The excerpts published here yesterday from a Jerusalem Post editorial, may not have been surprising. The paper wrote as follows:
\"...the Palestinian attempt to tack on conditions to the cease-fire should be soundly rejected [because otherwise it] would be rewarding the Palestinian resort to violence… It is not clear why there should be any disagreement on this from those claiming to be a \'peace camp\'\' outside the government… [D]oes Sarid really have to support Arafat\'s conditions for a cease-fire? Instead of backing Arafat\'s calls for a settlement freeze, why can\'t Sarid differentiate between his own support for a settlement freeze and the need not to reward Arafat\'s offensive? The peace camp\'s inability to learn from its own mistakes is stunning… The only way to cut the vicious cycle of increasing Israeli flexibility leading to greater Palestinian intransigence is to be less flexible…\"
However, today\'s excerpts - from a Ha\'aretz editorial - may raise some eyebrows, in light of some of the paper\'s previously-expressed positions. Excerpts from today\'s Ha\'aretz editorial:
“The government of Israel cannot and must not agree to any concessions that it already rejected before the Palestinians turned to violence...
\"The Palestinian attitude toward cease-fires does not give rise to a great deal of confidence. Inherent in this attitude is the Palestinian threat to resume shooting if they believe their position is not being advanced in the negotiations. The support given to the Oslo process by the Israeli public stemmed, in great part, from the assumption that in return for gradual Israeli withdrawal from the territories conquered in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state there, the Palestinians would relinquish the use of violence.
\"Clearly, in the wake of the current confrontation, there can be no process that is partly diplomatic and partly military, a mixture of dialogue and terrorist attacks. The cease-fire must be safeguarded by a definite Palestinian commitment to end the incitement, to return to prison those it released during the Intifada, and to destroy the arms it holds in violation of the agreements, such as the mortars and the anti-tank weapons.
\"...The key to a cease-fire, which in itself is the key to the resumption of the diplomatic negotiations, is still in the hands of the Palestinians, primarily Chairman Yasser Arafat. Their violence and terrorism are leading nowhere.\"
Yediot Acharonot\'s editorial, however, states, “[Although] yesterday’s murder in Ofrah - the second to hit the same family within a short period - sets the blood aboil and cries out for a response and revenge, [which] today or tomorrow, the IDF apparently will do... we, at least in our hearts, even if we want revenge, know that this is no solution to terrorism.”
Ma’ariv writes today, “One need not support the settlers in order to feel outrage over the double [terrorist] murder [within the Hershkovitz family],\" and adds, “While it is possible to support the evacuation of settlements like Ofrah, Beit El and Psagot in order to achieve an honorable, concession-based settlement with the Palestinians, one cannot be silent in the face of acts of despicable terrorism because this only invites additional attacks... Murder is murder, and those who shoot at you must receive redoubled blows until they understand that this isn’t the way.”
\"...the Palestinian attempt to tack on conditions to the cease-fire should be soundly rejected [because otherwise it] would be rewarding the Palestinian resort to violence… It is not clear why there should be any disagreement on this from those claiming to be a \'peace camp\'\' outside the government… [D]oes Sarid really have to support Arafat\'s conditions for a cease-fire? Instead of backing Arafat\'s calls for a settlement freeze, why can\'t Sarid differentiate between his own support for a settlement freeze and the need not to reward Arafat\'s offensive? The peace camp\'s inability to learn from its own mistakes is stunning… The only way to cut the vicious cycle of increasing Israeli flexibility leading to greater Palestinian intransigence is to be less flexible…\"
However, today\'s excerpts - from a Ha\'aretz editorial - may raise some eyebrows, in light of some of the paper\'s previously-expressed positions. Excerpts from today\'s Ha\'aretz editorial:
“The government of Israel cannot and must not agree to any concessions that it already rejected before the Palestinians turned to violence...
\"The Palestinian attitude toward cease-fires does not give rise to a great deal of confidence. Inherent in this attitude is the Palestinian threat to resume shooting if they believe their position is not being advanced in the negotiations. The support given to the Oslo process by the Israeli public stemmed, in great part, from the assumption that in return for gradual Israeli withdrawal from the territories conquered in 1967 and the establishment of a Palestinian state there, the Palestinians would relinquish the use of violence.
\"Clearly, in the wake of the current confrontation, there can be no process that is partly diplomatic and partly military, a mixture of dialogue and terrorist attacks. The cease-fire must be safeguarded by a definite Palestinian commitment to end the incitement, to return to prison those it released during the Intifada, and to destroy the arms it holds in violation of the agreements, such as the mortars and the anti-tank weapons.
\"...The key to a cease-fire, which in itself is the key to the resumption of the diplomatic negotiations, is still in the hands of the Palestinians, primarily Chairman Yasser Arafat. Their violence and terrorism are leading nowhere.\"
Yediot Acharonot\'s editorial, however, states, “[Although] yesterday’s murder in Ofrah - the second to hit the same family within a short period - sets the blood aboil and cries out for a response and revenge, [which] today or tomorrow, the IDF apparently will do... we, at least in our hearts, even if we want revenge, know that this is no solution to terrorism.”
Ma’ariv writes today, “One need not support the settlers in order to feel outrage over the double [terrorist] murder [within the Hershkovitz family],\" and adds, “While it is possible to support the evacuation of settlements like Ofrah, Beit El and Psagot in order to achieve an honorable, concession-based settlement with the Palestinians, one cannot be silent in the face of acts of despicable terrorism because this only invites additional attacks... Murder is murder, and those who shoot at you must receive redoubled blows until they understand that this isn’t the way.”