“Schlaglicht Israel” offers an insight into internal Israeli debates and reflects selected, political events that affect daily life in Israel. It appears every two weeks and summarizes articles that appeared in the Israeli daily press.
Main topics covered in this Publication:
Abbas in Jerusalem
(…) While Yasser Arafat did not attend Rabin’s funeral 21 years ago, the presence of Abbas on Friday signaled a curious split among Palestinians and Arab Israelis. (…) It was hardly surprising that the Hamas terrorist regime condemned Abbas for attending the funeral (…) What was indeed surprising was the refusal by Arab members of the Knesset’s Joint List to attend. Party leader MK Ayman Odeh stated that this was because of the “complicated” relationship the former president had with the country’s Arab minority. Amid the numerous salutes to Peres’s determined pursuit of peace, it was jarring to observe the rejectionist front being represented, not just by a terrorist organization, but by a party of Israeli parliamentarians. Due to all of this, Abbas’s participation was an important step that should be appreciated by Israel and the Netanyahu government. (…) Abbas took an important step on Friday, especially considering the criticism that he faced from among his own people. His decision (…) sent a message (…) important as a step in changing Palestinian perception. Nevertheless, Abbas should know this act alone will not be enough. He needs to take real steps to stop incitement, violence and educate his people to not hate Jews or Israelis. At the same time, Netanyahu’s government – of which Bennett is a senior member – has the responsibility to do what it can to end this longstanding conflict and can take steps of its own to build up trust on both sides. (…)
Editorial, JPO, 01.10.16
In what country was Peres buried?
Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama spoke at former Israeli President Shimon Peres’ funeral and watched him being buried in some sort of no man’s land. Not in Israel, it seems. The Obama White House issued a correction of its transcript of Obama’s speech, striking out the word “Israel” after “Jerusalem,” after mistakenly listing the city as part of this country. The absurdity of this move is striking. The ceremony was at Mount Herzl, the national cemetery in Jerusalem, where many of Israel’s greatest figures are buried (…). It lies in western Jerusalem, near the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum and the Jerusalem Forest, an area Palestinians do not even claim when they claim a share of Jerusalem. Only those who seek to destroy Israel think this place will ever be anything but a part of the Jewish state. U.S. policy is that Jerusalem is a final-status issue, so the U.S. Embassy is in Tel Aviv. (…) One wonders if Obama, speaking about the meaning of Peres’ life for Israel, was actually thinking as he spoke those words that he was not standing in Israel and that Peres was not being buried in Israel. (…)
Elliot Abrams, IHY, 02.10.16
Barack Obama’s farewell to Shimon Peres brought us back to the roots of Zionism
(…) Obama touched on all the important influences in Peres’ life: the Diaspora, the Holocaust, the kibbutz and the Haganah, politics and science, security and peace. But more importantly, when he compared Peres to Nelson Mandela he was hinting at an uncompromising struggle for justice and equality. And when he mentioned Queen Elizabeth II, he was hinting at the decolonization process her empire underwent. The points of similarity with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were clear. (…) Obama presented himself and Peres as sharing not only a common historical fate with the nations they have led, but also a similar worldview that favors optimism and the pursuit of peace over sowing fear and intimidation. The coolness of Obama’s body language toward Netanyahu reflected his distance from the prime minister’s worldview. (…) Abbas’ standing in the Palestinian community is on the wane, and Obama will be leaving office in about 100 days. The chances for a resumption of the peace process appear slim.
Editorial, HAA, 02.10.16
Obama’s message to Netanyahu during Peres’s funeral
(…) The American orator, who rarely fails to strike the most sensitive emotions during some of the most significant moments in our history, once again delivered a speech so powerfully praising the former Israeli president that even those unfamiliar with his feats would also have conceivably “fallen prey to his charms” (…). However, the president could not refrain from taking the opportunity to slight Prime Minister Netanyahu no fewer than five times (…) in a series of attempts to juxtapose the outlooks of Peres—“the man of hope” and Netanyahu—“the man of fear (…). With the prime minister navigating the ship of Zionism on its journey, seldom granted a prolonged rest from the inclement storms of the Middle East, Zionism is not protected. So goes Obama’s implication. On the contrary, Netanyahu is sailing toward a wave which will inevitably engulf and capsize a dream which only a leader such as Shimon Peres could have averted, thereby ensuring its permanency. Here, Obama’s message is simple: Bibi, you don’t understand Zionism. You are leading it down the path of failure. (…) Netanyahu’s ilk (…) had no part in the building of the Jewish state, but rather are charting the course for its deconstruction. (…) One can agree that Netanyahu is a cynic enslaved by fear and an obsession with the past, or one can believe otherwise. Whatever the truth may be about the prime minister, the outgoing president of the United States made his opinions abundantly clear during the funeral of one of the founding fathers of a country (…). While Obama is indeed a dreamer of what the world could be, Netanyahu cannot be blamed for falling victim to the same fear from which Peres himself suffered (…).
