ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 001679

SIPDIS

STATE FOR NEA, NEA/IPA, NEA/PPD

WHITE HOUSE FOR PRESS OFFICE, SIT ROOM
NSC FOR NEA STAFF

SECDEF WASHDC FOR USDP/ASD-PA/ASD-ISA
HQ USAF FOR XOXX
DA WASHDC FOR SASA
JOINT STAFF WASHDC FOR PA
CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL FOR POLAD/USIA ADVISOR
COMSOCEUR VAIHINGEN GE FOR PAO/POLAD
COMSIXTHFLT FOR 019

JERUSALEM ALSO ICD
LONDON ALSO FOR HKANONA AND POL
PARIS ALSO FOR POL
ROME FOR MFO

SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OPRC KMDR IS

SUBJECT: ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION


--------------
SUBJECTS COVERED IN THIS REPORT:
--------------


1. Syria


2. Mideast

--------------
Key Stories in the Media:
--------------

Yediot headlined that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert talked to US
President George Bush six weeks ago and received from him the ok to
go ahead and open negotiations with Syria. According to the paper
PM Olmert conveyed through secretive channels a message to President
Assad saying in exchange for full peace with Israel and dissolving
the alliance with Iran and with the terror organizations, Syria
would receive the Golan. The paper cited a senior political source
as revealing that Bashar Assad has still not responded to Olmert's
message. In an interview to Israel Radio Minister of Trade, Eli
Yishai, said that if President Assad is serious then he should come
to Israel.

Maariv reported that a day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared
that Israel is willing to talk to Syrian President Bashar Assad, a
Syrian source said that Syria is willing to return to negotiations
for peace. Yediot also cited a senior Syrian official as saying that
Syria is willing to talk with Israel but that they are not
optimistic.

Yediot reported that PM Olmert will meet P.A. Chairman Mahmoud Abbas
in Cario on June 25. The paper noted that on the same occasion PM
Olmert will meet Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Leading media cited Minister of Transportation and Road Safety,
Shaul Mofaz, as saying after his meetings in Washington regarding
Iran that the diplomatic track is preferable but that if that does
not achieve the goal then all options should stay open.

Ha'aretz reported that Israel will not ask to widen the mandate of
the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the
Golan. The mandate is automatically extended every six months and
despite the tension with Syria, Israel will not ask the UN to
reinforce UNDOF to ensure that the status quo is maintained.
Ha'aretz cited a statement released by UN Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon in which he expresses shock and dismay at the comments made
this week by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forecasting the
destruction of Israel.

Israel radio reported that two Qassam rockets were fired towards the
southern town of Sderot. No casualties or damage was reported.

Ha'aretz reported that the IDF is only partially implementing the
directive of Defense Minister Amir Peretz to end the ban on
Palestinians entering the Jordan Valley. According to the paper the
IDF last week began allowing Palestinians who do not live in the
Valley to pass through the checkpoints but only on foot.

Maariv printed the results of a TNS/Teleseker Polling Institute
survey:
-"What is your position regarding WITHDRAWAL from the Golan Heights
for peace with Syria?"
Object any withdrawal: 44 percent; support only partial withdrawal:
40 percent; support full withdrawal: 10 percent.
-"Do you believe Assad's call for peace?"
No: 74 percent; yes: 17 percent.
-"Do you support the renewal of negotiations with Syria?"
Support: 45 percent; oppose: 48 percent.



--------------

1. Syria:
--------------

Summary:
--------------

Senior commentator Nahum Barnea wrote in the popular, pluralist
Yediot: "Israel's diplomatic legacy is unequivocal: Israel has never
said no to an Arab party that has expressed willingness for
negotiations. It has sometimes evaded negotiations by creative
excuses ... but it has never said no outright. Olmert cannot say no
either. That is why he was forced to announce this week festively
that he invites Syria to direct talks. It is doubtful whether an
arrangement will come of this, but perhaps we will get through the
summer safely."

