492
The Jerusalem Post comments on the situation in Egypt: "Protesters criticized the Supreme Council of Armed Force (SCAF) for delaying the transfer of power to the people. SCAF, which took over in the wake of Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in February, originally pledged to give control to civilians by September. Now it says a presidential election will not take place before 2013. And last week SCAF laid out a blueprint for the next constitution, giving the military special political powers and protection from civilian oversight. Outraged, Egyptians returned to Tahrir Square in numbers not seen since July.
Unfortunately, the choice is not between a military junta and a democracy that will champion human rights, protect minorities and women and uphold freedom of the press. Through its Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood is expected to win a major role in the country’s parliament and become the biggest political counterweight to the military junta. Parliamentary elections are now unavoidable, regardless of whether they are advisable. But perhaps time still remains to help ensure that Egypt’s transition from dictatorship to popular rule does not deteriorate into the creation of another tyrannical Islamist regime. Bowing to the populist cry from Tahrir Square and rushing into ‘democratic elections’ is liable to make Egypt’s first free and open vote its last."
Ma’ariv believes that "the version which holds that if we accept all of Abu Mazen’s conditions then peace will break out is naïve and childish." The author asserts, "I wonder who to believe – Hamas, when they honestly say, ‘You are not wanted here; we will never recognize you’ – or Abu Mazen, when he says, ‘If you accept our conditions there will be peace.’"
Haaretz writes: "If once we could believe in Israeli-American military cooperation on Iran, Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s campaign has opened a substantial gap between the two countries’ leaders. Particularly prominent are the tense relations between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama. But there are also clear differences between Barak’s position and that of the last two U.S. secretaries of defense, Robert Gates and now Leon Panetta. Panetta makes clear that a military attack, as opposed to economic sanctions, would undermine regional stability and harm the economy. The winter in the United States, when the people’s well-being depends on fuel for heating and transportation, is not a convenient time for a strike against an oil superpower and for that country’s response against other Persian Gulf oil producers. The defense minister’s verbosity has moved the focus from Iran to Israel and is damaging Israeli interests."
Yediot Aharonot calls on the judicial selection committee to provide the public with more information about potential candidates, and to work with greater transparency, in order to restore public confidence in the judicial selection process.
Yisrael Hayom believes that "the harassment of Israeli Arabs, attacks on freedom of expression and freedom of organization, and attempts to undermine the authority and independence of the Supreme Court, strongly contradict [Menachem] Begin’s liberal-democratic legacy." The authors add, "It is important to recognize that Begin, despite his nationalist perspective and his concern for the security of the state, was a liberal and a democrat, who aggressively defended the rule of law and civil rights. It is the liberal stream in the Likud that continues Begin’s path and acts within a tradition of national liberalism. It is Likud MKs who promote anti-liberal legislation that have lost their way. Their version, according to which democracy equals decisions by a majority that brooks no restraint and is entitled to strike at the minority as it pleases, completely contravenes the liberal-democratic worldview."
[Boaz Okun, David Ben-Basat, and Mordechai Kremnitzer and Amir Fuchs wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma’ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]