Summary of Editorials from the Izraeli Hebrew Press
Ma’ariv suggests that the current furor over racism in Israeli society in general, and among a segment of Beitar Jerusalem fans in particular, has been overblown or, at least, misunderstood. The author ventures that „Our hooligans – who must be fought with full force – don’t even know the meaning of racism,” and adds: „Given the state of siege on us and in the situation in which the small Jewish People is surrounded by 1.5 billion Muslims, many of whom openly call for our destruction, it is difficult to make a case if individuals, who do not represent the public, feel threatened to the point of a sweeping rejection of the threatening element in toto.” The paper urges critics to be impressed by the depth of feeling, and the work of the law enforcement authorities, against the hooligans in our midst.
Yediot Aharonot comments on the upcoming visits of US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. The author says: „One gets the impression that the American thinking is as follows: There is a problem (the conflict) and therefore, there must be a solution. What is the solution? Two states. Why hasn’t this solution been achieved up until now? Apparently because not enough effort has been made. What’s the conclusion? Let us make more of an effort.” The paper asserts that „The American conclusion is wrong, of course,” and adds: „The solution has not been achieved up until now because neither side really wants it. For both sides, the cost of adopting the solution is much greater than the benefit.” The paper writes: „For the State of Israel, there are two impossible – or, at least, not worthwhile – costs: One is the link between the great security risk entailed in withdrawing to the 1967 lines alongside the lack of! confidence that the other side will honor its promises. The problem is not only ‘painful concessions’, but the concern that following the concession, a Hamas – or worse – regime will take power that will simply not honor its promises in the agreement. The second price is the need to evacuate at least 120,000 Israelis. The political, social and economic price would be immense. Direct compensation to residents alone would cost approximately NIS 120 billion! Where will the money come from?” As for the Palestinians, the author avers: „The Palestinian ethos has never been to establish their own small state, and it is not like this today. The Palestinians want ‘justice’, revenge, recognition that they are the victims, and – above all – ‘the right of return’. There is no real Palestinian desire to establish a small and truncated state and, therefore, they are unwilling to pay a price for this, i.e. a commitment to declare an end to the conflict, the absence of future cl! aims and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. When the desire is not genuine, there will not be any Palestinian willingness for the ‘painful compromises’ that are crucial if they want to achieve peace.” The paper believes that the Americans need to hold a major reassessment of the entire process and see if there aren’t any other solutions that might meet the interests of the various parties. The author concludes: „From Israel’s point-of-view, it is clear that if the US insists on the continuation of the old paradigm, all that is left is to play the game – agree to return to negotiations without pre-conditions and know that the
existence of the peace process is a desirable thing. Will the process also lead
to peace? Apparently not, but that is less important. The main thing is that
they won’t blame us.”
Yisrael Hayom refers to recent events in Tunisia and says that now, just over two years since former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled Tunis, the ‘Arab Spring’ in the country is over. The author notes that under the current Islamist government, „The tourists have stopped coming, the relatively stable economy has collapsed and repression has returned.” The paper asserts: „Tunisia has two options. The first – maintain the great and historic modernizing and secularizing achievements of the first president and father of the country, Habib Bourgiba, or, alternatively, going back hundreds of years and, in effect, as the Muslim Brotherhood and their Salafist allies would like, returning Tunisia to the seventh century.”
The Jerusalem Post comments on the situation in Syria, and notes: “With or without foreign intervention, fighting in Syria between forces led by Bashar Assad’s minority Alawite regime and the predominantly Sunni opposition forces is unlikely to end with a stable partition of the country along ethnic, sectarian lines.” The editor believes that “Without any major foreign intervention, a continuation of the conflict is likely,” and adds: ‘Israel but must do everything possible to protect its borders and prevent the flow of arms – both conventional and unconventional – from Syria to south Lebanon.”
Haaretz reminds potential coalition members of former Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman’s oft-repeated position that “Palestinian-Israeli relations can best be described as ‘crisis management,’ and the most that can be hoped for is a long-term, temporary agreement,” and states that this position ought to make it clear “exactly what kind of government they are liable to be supporting.” The editor notes that the belief that centrist and left-wing parties may be able to moderate right-wing government policies “won’t hold water after Lieberman’s clear and pointed message,” and adds: “Those parties won’t be able to claim they didn’t know or didn’t understand that they were entering a booby-trapped diplomatic process.”
BreuerPress
