Summary of editorials from the Izraeli Hebrew press
BreuerPress
Three papers discuss various issues regarding a projected US-led punitive strike on Syria for the latter’s use of chemical weapons against its own civilians:
Ma’ariv says: „The Russian compromise proposal constitutes a ladder that allows everyone to climb down from the trees they have climbed up on. On the one hand, Bashar Assad will be able to stay in power in Syria, and Iran and Russia will be able to defend their network of relations in the Middle East, acquire a diplomatic reputation and strengthen their international position. On the other hand, Israel will be out of any danger from Syria’s chemical weapons. Al-Qaida activists, whom nobody likes, will be unable to take over Syria for the time being. Members of the American Congress will not have to decide on another war in the Middle East, which they are not interested in. And Obama will not need to act against his liberal philosophy and, by the way, will justify winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe John Kerry will win his own prize. Thus all sides will be able to come down to the ground. The only ones who will not be happy over acceptance of the Russian proposal are the citizens of Syria. It is clear to everyone that accepting the proposal means the continuation of the brutal civil war in Syria. In effect, behind the smiles and the victory photographs all around, the status-quo will be maintained, as if there was no use of chemical weapons and as if Syrian children were not being murdered every day by conventional weapons. And the moral question ‘Isn’t the world obligated to put an end to the mass murder in Syria?’ is one question nobody wants to answer.”
Yediot Aharonot believes that „The US did not decide to intervene in Syria because of the horrific pictures of the massacre of civilians on the outskirts of Damascus. Whoever thinks that the rebels are not perpetrating similar horrors does not properly understand the situation. The US (like Israel) does not know if the fall of Assad would lead to a better or worse regime in Syria, and is not sure that after the fall of Assad, the Sunnis will not carry out massacres and revenge attacks against the Alawites that would overshadow the current murders of civilians.” The author suggests that the US has decided to intervene because, „as the leader of the enlightened world, as the world’s acting policeman, it cannot allow any outcast to use non-conventional weapons,” and concludes: „If the world silently overlooks this violation of norms, it will no longer be possible to maintain world order and the US will find itself facing increa singly larger problems around the globe. This is an outstanding US interest and this is why President Obama said last year that using chemical weapons was a red line. This is also the reason why, when the time comes, if Iran crosses the nuclear red line, the US President will decide to attack its nuclear installations: Not because of the moral need to save us and because of the loving ties with our Prime Minister, but because it is in America’s interest.”
Haaretz comments on President Obama’s request that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPEC] “use its influence with Congress to obtain approval for an attack on Syria,” and notes that, remarks by Israeli policy-makers and cabinet ministers notwithstanding, “AIPAC is not Israel, and it is not authorized to express Israeli policy.” The editor asserts: “Israel has no right to send others to conduct military operations,” and concludes: “Only the American people are sovereign to make decisions of war and peace regarding their country’s army. Israelis and Israeli decision makers should give up any pretense of intervening.”
——————————
Yisrael Hayom asserts: „The results of the Australian elections are good news for Israel-Australia relations,” and hails Prime Minister-elect Tony Abbot as „an avowed friend of Israel,” who „has promised to improve relations with us, toughen his government’s policy against terrorist organizations and end economic assistance to organizations that promote the boycott.”
The Jerusalem Post discusses modern intra-Jewish conflict, as epitomized by the controversy surrounding the Women of the Wall’s demand to pray at the Western Wall, and notes that “Old fault lines – between the Diaspora and Israel, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, feminists and traditionalists – that separate the members of the tribe have been revealed.” The editor points out that “In Jewish tradition, the days between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are dedicated to introspection and making a personal accounting for one’s deeds – particularly deeds related to treatment of our fellow Jews,” and states, in light of this, that “special care should be taken to strive, as much as possible, for mutual respect, if not mutual agreement.”
