Three papers discuss the controversy surrounding the Ulpana Hill issue:
The Jerusalem Post discusses what it terms "The Ulpana saga," and states that "it is only natural that our lawmakers have a desire to protect the Jewish settlements." The editor believes, however, that "passing the outpost law will only spark yet another conflict between the Supreme Court and the Knesset and pit liberal-minded Israelis against their more nationalist brethren," and asserts that "Israel will be subjected to international condemnation and a renewed effort will be launched to delegitimize the entire settlement project."
Haaretz contends that the proposal to relocate the five homes slated for demolition in the Ulpana neighborhood of Beit El to a site that is next to the settlement is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize the theft of private property in the territories, and asserts that "the settlement enterprise in the West Bank and the government's policy of impunity toward outposts are combining to sabotage the two-state solution that the prime minister committed three years ago to work toward implementing."
Yisrael Hayom suggests that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu go to Ulpana Hill in Beit El, admit that the Government has badly mishandled the entire affair and ask the residents to help him, because "The damage that Israel will suffer in the international arena from trampling the High Court of Justice decision will be considerable." The author rejects any comparison from the Prime Minister's proposal that the residents of Ulpana Hill move within Beit El and recommends that he urge the residents "not to let demagogues compare movement within Beit El to expulsion back to within the Green Line."
Yediot Aharonot strongly criticizes the recent decision to return, to the Palestinian Authority, the bodies of 91 terrorists "who murdered over 200 people." The author asks: "Why didn't we scatter the terrorists' ashes at sea?" and wonders what sort of peace Israel can expect from those who received and honored the terrorists' remains in full ceremony: "You make peace with your enemies? With yesterday's enemy, who was defeated or reconciled. Germany, for instance. How, on the other hand does one make peace with an enemy whose hatred still percolates, here and now?"
Ma'ariv discusses the situation in Syria and suggests that "It is now possible to say that the two legacies which father Hafez bequeathed to Bashar, and which characterized the Syrian state for the past 40 years, have been squandered. First is internal stability. Over the years, Hafez Assad created a ruling system in which the Sunni bourgeoisie from Damascus and Aleppo, and part of the minority communities, supported the dictatorial regime. His slogan was: You will share, with the Alawite security regime, the economic spoils and the social status, and you will benefit from the respectable inter-Arab standing that Syria has acquired for itself... The second legacy is that Syria's independent regional standing has gone down the drain. Until the Assad family regime, Syria was a country that everyone meddled in and aspired to influence: Egypt, Iraq, France and Turkey. Hafez Assad put a stop to this and turned Syria into an Arab and regional mini-power, and controlled Lebanon."
[Dan Margalit , Elyakim Haetzni and Amos Gilboa wrote today's articles in Yisrael Hayom, Yediot Aharonot and Ma'ariv respectively.]