Two papers comment on the controversy surrounding Anat Kam:
Yediot Aharonot discusses Kam’s personal responsibility. The author asserts that „As long as I do not hear her express full regret for her actions, apologize and confess without any ideological reservations, my opinion is that she must be judged harshly and receive the maximum sentence permitted by law.” The paper says that she must be treated no differently – by the media and the law-enforcement authorities – than right-wingers who take the law into their own hands.
 Gimmel (Gimel) 3 |
 Vet |
 Bet 2 |
 Aleph (Alef) 1 |
 Zayin 7 |
 Vav 6 |
 Hay (He) 5 |
 Daled (Dalet) 4 |
 Haf (Chaf) 20 |
 Yod (Yud) 10 |
 Tet 9 |
 Chet 8 |
 Mem 40 |
 Lamed 30 |
 Haf Sofit (Final Chaf) |
 Kaf (Khaf) |
 Samech 60 |
 Nun Sofit (Final Nun) |
 Nun 50 |
 Mem Sofit (Final Mem) |
 Fey Sofit (Final Pay) |
 Pey (Pay) |
 Fey (Fay) 80 |
 Ayin 70 |
 Resh 200 |
 Qof (Kuf) 100 |
 Tsadie Sofit (Final Tsadee) |
 Tsadie (Tsadee) 90 |
 Sav |
 Tav (Taf) 400 |
 Sin |
 Shin 300 |
|
Gimmel (Gimel) 3 |
Vet |
Bet 2 |
Aleph (Alef) 1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Zayin 7 |
Vav 6 |
Hay (He) 5 |
Daled (Dalet) 4 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Haf (Chaf) 20 |
Yod (Yud) 10 |
Tet 9 |
Chet 8 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mem 40 |
Lamed 30 |
Haf Sofit (Final Chaf) |
Kaf (Khaf) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Samech 60 |
Nun Sofit (Final Nun) |
Nun 50 |
Mem Sofit (Final Mem) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fey Sofit (Final Pay) |
Pey (Pay) |
Fey (Fay) 80 |
Ayin 70 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resh 200 |
Qof (Kuf) 100 |
Tsadie Sofit (Final Tsadee) |
Tsadie (Tsadee) 90 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sav |
Tav (Taf) 400 |
Sin |
Shin 300
|
Yisrael Hayom refers to the ideological motives behind the affair and believes that „At the base of the story stands the great intellectual alignment against the State of Israel that has reached its peak since the Oslo accords burst upon our world and clearly legitimized the talk that was once marginal and is now routine: The talk about the delegitimization of the existence of the state of the Jews and its right to defend itself against its enemies, whom mainstream journalists see as freedom fighters while IDF soldiers have become goons. From this sprang Anat Kam. Against such a background, it is clear that whoever exposes IDF secrets and its self-defense possibilities deserves full praise… Is it coincidental that the editor of the magazine section of the newspaper that is defending Anat Kam and Uri Blau, issued an internal report during the funeral of Maj. Eliraz Peretz that he, ‘does not want to live in Eliraz Peretz’s country or that of his mother.’ And why? Because this ‘is a family of fascists and jihadists and let nobody say that he was killed for me.’ Here is the tragic link that nobody wants to deal with, but is apparent as a line that is dividing Israeli society against the of this harsh affair: Between love of country and turning one’s back on it.”
============================
Nana10 suggests that the Obama administration has not learned from the failure of previous American attempts to enforce a settlement in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The author says that „The real question is the Arab response. An enforced settlement means Palestinian concessions on the right of return and the readiness to declare an end to the conflict. Up until now, the Palestinians have found it difficult to accept these conditions, which are liable to confront the Palestinian leadership with widespread popular rage at home.” The paper concludes that „Those who are waiting for an American diktat to put a little order into the chaos that prevails in the Middle East today are destined to be disappointed. It is doubtful whether the US will reach the moment in which it tries to force a settlement on the sides as a solution and it is highly doubtful if it will find a Palestinian side or an Arab partner who is willing to accept the diktat.”
Ma’ariv avers that „The Holyland affair shows how important environmental organizations are and how their awareness is our only chance to continue enjoying green vistas.”
The Jerusalem Post ponders the Palestinian Authority’s hypocritical attitude towards the peace process and coexistence with Israel. As a case in point, the editor discusses the naming of the street on which the PA’s new presidential compound is being erected after Yihye Ayash, the arch-terrorist who was responsible for the death of hundreds of Israelis in the mid-nineties – and states: „That Ayash would be honored in any fashion is an affront to the very notion of coexistence and a gross violation of the Oslo premise. That he would be honored on so central a street –housing so consequential an official edifice – adds even more insult to injury. There is no way the PA can remotely wash its hands of this glorification of one of the worst of all perpetrators of terrorist atrocities.” The editor believes that by doing this, the PA is unequivocally signaling where its heart is, and adds: „Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was right to urge last week that the international community ‘forcefully condemn official Palestinian incitement for terrorism and against peace.'” In conclusion, the editor states: „Our misfortune is that the world’s outrage is very selective and very misplaced.”
Haaretz declares that „The trial of Ehud Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem and prime minister of Israel, is being conducted in an atmosphere that is nothing short of extraordinary,” and states that „The police and the prosecution must publicly state whether Olmert is a suspect in the Holyland affair.”
