Two papers discuss the controversy over the inclusion of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's national heritage sites plan:

Yediot Aharonot discusses the controversy over the inclusion of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's national heritage sites plan.  The author asserts that "One need not get excited over the reactions of those who also deny the Israeli right to renovate the Western Wall plaza (since it is – so they claim – sacred to Islam)," and faults "the Arab elements that typically incite and attribute every possible evil to Israel, without regard to the facts."  However, the paper reminds its readers that the US accused Israel of taking a, "provocative" step that does not contribute to the goal of bringing the sides back to the negotiating table, and believes that "The State Department did not bother to ask for the details of the decision or even to read beyond the headline."  The author adds that "The way that this issue has been handled by many elements, especially the US State Department, is not only amateurish but is liable to have disastrous consequences in our combustible region."

The Jerusalem Post notes that Israel is taking a beating on the international stage because of PM Netanyahu's announcement of a new National Heritage Sites plan that includes Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and accedes that while Netanyahu may have made a tactical mistake, "the immediate Palestinian resort to violence was deliberate and inexcusable." The editor believes that the Palestinian behavior "indicates an absolute total lack of appreciation for Israel’s attempts to ensure that Jews and Arabs – both Muslim and Christian – enjoy rightful access to their respective places of sanctity," and wonders whether a future Palestinian state "would even remotely replicate Israeli fastidiousness in protecting the religious rights of all faiths to their holy sites."

=============================

Ma'ariv refers to this week's scheduled Likud vote on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposal to postpone internal party elections for two years.  The author believes that this is an effort to dilute right-wing influence, particularly that of Moshe Feiglin and his supporters, within the party and ventures that anything less than a 2/3 majority will be perceived as a defeat for the Prime Minister.  The paper avers that "In the end, Netanyahu is liable to ask himself why he needed such an unnecessary mess, especially after he became so clumsily embroiled in the Jewish heritage sites," controversy.

Yisrael Hayom comments on the continuing controversy over the recent elimination of senior Hamas terrorist Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai and says that, "'Shock' and 'awe' are perhaps the most precise words to describe the reaction of the Arab world to the elimination  that was carried out in Dubai."

Haaretz calls on the government to defuse escalating tensions along northern border , and states that "If Netanyahu keeps refusing to leave the Golan, it will be no surprise if Syria's war warnings come true." The editor declares that "An Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, in exchange for appropriate security arrangements and normalization with Syria, would create a new reality in the Middle East, extend Israel's peaceful borders, increase stability in Lebanon and give Syria an alternative to its alliance with Ahmadinejad." 

[Ophir Haivri, Shalom Yerushalmi and Eli Avidar wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma'ariv, and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]

(Courtesy of the GPO)