Summary of editorials from the Hebrew pressToday’s issues: In defense of IDF values, standing up for Sussia and against demolition of Palestinian villages, ten years of lessons learned, the French initiative will bring no peace, and US diplomats condemn their government’s stance on Syria.
The Jerusalem Post comments on threats in the social media by right-wing activists against an army officer who testified in the court case against the IDF soldier who shot and killed a prone and seriously wounded Palestinian terrorist, and contends that the attack on the officer has “crossed a red line that has been blurred in large part due to the conduct of our political leaders. Instead of unequivocally defending the IDF’s rules of engagement and its ethical values as set down in its code of ethics, too many political leaders have been catering to cheap populism.”
Haaretz comments on the decision of Israel’s Civil Administration to demolish structures built without permits in the Palestinian village of Sussia, south of Hebron, and asserts: “Settler groups and their lawmakers have been pushing for more demolitions as part of their plan to annex Area C. It’s not only Sussia and other villages that are at risk, but the possibility of a Palestinian state itself.”
Yediot Aharonot assesses changes in IDF strategic thinking in the decade that has passed since the outbreak of the Second Lebanon War, but notes that “as much as the IDF is making efforts to fix the mistakes of the last Lebanon war and to prepare itself for another conflict on the northern front, the political echelon is dragging its feet.” The author asserts that Cabinet members “lack understanding of strategy and the ability to see the big picture and its consequences,” and argues that they need to know the IDF’s plans and to know how and when to demand alternatives as well. The author concludes: “Until now this has been done in a random and amateurish fashion, and the cabinet’s decisions followed that path. Perhaps the recent political turmoil in the government will cause this to change for the better.”
Israel Hayom believes that the French peace initiative will have the untenable result of creating one Arab country free of Jews, and another in which Jews and Arabs will live together, and argues that “One of the many reasons to oppose the French initiative is the fact that the core of the plan runs contrary to international law — the same law that established Jewish sovereignty in the State of Israel following World War I.” The author adds: “It is no longer feasible to work toward a two-state solution,” and asserts: “our leaders should strive for another solution, and that is the gradual implementation of Israeli rule over the area. This is the only solution that will stand the test of time and stabilize the situation, and it doesn’t even threaten the solid Jewish majority in the land of Israel.”
Globes comments on the denunciation of the policies of the Obama administration towards the Syrian conflict issued by fifty-one active-duty US diplomats and notes that while the current administration inherited a poor situation in the Middle East from its predecessor, it has systematically made that poor situation much worse. The author argues that its lack of policies “towards the Syrian conflict is the worst of all, resulting as it has in promoting Russian military penetration of the Middle East, the spread of Islamic State from Iraq into Syria, open Iranian intervention in the conflict, and millions of refugees (among whom are many non-refugees) flooding Europe.”
Ron Ben Yishai, Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Norman Bailey wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Israel Hayom and Globes, respectively |
