The Economist lays it down flat: “Israel could, of course, smite its enemies with ever-bloodier fervour. But to the watching world, its overwhelming use of force, which always leaves many more Palestinians than Israelis dead, has often looked excessive — and its international standing, which moderate Israelis care about, tumbles further.” The editorial says the status quo on the Palestinian side looks untenable with Mahmoud Abbas ‘tired and ineffectual’.
Under him, normality for the West Bank’s Palestinians has, the Economist says, “come to mean accepting Israeli occupation while Israeli settlers [colonists] gobble up ever more territory. Without even the prospect of statehood, Palestinians are impatient. For all these reasons, the failure of Netanyahu to make peace a priority is dangerous”. The one and only solution that does not elude the world but eludes Israel is the two-state reality. “Two states, one for Israelis and one for Palestinians, remains by far the greatest hope for peace,” it concludes.
In India, the Hindu newspaper seeks to question India’s rather muted stand on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “The Indian position on the Gaza crisis has been muted, consistent with its ambivalent approach in recent years of maintaining passive equidistance between the Israelis and Palestinians,” says its editorial. It expresses concern over India’s “studied avoidance” of commenting on this matter. This lack of taking “clear moral positions on the Palestinian issue hardly augurs well for a country with global aspirations, as evidenced by New Delhi’s advocacy for membership in the United Nations Security Council.”
In Bangladesh, the Dhaka Tribune says that it is a matter of regret that no realistic steps towards a ceasefire have yet been taken. “The death toll continues to rise as Israel keeps launching air strikes on Gaza in an operation that began (since last) Tuesday,” it says in its editorial. “Israel has been claiming that the strikes are only intended to take out terrorists who threaten Israel. However, reports from the ground in Gaza show scores of innocent civilian casualties. Strikes have been launched on homes, not just Gazan rocket-launching sites.”
‘Abominable murder’
Meanwhile, the New York Times has had to retract portions of its editorial on Israel last week. According to the Washington Free Beacon: “The New York Times has issued a correction to its claim that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took days to condemn the murder of Arab teenager Mohammad Abu Khudair, when he actually responded immediately to what he called “the abominable murder.”
The New York Times ran this correction on July 9, 2014: “An article on Monday about the arrest of six Israelis in the killing of a Palestinian teenager referred incorrectly to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s response to the killing of Mohammad Abu Khudair. On the day of the killing, Mr Netanyahu’s office issued a statement saying he had told his minister for internal security to quickly investigate the crime ...”