Alexander J. Apfel, JED, 05.10.16
Eulogize Peres, not the peace process
(…) the public interest in Shimon Peres’ death and the mourning it spawned abroad have been extraordinary. (…) the mourning was (…) for Peres the eternal standard-bearer for peace, the indefatigable optimist, the perpetual symbol of the peace process, the man who left a singular legacy of a two-state vision.(…) Peres’ death forced us to acknowledge what we’ve felt for a while (…): The peace process that peaked in the 1990s is over. (…) The devastating feeling of being orphaned that has struck so much of the world is that much more painful because it quashes any illusion that something remains of the vision of a New Middle East. But sometimes illusion is very dangerous because it can leave us in a state of political and diplomatic stagnation, or worse – intellectual and creative stagnation. There’s nothing worse for a vital political process than for its main player to be a 93-year-old. As long as Peres was alive, we could close our eyes and take comfort in the idea that the peace process was still moving, but this complacency was actually one of the main reasons for the dulling of the people’s alertness to Israel’s most festering issue – the conflict with the Palestinians. The peace process became something like the kindly grandfather everyone loves but rarely visits. So now the time has come to recognize that this granddad is gone, and if we don’t infuse the idea of peace with new blood, we’ll have neither process nor a glimmer of peace. Peres’ death presents both an opportunity and an imperative – to recruit new people, new ideas and new symbols for the idea of peace. (…) Now it is incumbent upon us to write the next chapter, one relevant to our current reality. (…).
Shir Nosatzki, HAA, 07.10.16
After the Hadash snub of Peres’ funeral, you can count me out
A few days have passed since the chairman of the Hadash party and the Joint List, Ayman Odeh, announced the boycott of Shimon Peres’ funeral – and I still have a bittersweet feeling of betrayal and disappointment. (…) On the other hand, the response of the Arab mayors, who came to pay their respects to the Peres family, proves there are other voices among the Arabs in Israel, too. After Rabin’s murder, the Arab public mourned. (…) Hadash (…) knew very well that Rabin had been one of soldiers of the 1948 war, the army chief of staff during the 1967 war, and one of the most prominent builders of a powerful Israel. He was “forgiven” for all this after the murder. And what about Shimon Peres? His responsibility for the Oslo process was no less than that of Rabin. (…) Why should his role be inferior to that of Rabin? (…) Today the atmosphere is one of hatred for everything “leftist.” Peres, who for years was a victim of hatred and vilification, became more popular in recent years after he filled the role of president with meaning and enormous influence all over the world. In the battle being conducted today between the semi-fascist forces growing in power and those fighting to preserve the soul of democracy, Peres stood out as a moderating figure, who expressed his views all over the world. (…) It is clear that both Rabin and Peres were not the darlings of any of the Arab political parties. (…) But Hadash’s conviction that Peres was not worthy of gestures of respect on their part elicits the feeling among those who oppose the Netanyahu government that Hadash does not differentiate between the protectors of Israeli democracy and those who are rising up to destroy it. (…) members of Hadash must understand that their decision concerning Peres’ funeral has left me feeling like the late Meretz MK and former minister Yossi Sarid, who told the Palestinians to count him out after Yasser Arafat expressed his support for Saddam Hussein.
