Relatives of Israelis killed in terror attacks hold up signs as they demonstrate outside the prime minister’s office as the Cabinet votes on Netanyahu’s proposal to free 104 Palestinian prisoners asa good will gesture to the Palestinians on Sunday, July 28 (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

If the situation in Israel were a game of monopoly, Israel would be about to trade 104 get-out-of-jail-free cards for a chance to discuss free passage over Pacific Avenue with the Palestinians.

The headlines adorning the four Israeli papers provide a window into how each one plays the news against its predetermined agenda. Yisrael Hayom, widely believed to be a mouthpiece for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, gives the same headline Bibi would: “The talks, and the price” (along with a quote from the bull’s mouth). Maariv, which has begun listing to the right in its old age, notes that there is “a weak majority in the government for the release of 104 prisoners,” and accompanies its headline with cutouts of letters on the plan from the prime minister and terror victims’ rights association Almagor, one of the most outspoken opponents of the deal.

Staid ol’ Haaretz, with as much pizzazz as a Ben Stein imitation contest (Bueller…Bueller), reports dryly that “the government will vote today on the release of Palestinian prisoners,” providing a counterpoint to the sensationalist and centrist Yedioth Ahronoth, which uses all the subtlety of a televangelist on angel dust to announce the ”prisoner’s dilemma,” accompanied by stark black and red lettering and pictures of some of the worst of those behind bars, and their crimes.

But the front page is just a big steaming bowl of pabulum compared to the meat and potatoes inside. All the papers sum up the news about the same, drawing the lines between who is for, who is against, who said what and the prediction that the measure will likely squeak through the cabinet. But they earn their paychecks with the analysis, commentary and ancillary coverage of the affair.

Yedioth has a graphic of some two dozen of those on the release list and what they did, which reads like a laundry list of first intifada horrors. The paper’s Alex Fishman lines himself squarely in the opposed camp, asking where Netanyahu, so happy to set red lines on others, puts the limit on what he will do for the resumption of peace talks.

“When Israel releases murderers because of pressure for a goodwill gesture, it gives up on its sovereignty. There is no precedent for this is any country in the world,” he writes.

The paper also reports that despite a committee report on how to manage prisoner releases created in the wake of the Gilad Shalit swap, which saw over a thousand prisoners go free, the recommendations have yet to become official and Sunday’s cabinet vote, which will be voted on by ministers who know next to nothing about who is being released, flies in the face of the committee’s reported recommendations (which have never been released to the public).

Maariv brings in the perspective of the families of the victims of said murderers, who, surprise, surprise, are none too happy about the deal.

“It feels like serious treason,” the brother of a soldier killed in 1981 tells the paper. Columnist Ben Dror Yemini tends to agree, calling the plan governmental stupidity:

“A smart government would do this differently. You want freedom? If peace comes they will be freed. Not all at once, but in stages. When it becomes clear that the prisoners have changed, are not inciting and not returning to terror, more and more will be freed. Even if it stings the heart, at least there will be justice and hope.”

Israel Hayom, for some reason, runs a shortened repeat of its poll published Friday showing that most Israelis are against the prisoner release. In the paper’s corridors, the zeitgeist seems about the same, with peacenik Yossi Beilin, who is for the deal, getting about half the space of Nadav Shragai, who is against.

According to Beilin, justice aside, the prisoners are no longer a threat to society, but can help pave the way toward a better future.

“These are Palestinians that committed their crimes before Oslo, and so we are not talking about young people, and thus they are not regarded as highly dangerous. … If the Netanyahu government actually wants to start meaningful negotiations, they need to be freed. The criteria should not be ‘blood on their hands’ or where they live, but rather how dangerous they are.”

In Haaretz, Barak Ravid writes that Netanyahu’s behavior ahead of the vote on the prisoners proves that he has only a tenuous grip on the country’s steering wheel.

“Instead of shaking off the opposition, Netanyahu chose to stammer, zigzag and to be dragged in. The fact that Netanyahu has gotten to a point where he needs to send a ‘letter’ like this and hold softening talks through the night with Likud ministers, 12 hours before the vote, shows how far he is from the leader he considers himself to be.”

Palestinians in the clink may soon be tasting freedom, but one man who won’t be is Mohammed Morsi, who was officially jailed on Friday over Hamas contacts among other things. Yedioth reports that with the civil war in Syria, the ostracizing of Hezbollah and now the Egyptian coup, Hamas finds itself suddenly very much alone in the world of jihad.

“Even the situation in Gaza is getting worse. Because of the presence of beefed up Egyptian security forces, activity in the smuggling tunnels in Rafah has come to an almost complete halt.”

Haaretz reports that the situation is even worse than what Hamas is facing, with the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood being repeated across the Arab world marking a low point for political Islamism.

“A year ago it seemed that the largest and oldest movement in the Arab world was becoming a dominant political force. Now it’s clear that the Brotherhood’s ambition also brought it down. The Brotherhood is in retreat not only in Northern Africa. In Syria, where the movement was a central part of the rebel force, they have largely been pushed aside by more extreme jihadist elements such Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar a-Sham. In Turkey, while the government of President Reccep Tayyip Erdogan is in danger, the recurring protests and riots are also a result of growing anger at the autocratic style of the Islamist ruling party,” Anshel Peffer writes. “In the coming weeks, the power of political Islam will be put to the test in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. In elections the Brotherhood attracted millions, but the same crowds have yet to turn out to face well-armed police and army forces in street battles.”