Yisrael Hayom argues that "All of the New Israel Fund’s praiseworthy endeavors pale in the face of its assistance to the Goldstone report, which, in effect, constitutes assisting in an attack on the State of Israel."
Ma’ariv maintains that "The New Israel Fund was certain that it could fool everybody, all the time. Just as they are certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, so too were Naomi Chazan and friends certain that Israeli citizens are so indifferent and insignificant that they could continue fooling us for another 30 years." The author contends that now "Contributors will know where their money is going and will decide whether to continue contributing. Government offices will know what the fund is and will decide whether to budget for joint projects with it. We have three things for you, Naomi Chazan: Transparency, truth and the public’s right to know."
Yediot Aharonot says that "For years a demographic war is being waged from within. The adversaries nitpick as to the number of Palestinians living between the sea and Jordan and the forecast for their populations’ growth. The claim that the scale leans to the disadvantage of the Jews serves those who support disengagement. Those claiming that the opposite is true strengthen the annexationists." The author philosophizes, "Suppose that in the future the Jewish majority in Israel will be maintained, will that demographic fact rescue us from the need to divide the country? Will a Jewish, democratic state exist when 40% of its parliamentarians are Palestinians?"
The Jerusalem Post discusses financial loss of settlers, builders and developers caused by the moratorium on building in the West Bank, and opines that "The government should prioritize the establishment of a mechanism that will promptly and sensibly compensate the settlers for their losses. It is the fair thing to do."
Haaretz warns that the proposed law for the protection of literature and authors , aimed at setting fair financial compensation for authors, editors and translators and ensuring publishers’ and bookstores’ profits, will achieve the exact opposite, and "will lead to a collapse of the book market and harm the bookstore chains, publishers and the writers themselves." The editor concludes: "Perhaps there is room to consider ways of awarding grants to outstanding writers, but there is no room for such blatant intervention in the market – intervention that will harm both the public’s well-being and culture itself."