Uzi Baram, HAA, 06.10.16
The no-shows at Arafat’s funeral
On November 11, 2004, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat died (…). It was an official farewell that was less impressive than Shimon Peres’ funeral, but still quite respectable for a president without a country. The United States (…) sent a low-ranking representative (…). Israel, on the other hand, gave it the finger. No Israeli representative, either high- or low-ranking, or even very low-ranking, attended. (…) Not Shimon Peres, not Ehud Barak, not Shlomo Ben-Ami and not even Uzi Baram bothered to participate in the Palestinians’ mourning. (…) When the body of the rais was transferred to Ramallah, the funeral was attended by several “extremist,” marginal Israelis, the likes of Uri Avnery and Mohammed Barakeh. All the other peaceniks had to wait for the screening of the film “The Gatekeepers” in 2012; in other words, for the videos of all the chiefs of the Shin Bet security services, who declared that in real time they knew that Arafat did not encourage, organize or initiate the mass uprising in the second intifada, nor the acts of terror that accompanied it. (…) All those who don’t understand why it was so difficult for the Palestinian-Israelis’ political representatives to show their final respects to Peres, should recall Arafat’s funeral and the “respect” shown him by the Israelis. (…)
Shlomo Sand, HAA, 14.10.16
At UNESCO, Jews have no standing, but historical revisionism does
Historical revisionism and denial are rarely progressive or constructive strategies for conflict resolution. (…) the latest, ‘inspired’ move by the 58 constituent member countries of UNESCO (…) will certainly rank amongst the least helpful contribution to calm tensions in the region. (…) the words of this resolution have the potential to kill. The most infuriating aspect of this controversy (…) is, how needlessly provocative. (…) How hard and politically incorrect would it be for UNESCO to recognize that two groups, Muslims and Jews, claim the same area, the Temple Mount and Haram al-Sharif, as holy? But that is not the language of the resolution, and not its intention. (…) It’s clear we can’t depend on international institutions themselves to filter out voices of symbolic violence that has already led to real bloodshed. But the UNESCO vote will remain as a true test of moral backbone, for Jewish liberals as much as for Western states, as well as the entire Muslim world.
Jeremy Leigh, HAA, 13.10.16
The sidesplitting humor of UNESCO
(…) “Masada is a symbol of the ancient Jewish Kingdom of Israel, of its violent destruction in the later 1st century CE, and of the subsequent Diaspora,” says UNESCO. (…) 2015, UNESCO issued a statement defining the Tomb of the Patriarchs (…) and Rachel’s Tomb (…) as Muslim sites. (…) Now, in 2016, things got more absurd when UNESCO passed a resolution denying the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall (…). Incidentally, found on Masada (…) were scrolls including parts of the biblical text (…)it says: “Like the flocks (…) of Jerusalem on its festivals, so will these cities now laid waste be filled with flocks of men, and they shall know that I am the Lord.” So, if UNESCO ever refers to that text found at Masada, will they have to explain that those “flocks” were brought to the “mosque on Al-Haram Al-Sharif”? (…) Jews ever since then have read, cherished and studied those biblical texts, cited by the Palestinians themselves, that declare Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to be Jewish sites.(…) to be consistent and honest, UNESCO should just go ahead and declare the entire State of Israel “a landmark of Jewish renewal.”
Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, TOI, 14.10.16
Another chapter in UNESCO hypocrisy
Twenty-four countries that know history well voted in favor of the shameful UNESCO resolution to deny Jewish ties to the Temple Mount (…). UNESCO is like the United Nations as a whole, only with less bite. This organization (…) has once again affirmed its loyalty to itself and to its heritage. If the Jews have no ties to the Jerusalem holy sites, then UNESCO has no ties to lies, stupidity, hypocrisy and nonsense. The infuriating thing about this is that within the framework of Israel’s bilateral relations, all the countries that voted in support of the resolution will explain how much they understand us, the threats of terrorism we face and the hypocrisy of the Palestinians. (…) It is infuriating, but we need not despair. We should not despair because UNESCO has limited capabilities. The resolution has symbolic value, but it will not make thousands of years of history suddenly change. We do not need our legitimate connection to the holy sites to be confirmed by UNESCO, which is loyal to its own heritage of hypocrisy. (…)
Boaz Bismuth, IHY, 14.10.16
The Muslims can’t handle the truth
The UNESCO resolution that casts doubt on the Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is so untrue, so idiotic and baseless (…). UNESCO has been hiding the “sun’s light” for years, ignoring the terrible Muslim destruction of antiquities on the Temple Mount, “Islamizing” Rachel’s Tomb and calling it a mosque, and shutting its eyes to the long list of archaeological finds from the Temple Mount area that drive the Muslims crazy for one central reason: They prove the ancient Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and its retaining walls. Especially the Western Wall. (…) Archaeologists recently recreated the Temple’s courtyard floors atop the mountain that King David purchased from Araunah the Jebusite (…). But the Jewish connection to Jerusalem and its holy sites first and foremost relies on the Bible (…). The time has come to renew the discussion of rights. The Muslims are speaking in this language. The time has come for us to return to speaking it as well.
