Ma\’ariv asserts: "Since the Second Lebanon War and the two small warsin Gaza, \’Cast Lead\’ and \’Pillar of Defense\’, it has been clear to Israel that any territorial concession means handing over territories to the control of Hezbollah and Hamas. Territories under Hamas\’s control means missiles at the Israeli home front." But the author suggests that US Secretary of State John Kerry "still lives in The New York Times-esque euphoria of the Arab Spring, the wonderful democratization, of the year of protest, 2011," and is still clinging to the land-for-peace formula despite the rampant – and spreading – violent instability in the region. The paper concludes: "One need not be right-wing in order to understand that today there is no chance for any Israeli concession on its eastern border."
Yediot Aharonot suggests that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad\’s belief that his situation is not so dire "stands on three legs: The first is the military and political exhaustion of the rebels, who suffer from poor logistical support. The second leg is the outside elements that have assisted the rebels: Neither the Turks, nor the Americans, nor the Sunni world and certainly not Israel have assisted the rebels in a way that could change the picture. The third leg is the economic and military aid that Assad is receiving from Hezbollah, Iran and especially the Russians." The author contends that Assad is also trying to bolster his image by jabbing at Israel, but adds that he must be careful lest he go too far "and be buried by the Israeli response." The paper believes that "Israel\’s true problem is the strategic weaponry," which also potentially threatens other countries, and concludes: "Israel needs to do what it needs to do, wi th all the risks involved, and let others lead in the political arena."
Yisrael Hayom discusses media reports on the recommendations of the Peri committee on greater equality in sharing the burden of military service and says that it "has proposed the minimum necessary to save the honor of the political establishment." However, the author suggests that elements in both Yisrael Beytenu and the Jewish Home are expressing reservations over the Peri recommendations, ostensibly over its failure to provide for national service for Israeli Arabs, but really because they are interested in preserving good relations with the ultra-orthodox parties. The paper believes that the Likud, and even elements in Labor, have been largely silent on the issue for the same reason and concludes that if the aforesaid minimum cannot be implemented, "Then everyone, coalition and opposition, deserve a vote of no-confidence."
The Jerusalem Post approves of the pending bill that would prohibit strikes at
ports, the Israel Electric Corporation and other essential services, and asserts: “The very threat by the strategically situated few to harm the general population is inherently unconscionable.” The editor declares: “Considering the vulnerable state of our economy, sabotage from within cannot be tolerated,” and concludes: “It is time ordinary citizens were granted protection from the ambitious whims of union chieftains.”
Haaretz comments that while “The settlement of Homesh was evacuated eight years ago, as part of the government\’s disengagement plan,” and declared a military zone closed to Israelis, this has not stopped right-wing organizations from holding rallies on the settlement’s ruins. The editor notes that other military orders in force prevent the Palestinian landowners from reaching their land, and asserts that “As long as the IDF does not evict the hilltop thugs from Homesh, it is complicit in breaking the law and ignoring a High Court ruling. As long as it does not return the land to its owners, it is an accomplice to the act of robbery.”