Summary of editorials from the Izraeli Hebrew press
BreuerPress
Three papers discuss yesterday’s ultra-orthodox demonstration in Jerusalem:
Yediot Aharonot says that the actual impact of the law being worked on by the Shaked committee will be very slight and adds: „Appearances is the name of the game. This goes for the ultra-orthodox parties and for Yesh Atid.” The author criticizes the chief rabbis (who are ‘senior civil servants’) for attending the demonstration and notes: „One cannot talk about unity – and take part in a factional campaign.” The paper contends: „In principle, most of the secular public really does not care what the chief rabbis say and most religious tend to ignore them,” and adds that this is only natural when the chief rabbis are seen to „represent the political interests of one sector only.”
Yisrael Hayom says: „If the demonstration was meant for the ultra-orthodox public, in order to strengthen it as some of its organizers claimed, it is possible to say that it succeeded.” However, the author notes that most national religious Israelis had nothing to do with the demonstration and also asserts: „If the demonstration was meant for the secular public – then it was a ringing failure,” and adds: „Any secular person who listened to the words of Rabbi Zilberman, who ended the rally and called for not going to the army under any circumstances, and sees the picture of a half a million ultra-orthodox in the streets, opposing the privilege of sharing the burden equally and separating between blood and blood – will get angry and feel further away than ever.” The paper concludes that the rally „only underscored the growing rift between the two societies.”
The Jerusalem Post criticizes the police for permitting the demonstration to take place at a time and location that effectively paralyzed the city. The editor states: “The purpose of any political demonstration like the one that took place on Sunday is to make a statement,” and adds: “by planning this demonstration in the middle of the day, the intended political message is liable to be overshadowed by Israelis’ feelings of anger and frustration for being subjected to so much unnecessary inconvenience.”
——————————
Ma’ariv discusses the Crimean crisis in the context of US-Russian relations and its impact on the Middle East. The author says that „Putin, in marked contrast to Obama, knows how to act and not just talk, and understands that in our thuggish world, the prudent and determined use of force when necessary is also important.” The paper predicts that „Crimea will return to Mother Russia and Father Putin apparently through a referendum, without any massive Russian military invasion,” and concludes: „And Obama? In any case, he will deal – of course – with something that is far easier: Bibi and Abu Mazen.”
Haaretz believes that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s only goal in his current US visit is “To rescue himself and the State of Israel from negotiations that could lead to a withdrawal from the territories and yield peace.” The editor points out that Netanyahu is going to the United States as the Israeli prime minister, not as a representative of a particular political party, and asserts: “In such a role, he is required to understand the upmost importance of a peace agreement, to remove the potholes he has placed in its path, to stop blaming the Palestinians for thwarting the peace process and to leverage Obama’s efforts.”