Nadav Shragai, IHY, 14.10.16
The Cities of Israel Are Not Safe
The terror attack on Sunday, not far from the police national headquarters in Jerusalem, in which a woman and a policeman were killed and six people wounded, is a murderous, despicable act that must be unequivocally condemned. But the reactions of those responsible for public safety in Israel – Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Police Commissioner Roni Alsheich – were ridiculous and demonstrate a denial of reality. Erdan repeated his mantra when he argued that the social networks are the primary reason the wave of attacks is continuing. (…) It seems Erdan refuses to internalize the fact that the wave of attacks is linked to causes deeper than Hamas Facebook pages. The government’s consistent blocking of any option for a diplomatic process, at the end of which a glimmer of hope for an agreement might emerge, is what’s causing the feelings of suffocation and frustration, and later the barbaric acts like Sunday’s attack. (…) Alsheich was also wrong and misleading when he continued to use worn-out clichés like, “There is no need to change patterns of behavior or routines … anyone who planned to come to Jerusalem, we are ready to provide reinforcement.” The cities of Israel, and certainly Jerusalem, are not safe, and life in Israel cannot return to routine. (…) As if to complete the picture, the WikiLeaks website on Sunday published email correspondence between senior members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff, one of whom noted that a “senior Israeli,” apparently Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, complained that Clinton puts too much emphasis on the Palestinian issue. The senior Israeli even wondered whether a Clinton administration would be “a Saban Forum for four years.” Here is where denying reality comes full circle: Instead of the Palestinian issue being the
central focus of the Israeli government; instead of understanding that only bold moves to end the occupation are likely to reduce the violence, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is turning Israel into a hopeless place that endangers the lives of its people.
Editorial, HAA, 10.10.16
Blood of the dead is on the terrorist’s hands
(…) From a person convicted of incitement to violence (…) he turned into a terrorist from Silwan at the mercy of Judge Mak-Kalmanovith. (…) if there was any clemency, it seems much more like negligence in retrospect, a failure which the State Prosecutor’s Office was involved in too. A person who sat in jail for a year over incitement, whose Facebook page continuously promoted hatred and enmity (…) is not exactly the right defendant to enjoy the court’s mercy, (…) and a delay in the implementation of his sentence (…). All this does not permit and does not justify Glick’s blatant statement, which determined that the blood of the dead is on the judge’s hands. Even if we will never be able to know for sure, it is very likely that the terrorist from Silwan would have carried out such an attack or a similar one according to a different timetable, and so the blood of the dead is on the murderer’s hands. (…)
Ariela Ringel Hoffman, JED, 13.10.16
Terrorism is here, but so are we
(…) It is often frustrating to consider that the struggle against terrorism is essentially a constant war against an amorphous entity that is not necessarily visible. (…) you begin to wonder when it will end, why a terrorist has been released from custody and how he got away with such minimal punishment. (…) you must know your enemy and define it as an enemy. You must find its weak spots and attack them. If Facebook is indeed the catalyst for incitement against Israel, we must find a way to prevent this. (…) In the face of terrorism and incitement, it is important to demonstrate significant achievements. In almost every attack and attempted attack since the recent wave (…) began, the enemy has not returned home in (…). We must also add here that, factually speaking, there is a constant decline in the number of terror victims. (…) Yes, the feeling of a continuing struggle against terrorism pervades, but we must look around us again: What expectations can the terrorists and their emissaries have if, at the end of the day, they know well that we are not leaving this place? (…) Therefore, we will strengthen the security forces in their struggle and we will wish that state leaders make wise decisions with minimal-to-zero losses.
