SUMMARY OF OP-EDS FROM THE IZRAELI HEBREW PRESS

 

1. US DEFENSE SECRETARY WARNS ISRAEL: ATTACK WOULD DELAY IRAN FOR ONLY TWO YEARS

Leon Panetta again emphasizes that Israel cannot attack Iranian nuclear site alone: „It’s a weak regime, an attack would revitalize it.”

 

2. CRUSHING MAJORITY FOR ISLAMIST FACTIONS IN EGYPT; MILITARY CONCERNED OVER CONFLICT ABOUT CHARACTER OF THE COUNTRY.

(…).

 

1. SWEEPING VICTORY FOR RADICAL ISLAM IN EGYPTIAN ELECTIONS

(…).

 

2. US DEFENSE SECY.: DON’T ACT ALONE AGAINST IRAN

 

3. ATTITUDE TOWARDS WOMEN IN ISRAEL SHOCKS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

 

1. GILAD [SHALIT]’S HUNGERSTRIKE IN CAPTIVITY

He stopped eating in captivity, was malnourished and was in danger of dying. Hamas leaders were convinced that if deal was delayed, Gilad Shalit would die in their hands. (…). Hamas and Iran leaked false information in an attempt to draw Israel into a failed rescue attempt on a booby-trapped abandoned house.

 

2. US: DON’T ACT ALONE AGAINST IRAN

Defense Secy. Panetta: „Deal with the Iranian threat through coordination and trust.” Senior administration officials against „Anti-democratic legislation”: How can Israel harass human rights organizations and allow women to ride at the back of a bus?

 

3. A DIFFERENT EGYPT: CRUSHING VICTORY FOR ISLAMISM

 

1. (…).

ISLAMIC VICTORY

(…).

 

2. „ACT TOGETHER AGAINST IRAN”

US Defense Secy. tells Israel: „An attack will not stop reactor.” Barak: „No options should be taken off the table.”

 

3. MINISTERS TO APPROVE: MORE SUPERVISION. LESS CARTELIZATION.

Today: Trajtenberg report returns to the Cabinet. On the agenda: Series of steps to reduce cost-of-living and increase competitiveness.

 

1. LEBANESE SITE REVEALS: THIS IS WHAT „AN ISRAELI SPY FACILITY” LOOKS LIKE

 

2. [MINISTER] ERDAN: EGYPTIAN PEACE AGREEMENT MUST BE UPHELD WITH ANY REGIME

 

1. STEINITZ REPLIES TO CLINTON: „EXAGGERATIONS – THERE IS NO THREAT TO DEMOCRACY HERE.”

 

2. DETAILS FROM IMPRISONMENT: GILAD SHALIT WAS ON HUNGER STRIKE – AND ACCELERATED DEAL

 

 

 

All three papers discuss the results of the first round of voting in Egypt:

 

Yediot Ahronot contends that, „If the army does not find determined political leadership that will defend its interests and that of the Egyptian people, it will completely lose its status as an influential element in Egyptian policy,” and adds that, „Israel views this scenario as a diplomatic catastrophe that would require a fundamental change in our national security outlook and would deeply affect our strategic position.” The author says that, „Washington is continuing to broadcast to the generals the demand for an orderly transition of authority to civilians, whoever they are,” and claims that, „They did the same thing with the Shah and with Mubarak, and thus they are doing with the Egyptian generals: Hand Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood (‘the moderates’) and the Salafists, on a silver platter.” The paper asserts that the Salafists will set the tone for policy because the Muslim Brotherhood, which is competing with the Salafists for the same constituency, „will be unable to allow itself to be ‘less piously Muslim’ than the Salafists.” The author concludes that, „It is not too late. Perhaps the liberal movements will integrate and stand as a united bloc against the Islamic bloc. Perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood will prefer to reach a compromise – albeit temporary – with the army. The chance that this will happen is not high. It is more likely that Egypt is heading towards an Islamic constitution and presidential elections, the result of which will be a representative of the Islamist bloc will be elected president.”

 

Ma’ariv says that, „The Middle East has a special quality: If there are ten predictions regarding future scenarios, it is usually the most pessimistic forecast that is realized,” and notes that the early, optimistic, predictions of a new, and liberal, Middle East have now been proven wrong. The author says that, „The Arab world had been under dark regimes, but is now marching towards a much greater darkness,” and believes that, „When Assad falls, it will only be a matter of time before the Muslim Brotherhood takes over there too.” The paper concludes: „It is possible to understand why this happened in Egypt in which there was continuous brain-washing in the mosques. But it also happened in Tunisia, which had a longstanding secular tradition. The result is the same. At this stage, there is a need for realism. There are liberal and reformist forces in the Arab world, but they are currently on the ropes. Spring seems further away than ever. Neither is there any reason to blame Obama, who abandoned Mubarak, or NATO, which crushed Gadhafi. It would have happened in any case. One can only wait and know that there is no room for illusions, until the rage passes.”

 

Yisrael Hayom avers that, „Egypt hastened, unprepared, to democratic elections, just like Tunisia. It is no wonder that the Islamists won in both places.” The author asserts that, „From now on, the Muslim Brotherhood may view itself as the leading force in Egypt, no longer the army. The balance of forces has changed.” As to the claim that the Brotherhood represents a moderate style of Islamist politics, the paper cites French Minister Jeannette Bougrap, herself a Muslim of Algerian origin, who told Le Parisien that, „I do not recognize moderate Islamism. As a jurist, I am unfamiliar with Sharia Lite.” The author points out that the Algerian army cancelled the 1991 elections that saw an Islamist victory, touching off a long and bitter civil war which resulted in Algeria now being run by an, „aging dictator,” and in the Islamist parties being outlawed. The paper concludes, „As residents of the region, we need to hope that the Arab world has a third option to offer, apart from Islamism or dictatorship. As of now, it does not seem so.”