure to accept that Israel „must make at least one small goodwill gesture so the world, led by the United States, believes it is truly interested in negotiations, let alone peace” is damaging and unnecessary. The editor states that „Netanyahu must prove to himself, his government and this country’s citizens that authority lies with him, not with those orchestrating calculated resistance.”
Yediot Aharonot declares that „What has been happening in Israel in recent weeks vis-ŕ-vis the contacts regarding Gilad Shalit’s release is gross interference by the Military Censorship in the political debate, the details of which need not be kept from the public,” and asserts that „The censorship is preventing the existence of the debate and is thereby taking a position.” The author believes that „When the Censorship prevents us from publishing details of the negotiations, an emotionally charged public debate takes place, based on disinformation published in foreign newspapers,” and adds that „In such a illusory reality, the families of terrorism victims and right-wingers can claim that Netanyahu is capitulating to Hamas and Netanyahu’s senior people can claim that he is conceding much less than Olmert.” The paper avers that „Only the lifting of the censorship’s heavy hand will allow us to know who is right.”
Ma’ariv says that the results of yesterday’s referendum in Switzerland, in which 57% of the national electorate and 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons voted to ban the construction of new minarets, means that „Europe is waking up” from the „cultural and ethical relativism” that allowed radical Islam to plant itself firmly on the continent. The author cites several recent books and suggests that „Muslims are not the problem, being conciliatory towards radicals, petro-dollars and Arab political pressure is the problem.” However, the paper criticizes the Swiss for reacting in a collective and symbolic fashion against all Muslims instead of taking specific steps against radical and extremist imams. The paper suggests that the Swiss referendum will merely allow the radicals to claim that all Muslims are being persecuted and victimized and adds that „Europe needs to fight the radicals; yesterday it took a wrong step, in a fight against Muslims.”
Yisrael Hayom criticizes Likud ministers Limor Livnat, Moshe Cahlon, Gilad Erdan, Yuli Edelstein and Silvan Shalom for speaking out against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ten-month suspension of new settlement construction only after it was announced and says that „They, thereby, took no risk upon themselves.” The author believes that „[Prime Minister] Netanyahu need not be concerned about them” at the moment because his position in the Likud Central Committee is strong and no Likud minister is currently willing to risk his or her seat. However, the paper advises the Prime Minister to tread warily and cites past examples of internal dissent in parties that led to splits and/or changes of government.
The Jerusalem Post discusses the first year in office of Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat, and finds that despite the fact that he „thinks of himself as a CEO more than a politician,” and is „proud of the fact that he does not wheel and deal,” nevertheless „the mayor’s lack of political acumen – especially in dealing with the volatile haredi community – has cost the city dearly even when, at the end of the day, the collective interest wins out.” The editor hopes that „Barkat will come to appreciate that running this city requires him to hone his political acumen so that he is not repeatedly blindsided by controversy. He needs to keep lines of communication open with the rabbis, politicians, mukhtars and neighborhood activists who can help him head off trouble as he implements his agenda of jobs, housing… and tolerance.”
Haaretz criticizes the opposition of several Likud members to the temporary settlement freeze, and believes that their failure to accept that Israel „must make at least one small goodwill gesture so the world, led by the United States, believes it is truly interested in negotiations, let alone peace” is damaging and unnecessary. The editor states that „Netanyahu must prove to himself, his government and this country’s citizens that authority lies with him, not with those orchestrating calculated resistance.”
