Yediot Aharonot believes that the average, moderate Israeli voter has a problem: "What is more attractive? Kadima’s complete inaction? Tzipi Livni’s thunderous silence on every important public issue in Israel? Or perhaps, the self-destruct mechanism of the Labor Party, which, until it completely disappears from the public arena, will always choose the wrong leader and the most contemptuous moves?" The author ventures that "Sometimes it is pointless to repair the old. One must build something new. Sometimes even a donkey understands that it needs a different path, to create something new instead of going over, for the umpteenth time, the same-old, same-old."
Ma’ariv asserts that "Israel’s lower middle class, which is constantly being pushed down and aspires to change the situation, must be the target group of the renewing Labor Party." The author avers that the party must articulate an authentic social democratic message and, to this end, advises that "In the short term, it must distance itself from dealing with the peace process, attacking the ultra-orthodox and cultural pretensions."
Yisrael Hayom says that if the Hezbollah-backed Sunni candidate becomes the next prime minister in Beirut, Lebanon "will have openly become Hezbollahstan, a country under Shi’ite control and – worse – under the hegemony of Hezbollah and Iran." The author believes that if this happens, Syria "will quickly learn that it has lost its historic role as kingmaker in Lebanon, in favor of Iran and Hezbollah," and says that the "treason" of Walid Jumblatt and Michel Aoun has made Hezbollah’s takeover possible. While the paper declares that "Events in Lebanon are a stinging slap in the face to President Obama and a colossal, if expected, failure of American policy in our region," it nevertheless adds that developments in Beirut presage no great change for Israel since "Even under Saad Hariri, Hezbollah prospered without hindrance." The editor notes that "Israel now finds itself surrounded by Hamastan in the south and Hezbollahstan in the north."
The Jerusalem Post discusses international reaction to the recently released Turkel Commission’s report on the May 31 interception of the Mavi Marmara by Israeli military sources, and says that “The presumption that the Turkel Committee’s findings are unreliable due to some sort of imagined prejudice is deeply dismaying, though entirely predictable.” The editor notes that in addition to the 5 Israeli members, the Turkel Commission also includes two eminent international observers who endorsed the findings, and wonders: “Are we to believe that all of these respected scholars and experts put their reputations on the line in a grand Zionist conspiracy designed to ‘whitewash the military?’ That all those long hours of investigation and inquiry were a sham?” The editor concludes: “For some, apparently, clinging to such ludicrous notions is preferable to internalizing that Israel’s military requires no “whitewashing,” because it should not have been stained in the first place.”
Haaretz relates to the recently revealed documents concerning the Israel-PA negotiations, and contends that in the Palestinians, Israel has found a pragmatic partner interested in implementing the two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. The editor declares that “Lieberman’s argument that the documents prove a long-term interim agreement is the only realistic solution is groundless,” and adds: “If Israel continues to prefer expanding the settlements to ensuring its status as a Jewish democratic state, we will lose the last Palestinian partner who could prevent its perpetuation as an isolated, condemned apartheid state. “
[Aviad Kleinberg, Alon Marom and Prof. Eyal Zisser wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma’ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]
429