HEADLINES FROM THE IZRAELI HEBREW PRESS

HEADLINES FROM THE IZRAELI HEBREW PRESS

HA’ARETZ
1. OBAMA SECRETLY UPDATED NETANYAHU THAT THE ATTACK WOULD BE POSTPONED
(…)

MA’ARIV
1. (…)
CONTACTS BETWEEN THE US, SYRIA AND RUSSIA ON ASSAD GETTING RID OF HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS
(…) Netanyahu’s concern: Obama’s hesitancy sends message to Iran that US will not take military action to stop its nuclear project.

2. Against terrorism and the tunnels:
EGYPT ESTABLISHING SECURITY ZONE ALONG THE GAZA-SINAI BORDER
(…)

3. SERBIAN CONCENTRATION CAMP TO BE TURNED INTO A MALL, PROJECT PLANNERS: ISRAELI COMPANY
Jewish community that construction project on area of Topovske Supe camp in Belgrade. Company director to Ma’ariv: „We offered to finance and design a memorial that will be placed at the site.”

YEDIOT AHRONOT
1. HOSPITAL FOR WOUNDED SYRIANS
Visit to secret IDF installation on the Golan Heights which has absorbed hundreds of victims. „Suddenly they discover that there are human beings on the other side.”

YISRAEL HAYOM
1. IDF releases reservists. (…) Netanyahu tells ministers: „Act responsibly, don’t criticize the US”
SEEING SYRIA, THINKING IRAN
(…) Concern in Israel: If Obama is hesitating now, what will happen if he needs to attack Iran?

WALLA!
1. PERES: „US WILL ACT IN SYRIA, SAGACITY IS NOT HESITATION”
President Shimon Peres says in Army Radio interview that Obama „will not ignore using gas to commit murder.” On criticism in attack delay: „I do not belittle Obama’s considerations. I propose being patient.”

NANA10

1. US PARTICIPATES IN NEGOTIATIONS

For first time since resumption of negotiations, US announces that envoy Martin Indyk was present at one round of talks. „Negotiations are serious.”

[Headlines for Walla! and Nana10 are from their websites as of 11:20.]

______________________________

SUMMARY OF OP-EDS FROM THE HEBREW PRESS

All three papers discuss the implications of a US attack on Syria – or of a delay in such an attack – in the wake of the Assad regime’s recent chemical weapons attack on rebels near Damascus:

Ma’ariv asks, „If against Syria, in a limited military action, the President of the US sways, hesitates, almost pleads to be taken down from the tree, in his characteristically poetic speech, what will be against Iran?” The author reminds his readers that after declaring that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, the Secretary General of NATO said, „It was not NATO’s prerogative to respond,” and adds, „About the UN, like the EU, there is nothing to say.” From the foregoing, the paper concludes, „Whoever proposes that in future peace agreements with the Palestinians, we should place our trust in ‘international guarantees’ or that a NATO force should come to the territories, all ostensibly in order to provide security (in place of the IDF) – should forget about it!” The paper says that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, „smell weakness like hunting dogs, and understand that if there is an American action, it will be a light slap and afterwards Assad will be able to go on using planes, missiles, tanks and butcher knives.” The author believes that, „Whoever sets red lines needs to be certain that if they are violated, he will be ready and capable of responding as he has threatened. If this readiness does not exist at the outset, then it is better not to set lines at all.”

Yediot Ahronot wonders, „How will the US act when Iran approaches a bomb? Is it possible to rely on the White House’s decisive statements that Iran will not have nuclear weapons? The black dot at the end of this strong sentence is suspiciously similar to the red line that Obama set for Syria one year ago. Now it becomes clear that it is not the shortest distance between two points; it bends.” The author asserts, „No promise from the White House will succeed in dissipating the suspicions of Israel’s leaders,” and suspects that many Americans might say, „If it is possible to live with a nuclear Pakistan and a nuclear North Korea, it is possible to live and prosper with a nuclear Iran.”

Yisrael Hayom suggests that, „President Obama shrinks from any connection to, and bridge with, the past that is liable to fix his public image as following in the ways of George Bush,” and asks, „Does postponing the moment of truth on the doubtful basis of winning Congressional support not raise sad memories from the era of appeasement in the previous century the unavoidable results of which were disastrous?”