Az Izraeli nyomtatott média vezércikkeiből angolul

Haaretz asserts: “The killing of a Palestinian baby, who was burned to death by a firebomb thrown into his home, was no bolt from the blue,” and states that the fire that consumed the small child and injured his family in their sleep “was ignited long before and could be seen for miles, like a flare on a dark night.” The editor slams Israel’s political leadership, and maintains that the loud denunciations of the murder “distract attention from the fundamental fact that Jewish settlement in the territories is the mother of all sins. It stains the morality of Israeli society and undermines the universal legitimacy that Israel enjoyed, and still enjoys, within its legal borders.” The editor believes that differences between the “legitimate” settlement blocs and the “hilltop youth” are imaginary and decep tive, and declares: “Both of them, together with their ultranationalist counterparts on the Palestinian side, exacerbate and perpetuate this bloody conflict. As long as an honest and courageous leadership that recognizes this fact does not rise up in Israel, Israelis and Palestinians alike will be struck be more bolts and flares, crimes and catastrophes.”

Yediot Aharonot comments on the two hate crimes – the stabbings at the Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem and the arson in the Palestinian village of Duma that claimed the life of a small child and injured other family members – that shocked Israel over the weekend, and asserts: “we can’t settle for promises to catch and punish the culprits.” The author asserts: “It’s a much wider, much deeper story. The swamp is the story, not just the predators swarming in it,” but despite the wall-to-wall condemnation and cry for action by politicians from all political sectors, remains doubtful any action will be taken.

————————————————————————–

The Jerusalem Post discusses the Obama administration’s contention that recent Turkish airstrikes against Islamic State strongholds “suggest that its Middle East policy is not as bungled as meets the eye,” and points out that “The problem with this perception is that nothing Turkey does is quite as straightforward as foreign diplomats and uninitiated analysts in the West often suppose.” The editor notes that Erdogan has been hitting not only Islamic State but also Islamic State’s leading enemies, and adds that with nothing in this region being as it seems or as it’s presented, “in effect, Erdogan is fighting for Erdogan and against anyone who puts him in a bad light.” The editor believes that “Most probably, Erdogan has extracted a price from Obama for Turkey’s ostensible cooperation. It may be that t he Erdogan-Obama chumminess will chillingly come at the Kurds’ expense. In other words, Obama may evince disloyalty toward yet another embattled ally,” and concludes: “The possibility that the Kurds will be sacrificed does not augur well for Israel.”

Israel Hayom analyzes some of the misrepresentations the Obama administration is peddling in defense of its concordat with Iran, among them the statement that there was no better deal, and the alternative to this deal is war, and contends that this is absolutely fallacious: “More coercive diplomacy could have delivered a better deal.” The author reminds readers that there is a historical precedent for tougher diplomacy that works – the Senate refusal to ratify SALT II, “which ended the strategic arms limitation talks, but war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union did not ensue,” and asserts: “The lesson is that walking away from bad deals does not inevitably lead either to war or to the end of negotiations.”