The Jerusalem Post discusses recent Palestinian violence in and around Jerusalem, and points out that “an urban intifada has been under way on and off in the capital since the summer of 2014, when Israel launched Operation Protective Edge – and its epicenter is the Temple Mount.” The editor believes that while simple logic dictates that “The Temple Mount should be a place of prayer, introspection, and spirituality for Muslims, Jews, Christians and other religions,” the reason for the escalation in violence is Muslim fears of Jewish encroachment, and suggests that dialogue, particularly between Jewish and Muslim religious leaders, will make it possible to “reach mutual respect and understanding for the religious sensitivities of both religions.”
Haaretz criticizes the decision to shut down Israel’s 47 Christian schools due to budgetary difficulties, thus leaving them unable to start the new school year. The editor declares: “It is difficult not to assume that the issue’s slide from the public agenda, the lack of interest among decision makers and the delay in addressing the issue stem from the fact that the schools serve Israel’s Arab community,” and asserts: “Israel must carry out its obligations as a democratic state toward these students, and return them to the classroom.”
Yediot Aharonot looks at Europe’s refugee dilemma, and notes that “the EU should not be deciding about the refugees’ fate – between life and death. It should be deciding between a miserable life and opening gates, which will turn the hundreds of thousands of the past few weeks into millions in the coming months.” Regarding Israel’s role in these tumultuous events, the author declares: “There is a loud minority living among us which wants to turn Israel into a state of all its citizens. A state of immigrants. A democratic state, but no longer a Jewish state,” but asserts there is no chance of this hapenning, precisely because one of the objectives of the Jewish state is to provide a safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution.
Israel Hayom comments on the escalation in recent weeks of the war in Syria, partly due to “Russia’s open and aggressive involvement to help Syrian President Bashar Assad,” and “thousands of Iranian soldiers, members of the Revolutionary Guard, arriving to fight on Syrian soil,” and asserts unequivocally: “The conquest of Syria by Russia, and mainly by Iran, is another byproduct of American foreign policy in our region. It is the direct result of hesitance, lack of action and mostly weakness. It is also the direct result of the nuclear deal with Iran.” The author states that “Israel cannot come to terms with Iran’s open and unabashed presence in Syria,” and adds “Israel is completely within its right to demand — whether from Russia or from the United States, and indirectly from Iran as well — guarantees regarding the nature and future of Iran’s presence in Syria.” The author concludes: “It is preferable to be woken early rather than to painfully awaken after it’s already too late.”
[Ben-Dror Yemini and Eyal Zisser wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot and Israel Hayom, respectively.]