Summary of Editorials from the Hebrew Press

Two papers discuss the first half of the Turkel Commission’s report regarding the Gaza flotilla, which was released yesterday:

 
  


Yediot Aharonot states that „Here and there Turkel wove quick conclusions into the vast complexity: The problematic gathering of intelligence, for example.  But he does not present this as an intelligence deficiency, but rather as a sort of lapse.  Perhaps in the second half of the report, which will be published in a few months, those responsible for our security will, after all, receive from him some sort of directional guidance, to see where they erred and how it would be possible to do it better.  In the meantime, the only significance of the Turkel report is in its determination that, legally, Israel acted in accordance with international law.”
 
Haaretz declares: “The report is good, the situation is bad.” The editor feels that Israel’s domestic problem stems from the quality of its leadership, and states: “Israel longs for vision, wisdom and resolution. The Turkel committee has contributed very little in those areas.”
 
===========================
 
Ma’ariv opines that „In the little less than two years that remain until the 2012 US elections, it is reasonable to assess that the US President will not invest too much energy in the Middle East.”
 
Yisrael Hayom professes that „It is in Israel’s interest to ensure a pragmatic Middle East front against the Iranian axis in the region.  The weakening of the US in light of what will happen on this front and the pushing the administration to vote against its own opinion in the case of the settlements – is liable to be a dangerous victory for Israel, not only in its direct relations with our ally, but also in the wider sphere of the Middle East’s future, a future very dependent upon the progress of US power in this sphere over the next few years.”
 
The Jerusalem Post remarks on the announcement sent out this weekend by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy regarding the viability of the two-state solution and states the two issues it does not address – agreeing to borders before solving the refugee problem, and the issue of security – could lead to disaster. The editor allows that “The Washington Institute’s initiative should be appreciated as a sincere attempt to help implement a two-state solution,” but adds that the “core issues cannot be resolved in isolation from each other. Either they are all solved in a viable framework, or none of them is.”

 

BreuerPress