Ma’ariv declares that "The time has come to distinguish between freedom of expression and freedom of financing. Freedom of expression – Muhammad Bakri and Copti should have as much as they want. They know the secret of success, to drink from the well and spit in it too. But the rules must be changed. Spit at the State of Israel? As much as anyone wants. That is the price of democracy and we will pay it willingly. But there is simply no obligation for Israel to finance the spitting." The author concludes: "The more that Israeli Arabs’ prominent representatives – politicians or artists – identify themselves as anti-Israeli, the more dismal the Arab population’s struggle for equality becomes. Because in Israel’s collective consciousness, this is not a struggle for equality or rights, it is a struggle against Israel."
Yisrael Hayom accuses Copti of "ignoring both the NIS 2 million he received from the state and the fact that only films that represent countries are accepted in that competition [the Oscars]." The author reminds its readers that a popular Arab-owned restaurant in Haifa was hit with a municipality closure order because it refuses to admit IDF soldiers in uniform and ventures that "These two marginal events are symptomatic of the fact that Israel’s Arabs are seeking a divorce from the shared fate with the Jewish majority." "True," the paper continues, "this was a forced marriage with a sector that – 62 years ago – declared war in order to ‘throw the Jews into the sea’, failed and fled; and true, the Jews have greatly contributed to the frustration of the country’s Arabs, and there is a need to correct a series of injustices. But, recently, it seems that the Arabs are not interested in correction. They are fed up with the partnership." The author concludes: "There is no intention that director Copti should change his film in the least bit even though it was financed with state funds. The outrage is over the duplicity – to accept upon himself to appear in a competition in which he represents the country and, at the last minute, deny the commitment he accepted upon himself. As long as Copti holds to his opinion, and as long as the Arab restaurant does not admit those in uniform – Jews should neither eat at the restaurant nor see ‘Ajami’."
==========================
Yediot Aharonot discusses a recent study by veteran Israeli journalist Ehud Yaari and notes that "Yaari’s basic assumption is that the Palestinians do not really want a state if it entails countenancing a division of the country." The author asserts that "Yaari’s assumption is correct: Abu Mazen and his Fatah colleagues lack two vital components for establishing a state – a willingness to enforce painful compromises, and the desire and ability to take responsibility for all that the daily running of a state requires." The paper says that: "Abu Mazen does not want a Palestinian state. He is, perhaps, willing to accept it on a silver platter but is not prepared to pay the necessary price for it. Netanyahu also does not want a Palestinian state. He is prepared to support the idea, for PR purposes, but is not prepared to pay the necessary price."
The Jerusalem Post discusses the intentions of FM Avigdor Liberman’s Israel Beitenu party to introduce two bills dealing with the ‘Who is a Jew?’ question. The editor warns that while the new bills – if approved – will fulfill a campaign promise to the party’s constituency, they may also single out converts as second-class citizens – or, worse, prevent them from becoming citizens at all.
Haaretz declares that the visit to Israel of US Vice President Biden testifies that the US wants Mideast peace, and asserts that Israel must invest every effort in convincing its own citizens, and the rest of the world, that it too welcomes the revival of the peace process.
[Nahum Barnea, Ben-Dror Yemini and Dan Margalit wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma’ariv, and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]