Yediot Aharonot comments on the Arab League decision to suspend Syria. The author contends that over the years, „the Arab League has acquired for itself a contemptible reputation as a feeble and toothless institution,” and wonders if this is now changing. The paper suggests that the League decision could pave the way to additional, stiffer, sanctions on Damascus and believes that „while there will yet be more killings and missing people in Syria, Assad has already lost control.”
Ma’ariv suggests that several controversial pieces of draft legislation, regarding NGO funding and judicial appointments, are highly unpopular abroad and could make it more difficult for Israel to mobilize support for future moves against Iran.
The Jerusalem Post comments on two bills currently before the Knesset: „Indeed, the bills are problematic. One, sponsored by MK Ophir Akunis (Likud), would limit to just NIS 20,000 a year the amount that a foreign government, government-sponsored foundation or group of governments such as the European Union could give to an Israeli NGO considered ‘political’. The other, sponsored by MK Fania Kirschenbaum (Israel Beiteinu), would take away tax breaks enjoyed by NGOs, resulting in a 45 percent tax on foreign governments’ donations. While we understand the motivation behind Akunis’s and Kirschenbaum’s bills, restricting NGO funding is not the answer. Left-wing NGOs perform an important role in keeping the IDF and other institutions to their high moral standards. Using ideological criteria to determine which NGOs are eligible for donations or tax breaks, and which are not, curtails freedom of speech and is a slippery slope that could lead to politically motivated witch-hunts. We hope the Europeans will begin to realize that their money would be best put to use not in Israel, the region’s only true democracy, but in places such as Syria, Yemen, Egypt and elsewhere where human rights are regularly and egregiously trampled.”
Yisrael Hayom complains that there is a dearth of genuinely moderate Palestinian leaders and ventures that „the only difference between Fatah and Hamas is that Abu Mazen speaks in slick and unclear terms while Hamas presents – with complete sincerity – its goal of liberating all of Palestine.”
Haaretz comments on the possible closure facing Israel’s Channel 10 TV if payment of outstanding debts is not deferred by the Knesset Economic Affairs Committee: „Channel 10 was founded with the aspiration of being an alternative to Channel 2. But in this regard, the station has been a resounding failure. Nevertheless, the station’s closure, and especially that of its news corporation, would deal a mortal blow to freedom of the press. A situation in which the country has only one television news network, with no real competition from the public broadcasting station, would be dangerous. No less harmful is Netanyahu’s involvement in what appears to be an act of revenge against the station for the professional work of some of its reporters. The message being sent by the Prime Minister’s Bureau is that anyone who dares to investigate what goes on in the bureau will be punished. This is a dangerous message that has no place in a democracy.”
BreuerPress-info
