Two papers discuss the negotiations between the Western powers and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program:
Ma\’ariv asks: "Who will blink first? The international community, which has developed a dependence on a diplomatic solution to the nuclear threat, or Iran, which understands this weakness and is exploiting it?"
The author asserts that "In order to advance their goals, the international negotiators should constantly remind themselves of two important things. One: These are not negotiations based on the sides\’ mutual desire to reach a solution in which both would have an interest, because Iran really wants to develop a nuclear bomb. Two: The more they apply strong pressure and succeed in convincing Iran that even stronger pressure is just around the corner, the greater will be the chance of bringing the negotiations to a successful close."
Haaretz does not believe that “the third round of talks between Iran and the world powers beginning Monday in Moscow will produce a ground-breaking plan that will free the world from the Iranian nuclear threat.” The editor points out that that “This effort [by the world powers] reflects the international realization that the Iranian threat is real and that Israel\’s claims are just,” and is hopeful that Israel will be supportive of these initiatives, “especially when the military option carries no promise of a better outcome.”
Yediot Aharonot analyzes the deliberations over the 2013 state budget and believes that "Public discussion of the budget should focus on the question of whether the Israeli economy can carry inflated security budgets especially during those years in which a redirection of resources toward correcting social distortions is called for." The author reminds his readers that "Today, Israel is found at the tail end of countries vis-à-vis civilian public expenditure in the GDP pie even though it ranks first in inequality," and argues that "If there is no alternative but to cut civilian expenditure…Cuts should be chosen that strike at the economy\’s ability to grow and at its social fabric as little as possible. Therefore, it would be preferable to postpone additional investments in highways, junctions, interchanges and bridges and not postpone investments in education, health and encouraging employment. It would be preferable to pos! tpone supplementing child support payments and not to postpone supplements to income support and the negative income tax."
Yisrael Hayom evaluates the state of the talks between Fatah and Hamas on establishing a unity government ahead of projected legislative elections. The author suggests that "Hamas does not intend to give up the Gaza Strip; neither is it interested in elections in which it can only lose," and adds: "Even if a unity government is established, it will be a federation in which Hamas continues to control Gaza and its security forces while Fatah continues to control the West Bank and its security forces." The paper says that were a unity government to be established, "The Americans would halt all financial aid while Israel would see this as an additional excuse not to do anything and to continue with settlements, and maybe even not transfer Palestinian customs funds to their owners." The author reckons that Abu Mazen "is well aware of what would await him if he unites with Hamas, without Hamas accepting the European conditions re! garding violence and previous agreements," and wonders: "What is spurring him to continue with the cult of faux unity and undercut the image of Salam Fayad, who is still the hope of the West?"
The Jerusalem Post refers to problems faced by Israeli couples seeking to adopt a child, who, if adopted abroad, will inevitably be non- Jewish. The editor finds the law that stipulates that the adopter shall be of the same religion as the adoptee absurd, and praises the new bill proposed by MK Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz) that will put an end to the “absurd situation in which the people who effectively fill the role of parents for their \’adopted\’ children nevertheless lack the legal standing of parents.” The editor asserts that “Religious faith should not be a precondition for adopting a child, rather economic and psychological stability and – above all – large quantities of love should be,” and adds: “The time has come to separate religion from the adoption process.”
[Sever Plocker, Dr. Emily Landau and Yossi Beilin wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma\’ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]