Four newspapers comment on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s and Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen’s speeches to the UN General:
Yediot Aharonot notes that Prime Minister Netanyahu said that, „Since 9/11, militant Islamists slaughtered countless other innocents – in London and Madrid, in Baghdad and Mumbai, in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, in every part of Israel. I believe that the greatest danger facing our world is that this fanaticism will arm itself with nuclear weapons. And this is precisely what Iran is trying to do.” The author adds, „Alongside the warning, Netanyahu added an implied threat: „‘The international community must stop Iran before it’s too late. If Iran is not stopped, we will all face the specter of nuclear terrorism, and the Arab Spring could soon become an Iranian winter.'” The paper avers that, „Netanyahu tried to mobilize the world and warn it not only about the Iranian nuclear project, but about Iran’s hidden cooperation with terrorist groups regarding nuclear weapons.”
Ma’ariv contends that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech had two target audiences: American Jews and the Israeli electorate. The author believes that he spoke to the latter, who are „his lever for pressing on the Obama administration and members of Congress,” and seized the chance to speak to the former, over the head of what he perceives as a hostile domestic media.
Haaretz notes that „both parties no longer address or listen to each other, instead sowing their arguments and complaints in the wind in hopes of racking up one more ‘propaganda point’ from those who have grown weary of any involvement in the conflict. The speeches were a mere foil for the genuinely important step: President Mahmoud Abbas’ application to the Security Council to recognize Palestine as a state.” PM Netanyahu and FM Liberman, the paper notes, „were quick to pounce on the speech as ‘the greatest incitement every heard’ and to depict it as a challenge to Israel’s very existence.” And concludes: „The Israeli-Palestinian conflict traveled in a time machine back to the end of the last century, and decades of dialogue were wiped out – to the great joy of the extremists on both sides. Not peace, but rather the very fact of direct contact between the parties is once more perceived as a goal, and even that is increasingly fading into the distance.”
Yisrael Hayom reminds its readers that, „In Israel, the three television networks properly broadcast Abu Mazen’s speech in full, whereas in Ramallah, the screen was turned-off well before Benjamin Netanyahu’s likeness appeared,” and adds, „A little matter, but a great difference.” The author notes that „Netanyahu spoke about two states for two peoples, whereas Abu Mazen spoke about two states without mentioning peoples. It was his intention to signal that there is no Jewish people.” The paper asserts that Abu Mazen’s speech was, „an historical fraud,” and asks: „Who caused the Nakba? Who attacked the Jewish state in 1947 even before it was born? Who refused to recognize the 1967 lines? Who attacked it as it sought to defend itself behind those same lines and brought the disaster of the Six Day War on themselves?” The author accuses Abu Mazen of having spoken, „outright lies,” and disseminated „incitement in broad daylight,” and adds, „He does not want a peace agreement that will declare the end of the conflict and recognize the Jews as a people.”
____________
The Jerusalem Post comments on the upcoming decision on whether to return Justice Yoram Danziger to the bench, currently on leave of absence and questioned under caution in the context of a criminal case, following the police decision not to indict him on grounds of ‘no case to answer’: „It shouldn’t be up to the police to advocate whether to press ahead with prosecution or not, and the force certainly shouldn’t be entitled to declare an individual innocent or just a lucky miscreant who beat the system and got away with wrongdoing. A person who isn’t indicted – regardless of his or her public standing and the commotion drummed up in a given case – deserves the presumption of innocence no matter what the private hunches of police investigators.”
BreuerPress-info
