Two papers discuss various issues regarding the current controversy over whether or not to require all citizens to perform either military or civilian service:
Yediot Aharonot suggests that "The value of tolerance is sometimes more important than that of gender equality. One cannot insist on universal conscription on the one hand and, on the other, enforce an ideological melting pot that infringes on faith-based values, even if this requires allowing people with particular religious outlooks to quietly and respectably leave before a woman soldier gets up to sing." The author, whose son recently finished 12th grade and will soon enter the IDF, remarks: "It is clear to everyone that there is a war here of values and rights, beliefs and outlooks, and that neither side can persuade the other by an exchange of slogans. But beyond all the words, the strongest common denominator is the reality – rising numbers of those who are not conscripted and do not work, and the placing of the national burden on narrow shoulders."
Ma\’ariv notes that religious Zionists, i.e. the \’national religious\’, have been conspicuous by their absence from the struggle over universal conscription and believes that "This inactivity, the fear of an open and courageous clash with ultra-orthodox outlooks and even the adoption of some of them, have been the prominent characteristics of the recent generation," of religious Zionists. The author discounts the possibility that any change will come from the religious Zionist rabbinical and lay leadership and asserts that "The correction and the change must come from below, from the silent majority. This is a strong potential factor but, unfortunately, it quietly and apathetically accepts the situation and the conduct of those who pretend to lead it. It does not rise up and it does not protest even though the vast majority – in my estimation – opposes the inactivity in the face of the ultra-orthodox, the adoption of their ou! tlook and their views regarding the conscription of yeshiva students. Only the rising up and extensive protest actions by the silent national religious public will spur its leaders into action that could perhaps lead to change."
Yisrael Hayom analyzes the controversy over the theory that Yasser Arafat may have been poisoned. The author says: "Today, more than in the past, it is known that there were many Palestinian elements that were fed up with the \’Rais\’, wanted to eliminate him, including Hamas, and are prepared to blame Israel." The author contends that "Israel wanted him – on both the international and local planes – to survive forever in his tormented state," and suggests that Suha Arafat is raising the issue now partly to divert attention away from lingering controversies over her alleged misappropriation of Palestinian Authority funds and the paternity of her daughter, to name just two.
Haaretz refers to the verdict in the trial of former prime minister Ehud Olmert, which acquitted him on two out of three corruption charges, and states that “the prosecution must take stock of why the trial against Olmert ended as it did.” The editor notes that “there is truth to the argument that an indictment against a sitting prime minister that results in such a limited conviction cannot be spared some stocktaking”, and adds: “The success Olmert\’s lawyers had in raising reasonable doubt over the two main sets of allegations in the case does not mean that he should not have been indicted.”
The Jerusalem Post discusses the elections in Libya, and welcomes what appears to be a “cautious transition to a more democratic regime.” The editor believes that “Libya has a long road to traverse before it sheds the debilitating baggage of its troubled history,” but points out that “the July 7 elections were a step in the right direction.”
[Liat Noked Winder, Avraham Tirosh and Reuven Barko wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma\’ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]