Summary of editorials from the Izraeli Hebrew press
BreuerPress
Four newspapers discuss the implications of a possible US-led attack on Syria in the wake of last Wednesday’s chemical weapons attack on rebels near Damascus:
Ma’ariv suggests that „US President Barack Obama does not want to attack Syria,” and adds: „The one who deserves the credit for successfully convincing Obama is Bashar Assad.” The author, a former Israeli Ambassador to Jordan and the EU, believes that given the thin domestic support in the US for military action, „Obama can order an action with one clear goal – the destruction of Syria’s arsenal of non-conventional weapons,” and cautions that „Any military action that deviates from destroying arsenals of non-conventional weapons is liable to entail a response by Syria against American targets within the range of its weapons.” The paper asserts: „In the current situation, of course, there are consequences for the continued dealing with the Iranian nuclear program. Since the Iranians also know this, they will pressure Syria not to allow the US and its allies to get off cheaply from a limited military action. Neither are the Ru ssians interested in an easy American victory.”
Yediot Aharonot believes that any Syrian response will depend on the nature of the strike against it: „If it is decided to send a few dozen Tomahawk missiles at military targets, there is a chance that the Syrians will swallow the insult, portray the attack as a failure and praise the stamina of the Syrian military and people; however, if it is decided to launch several hundred missiles and significantly hit strategic systems, the Syrian need for revenge action will grow.” The author avers: „If the action ends in the limited firing of a few dozen missiles, it is reasonable to assume that the Iranians and the Russians will not allow Assad to commit suicide by attacking Israel,” and adds: „Even Hezbollah will not launch so much as one rocket without Iranian approval and the Iranians have enough troubles already – in Syria, in the nuclear talks with the West.”
Yisrael Hayom contends that „The assessment is that the Americans will attack in order to punish, and mainly to deter Assad from continuing to use chemical weapons; this would be a late stand by Washington on the red lines that it itself set, and from Israel’s point-of-view – an important signal not only to Damascus, but mainly to Teheran, which is supposed to understand the hoped-for message that there are prohibited weapons, that those who play with them will be punished.”
The Jerusalem Post notes: “While Syrian President Bashar Assad’s brutal regime may be the most pressing issue facing the international community following its apparent use of chemical weapons against its own civilians last week, it is Iran that remains Israel’s main concern,” and adds: “While the world is now distracted by the situation in Syria, Iran’s centrifuges are continuing to spin to produce enriched uranium.” The editor states that while the international community “can no longer sit back and watch developments unfold in Syria,” he nevertheless reminds the US and its allies that “ultimately it is Iran that poses the most dangerous threat to the Middle East and the world,” and concludes: “For the sake of all those who strive for peace and stability in the region, they should confront Syria now – and then Iran.”
——————————
Haaretz comments on Monday’s confrontation at the Qalandiyah refugee camp near Jerusalem on Monday between Israel Defense Forces soldiers and violent demonstrators that ended with three Palestinians dead, and censures the IDF for operating in a manner that could jeopardize the talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The editor asserts that the IDF “is not allowed to turn Palestinian communities and homes into a no-man’s-land where raids and shows of force are conducted routinely,” and calls on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “to calm and restrain the military, to prove that he indeed has peaceful intentions.”
