Jerusalem Post
Yediot Aharonot
Israel Hayom

Summary of editorials from the Hebrew press


​The Jerusalem Post comments on the situation in Syria in the wake of the Russian withdrawal, and states: “Besides partition, it is difficult to forecast the future for Syria. It is even more difficult to project whether the disintegration of Syria will be good or bad for Israel. However, the Russian withdrawal appears to be a positive development for Israel, at least in the short-term.”
Haaretz is angered by Israel’s arrogance at prohibiting the Indonesian foreign minister from visiting Ramallah to dedicate the new honorary Indonesian consulate in Palestine because she refused to visit Jerusalem as well, and asks: “What good did it do Israel to prevent the visit, and what damage did it do the Palestinians?” The editor adds: “The Palestinians now have a new consulate and a pledge for cooperation from Indonesia, while Israel is left with the hollow sound of it patting itself on the shoulder.”

Yediot Aharonot calls into question the viability of the policy behind Israel’s retaliation to the rocket fire from Gaza since Operation Protective Edge in the wake of the deaths of two children from Beit Lahia, who were injured by the Air Force’s bombing on Friday night, and asserts that “the most effective way to preserve Hamas’ image among the Palestinians as a militant organization is to attack it. This allows Hamas spokespeople to present it as an organization that is first on the front line facing the brutal Israeli attacks, unlike the collaborators from Ramallah.” The author believes we are actually helping Hamas by attacking it, and notes that it is in Israel’s interest to keep Hamas in power in order to maintain some sort of stability in Gaza. The author states: “When children are killed, it breaks the rules of the game and poses a problem for Hamas. The Israeli public demands protection, which might cause Hamas to really retaliate. Hamas may contain the latest incident, and allow the charade to continue. But the model of airstrikes that cause tolerable damage and no civilian casualties might exhaust itself.”

Israel Hayom discusses the immense deterioration of relations between Turkey and the Kurds, both at home and in neighboring Syria, and declares: “From a foreign policy of ‘zero problems,’ Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan now finds himself with ‘zero friends’ and a bevy of enemies, at home and abroad.” The author adds: “Like a juggler dropping one ball after another, it’s not hard to understand why Erdogan has turned to Jerusalem. Perhaps he can find salvation in the renewal of dialogue with Israel.”

Globes believes warns that the Israeli establishment ignoring a concrete threat “to the project of annexing the West Bank: the distinction between Israel within the Green Line and everything beyond that line,” which has been the official position of the European Union for several years, and was made effective in November 2015 with the publication of the instruction to label goods from the trans-Green Line Jewish communities. The author contends that this constitutes a far more challenging development for the Israeli government than demonstrations by a few hundred UK students in front of London supermarkets selling Israeli dates, and points out that “Most of the boycott against the trans-Green Line Jewish communities, and in effect against Israel, is neither public, nor from public institutions. It is a quiet boycott by commercial entities choosing to sever their connection with Israeli entities when it does not harm their business interests.”

[Alex Fishman, Eyal Zisser and Avi Temkin wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Israel Hayom and Globes, respectively