Dr. Gabi Avitalm IHY, 13.10.16
A lethal combination
(…) the Palestinian system of incitement, via online social networks, convinces thousands of youngsters from east Jerusalem to turn the city into a battle zone. (…) Sitting behind the Palestinian keyboard of incitement are experts who do a very good job of getting their message across. (…) they spin their ruse to speak to the heart of the Palestinian youngster in a variety of ways. (…)The usual clip will show Al-Aqsa mosque, the leading star in almost every video, with an imam calling out from a mosque in Gaza: “Stab! Stab! Stab! Never stop!” (…) the Palestinian public has begun internalizing and applying the messages transmitted via social media. Terrorist operatives from east Jerusalem and Gaza saw what social media had accomplished in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, and decided to imitate it. To our sorrow, the students have outdone their masters. (…)Today, the Palestinian child sees Twitter as his father and Facebook as his mother. A lethal combination of unbridled and sophisticated incitement with eager, ideologically driven consumers, who are not deterred by the likelihood of death, requires a reassessment of the preventative and punitive courses of action that need to be taken.
Moshe Elad, IHY, 10.10.16
Trump’s incompatibility with Israel
(…) among the reasons I fear a Donald Trump presidency (…), his style and temperament, coupled with his thin skin, inconsistency and woeful ignorance of foreign policy, are incompatible with good relations with Israel – and Israelis. Israelis need to know that an American president has their back. Trump has already said that allies should pay back the military assistance the US gives them, and that includes Israel. (…) Through his inconsistent statements about foreign policy, Trump has displayed frightening ignorance. (…) It’s not hard to imagine Trump one day saying he would rip up accords with Israel as well. A Trump presidency would jeopardize US strength and reliability, and would hurt Israel. The Republican platform for the first time says nothing about a two-state solution, which has been central to our nation’s Middle East policy for decades, and a Trump adviser has said that the candidate does not support a two-state solution. Apparently, Trump and his top advisers would prefer to see Israel annex the West Bank and east Jerusalem. Does he recognize that were it to do so, Israel within just a few short years would lose its Jewish identity and majority? (…) Trump’s authoritarian tendencies will get him nowhere with Israelis (…).
Michael M. Adler, JPO, 09.10.16
It’s not the flotilla, it’s Gaza
(…) A nutshell with 13 women (…). this entire flotilla is nothing but another cap that has been fired as part of the war run by different groups in the world—from fanatic Islam to secular left—against the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. (…) They will not bring any medicine to Gaza, (…) the women knew that. (…) they did not even bother to load a single box on the yacht for visibility purposes. Neither a box of medicines nor a sack of rice or a chest of toys for children: just a camera and a microphone in their war over a minute or two at the beginning of the news edition, over half a page in the newspaper, over the hope that their message will resonate in places where decisions are made. (…) Gaza is a strip choked between the Israeli border and the Egyptian border, without any way out through air or by sea, depending on its enemies’ mercy. How much water it will receive, how much electricity will flow, how much flour and how many matchboxes. If they want, they will give. If they don’t want, they will not give. (…) the Israeli Navy took control of the Zaytouna-Oliva yacht (…) But one thing is clear: The message, even if it doesn’t make it through its five minutes of fame in the media, will remain long after they are gone, against decision makers’ interests. And the message is that Gaza (…) is not a place that will die quietly (…) it’s not enough to load 13 or 14 or 15 (…) semi-delusional and exhausting women on a bus and buy them a one-way ticket to remove the Gaza nuisance from our table. Such a flotilla is another reminder, an unpleasant and inconvenient one, that we cannot keep talking about tunnels and Qassam rockets as if that’s the entire deal, while starving a population and preventing it from leaving the strip through the sea or through the air. (…)
Ariela Ringel Hoffman, JED, 06.10.16
Gaza’s radicals want Israel to topple Hamas
