Summary of editorials from the Hebrew press 7-Aug-2006

Haaretz
Yediot Aharonot
Globes
Hazofeh
Jerusalem Post

Haaretz comments: “Israel has not won an unequivocal victory in this war. But it must insist that the [cease-fire] resolution prevent, insofar as is possible, any return to the perilous status quo ante. The American-French draft includes articles in this spirit. For instance, it states that the UN will call for the creation of a weapons-free security zone in southern Lebanon, and the deployment of an international force that will assist Beirut in asserting its sovereignty over the region and in disarming Hezbollah. The agreement does not demand that Israel immediately withdraw its soldiers from south Lebanon, and it allows Israel to respond militarily to attacks by Hezbollah. The resolution also states that in the coming weeks, a second resolution will be submitted, which will determine the composition and mandate of the multinational force… The war’s diplomatic end should not be a reflection of the military situation on the ground at the moment the resolution is drafted. On the contrary: For the sake of regional security, it should complete what the fighting that was forced on Israel has not succeeded in doing – namely, the reining in of Hezbollah, its backers and its suppliers. Any other result would be a recipe for a new round of Israeli resistance to unbridled aggression from the North.”

The Jerusalem Post writes: “This time, the [UN cease-fire] resolution anticipates an international force that will help the Lebanese army remove Hizbullah from below the Litani River and police the Lebanese-Syrian border to prevent the rearming of Hizbullah. The resolution would also require other countries not to supply arms to Hizbullah, thereby laying the groundwork for sanctions against Syria and Iran if they continue to do so. It is also considered an accomplishment that Hizbullah is clearly blamed for starting the war on July 12 and is required to cease all attacks and unconditionally return our kidnapped soldiers, while Israel is only required to cease “offensive” operations. Further, Israel is not required to leave its reestablished security zone, presumably until the Lebanese army and an international force are ready to take our place… If Israel stops too short or too soon on the battlefield, or accepts a fundamentally flawed arrangement, the cost will be immeasurably higher than insisting now on obtaining the international claims it is aiming for: a permanent end to Hizbullah’s ability to threaten Israel and subvert Lebanon.”

Yediot Aharonot, in its first editorial, takes to task authors David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua, and Amos Oz for publishing a newspaper ad yesterday calling for an immediate cease-fire. What happened to them, the paper writes, “is what happens to someone who tries to bleach a black sock by boiling it with white laundry. Their truth came out shrunken, stained in its logic, and full of holes.”

Yediot, in its second editorial, comments on the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip during the past six weeks, asking, “What has been achieved? Has the Kassam firing lessened, has Gilad Shalit been returned, has the Hamas government been destroyed?”

Yediot, in its third editorial, says that, “What is common on both fronts is that the cost of the war, on both sides of the border, will be paid by the poor and the weak.”


Technorati : , ,

Advertisements

Posted on August 8, 2006, in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: