Jerusalem Post
Yediot Aharonot
Israel Hayom

Summary of editorials from the Hebrew press


​The Jerusalem Post believes that because of all the death and suffering caused by those who claim to be acting in the name of Islam, it behooves moderate Muslim leaders “to confront problematic aspects of Islamic texts and theology that seem to promote violence.” The editor argues that while neither Islam nor any other religion can exclusively be blamed for the horrific act of pointless violence perpetrated in Orlando, nevertheless the situation requires that religious leaders of all faiths should taking an unequivocal stand against violence in the name of religion. The editor concludes: “In a world of growing danger and threat, that stand needs to be taken now.”

Haaretz comments on statements by PM Netanyahu, in which he declares that he would never accept the Arab League initiative as a basis for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, despite remarkes to the contrary he made only a short while ago, and asserts: “Netanyahu has reverted back to his recalcitrance in typical fashion.”  The editor states: “This is not just another right turn in Netanyahu’s usual style, but the same old tiresome pattern whose aim is to foil negotiations in advance and avoid debating the issues they involve,” and adds that while Netanyahu can continue with his verbal acrobatics,  his “defiance and volatility are not appropriate policies.”

Yediot Aharonot identifies ‘Netanyahu Syndrome’ as “inability to examine the status quo in a rational way, strong feelings of blind hatred, and conspiratorial paranoia toward the prime minister and his surroundings. And on the other hand, blind reverence and resorting to slogans without the ability to discern their deficiencies,” and states: “We need to thank Netanyahu for all of his accomplishments in office, especially in terms of security, but we also need to replace him with one of the many suitable candidates in the national camp.”

Israel Hayom comments on the 35th anniversary of Israel’s bombing of the nuclear reactor in Osirak, Iraq, and notes that despite severe international criticism of Israel’s actions, “the Israeli attack did not spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. It actually curbed it for almost two decades.” The author argues that “the lessons of the past teach us that we should treat any military action as a necessary evil, the results of which should be examined with a level head and common sense,” and, pointing out the weakness and paralysis that seize the international community every time a threat like Saddam’s nuclear reactor pops up, states: “We must assess such threats through Israeli eyes and according to Israel’s interests, as Begin did in 1981.”

[Yoaz Hendel and Eyal Zisser wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot and Israel Hayom, respectively.]