The small Salafi organization Ahfad al-Sahaba Aknaf Bayt al-Maqdis, which fired a rocket into the southern Israeli town of Sderot on Wednesday, sees itself as one of ISIS’s branches in Gaza. (…) This organization would like to take Hamas’s place in Gaza, but as its military power is limited, it is trying to get Israel to bash Hamas and do its work for it. (…) The recent declarations from the defense establishment, that next time the IDF will destroy Hamas, are boosting the Salafi organization’s motivation. That is also the reason why its members are firing their rockets in broad daylight, into a densely-populated area in Israel, in an explicit attempt to kill. (…) The IDF’s Intelligence Directorate is familiar with this phenomenon and knows very well that Hamas is not interested in another round of fighting at this time. (…) This current state of affairs creates a serious dilemma for Israel. On the one hand, the government and defense establishment cannot permit a situation in which a rocket is occasionally fired from Gaza, only luckily causing no harm. On the other hand, if the IDF launches another major operation in Gaza, it may end in many deaths and, more importantly, create a dynamic of escalation which will develop into other fronts as well, such as the north or Sinai. (…) The attacks from the ground and from the air are aimed at increasing Hamas’s motivation to act against the rebel organization and thwart their rocket fire—for example, through preventive arrests of their activists. (…)
Ron Ben-Yishai, JED, 06.10.16
Ayelet Shaked, the minister of mixed messages
In a long opinion piece published in the first issue of the new, Hebrew-language journal Hashiloach, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked laid out her worldview. (…) Shaked contradicted her own recommendations. (…) senior ministry officials interfered significantly in the planning process in order to advance the interests of Elad, a right-wing organization that settles Jews in the East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan and operates the City of David National Park there. (…) Elad official gave Shaked’s chief of staff a document explaining what the minister should do in order to reverse a decision by Israel’s highest planning body. The decision by the National Planning and Building Council’s appeals subcommittee significantly reduced the size of Elad’s planned visitors’ center in Silwan. (…) The minister did what was expected of her, and the decision to reduce the project’s size was reversed. Shaked did not break the law; she merely stretched to the limit her authority and the planning bureaucracy for Elad’s benefit. (…) There is no need to read her article through the eyes of an Arab citizen or Palestinian resident to understand the depth of the logical contradiction. But the piece does explain her exceptional contribution on behalf of Elad’s visitors’ center. For beyond its being a (…) architectural monument and an archaeological center (…) it is first and foremost a Jewish building, whose nearly declared goal is to Judaize Silwan.
Editorial, HAA, 06.10.16
What is Rosh Hashanah?
(…) For Judaism, Rosh Hashanah is (…) not about the year, but about the human potential to transform his own life anew. (…) Shanah Tovah, is (…) a formula of encouragement to strengthen each individual’s resolution to make personal changes for the better. (…) one can relearn from human lessons accumulated throughout the centuries. (…) Judaism claims that human beings have no choice other than propelling their lives to continually unfold morally and intellectually. The alternative is falling into the black hole of lack of purpose. (…) Long prayers in highly charged medieval theological poetry are not the instruments with which Judaism can help 21st century Jews to adequately view the state of their lives. (…) The High Holidays are Judaism’s invaluable contribution to remind human beings that attaining knowledge about themselves is not a choice. Whether they like it or not, in order to live, human beings need to think, to form beliefs. (…) The vacuum that institutions lacking vision (…) has thrown 21st century youth into the hands of long disqualified views of life that today disguise themselves to be able to prey on the young (…) Who we really are and why do we exist (…) is (…) the real questions these holidays are intended to awaken in us.
Moshe Pitchon, TOI, 04.10.16
(…) Terrorist attacks must be met with resolve and force and steps must be taken to prevent future attacks and secure Israeli citizens. (…) Israel should not build on its historic land because people are killed or terrorist attacks are perpetrated. It should build if it decides that construction in those disputed areas is the right policy for the country. (…) Israel lacks a clear and decisive policy of what it wants. (…) Does it want to establish a Palestinian state (…) or does it prefer to annex the West Bank and continue building in Jewish communities there. (…) The current approach, of not deciding, (…) causes Israel severe diplomatic damage (…). Yom Kippur is a time for decision making. It is a day of reflection on the past, but also of contemplation over how we want the future to look. Israel is living in a reality of indecision. Now is the time to change that.
Editorial, JPO, 10.10.16
HAA = Haaretz
JED = JediothAhronoth / Ynetnews
JPO = Jerusalem Post
IHY = Israel HaYom
TOI = Times of Israel
GLO = Globes
Published: October 2016
Dr. Werner Puschra,
Head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Israel