Senior columnist and longtime dove Yoel Marcus wrote in the
independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz: "So who invented the story about
a war this summer? The weather forecaster? And what about the
story that Syria is planning an attack on Israel? Did we get a fax
from Damascus? Or is the army just covering itself in case it
really happens because it cannot claim once again that it didn't
know? I wonder what goes on at those government meetings in
Damascus. Are they quaking in their boots or laughing their heads
off?

Senior military correspondent Alex Fishman wrote in
mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot: "If the Syrians 'hold
their breath' and will not attempt to forcefully retrieve the Golan
Heights in the next four years, they will 'enjoy' a 'nuclear
umbrella' from Iran."

Senior columnist Dan Margalit wrote in the popular, pluralist
Maariv: "The impression is that Israel is being dragged to talks
only after it is threatened with war.... After it declared that it
will not negotiate with Syria, it became clear that reality is
different. It is already there."

Diplomatic correspondent Ben Caspit opined in popular, pluralist
Maariv: "It is possible that negotiations [with Syria] will not
ripen or not succeed. It is possible that the move would lead us to
war. But the effort in necessary."

Block Quotes:
--------------


I. "June-July Heat"

Senior commentator Nahum Barnea wrote in the popular, pluralist
Yediot (06/08): "Olmert is deliberating. He suspects that all the
Syrians want is to extricate themselves without punishment from the
Hariri assassination affair. He fears a Syrian misunderstanding
that will deteriorate into war. That is what happened precisely 40
years ago, on the eve of the Six-Day War. Three prime ministers --
Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak -- held talks with the Syrians, and none
of them succeeded in reaching an agreement. Why should he, Olmert,
succeed where they failed. And what will Bush say. And what will
Yvette [Minister of Strategic Affairs Yvette Lieberman] say.
Israel's diplomatic legacy is unequivocal: Israel has never said no
to an Arab party that has expressed willingness for negotiations.
It has sometimes evaded negotiations by creative excuses ... but it
has never said no outright. Olmert cannot say no either. That is
why he was forced to announce this week festively that he invites
Syria to direct talks. It is doubtful whether an arrangement will
come of this, but perhaps we will get through the summer safely."

II. "Drowning its Sorrow"

Senior columnist and longtime dove Yoel Marcus wrote in the
independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (06/08): "Drowning its sorrows.
So who invented the story about a war this summer? The weather
forecaster? And what about the story that Syria is planning an
attack on Israel? Did we get a fax from Damascus? Or is the army
just covering itself in case it really happens because it cannot
claim once again that it didn't know? I wonder what goes on at
those government meetings in Damascus. Are they quaking in their
boots or laughing their heads off? Are they saying: If Israel says
we're preparing to attack, maybe that means they're planning to
attack? Is it any wonder that they are sharpening their sabers over
there? And in the middle of all this, the papers are reporting
secret talks between Israel and Syria. But maybe that is

SIPDIS
camouflage, too. Maybe there is some surprise attack in the offing,
and the Syrians are honing their defenses? Actually, it sounds more
as if the Winograd Committee's final report is drawing near and the
government is drowning its sorrows."

III. "The Golan Race"

Senior military correspondent Alex Fishman wrote in
mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot (06/08): "Talk of a
possible confrontation in the coming summer is the first stop in the
long and tense path of the year of decision that we are entering.
Apparently, someone on our side thinks that enough warning signs
have accumulated for us to be alert. But it is doubtful that the
Syrians have any real interest in starting the confrontation now.
They are not ready yet. If there is a confrontation in the summer,
it could break out due to an error on the part of one of the sides.
It could be a misinterpretation of a step taken by the other side.
The headlines and statements by military figures and politicians
could encourage an incorrect interpretation of one move or another,
and that would ignite the fire.... If the Syrians 'hold their
breath' and will not attempt to forcefully retrieve the Golan
Heights in the next four years, they will 'enjoy' a 'nuclear
umbrella' from Iran. For the time being the IDF is concerned from
the point of no return in the Syrian army's build-up. In a
theoretic world the IDF was supposed to present to the government
the option to hit the enemy before it reaches that point. Not to
wait until it decides to attack but to attack it first.... Today the
termination of a 'preemptive blow' was erased from IDF's schools....
The army understands that there will not be a preventive war unless
the Syrians make a mistake and start raging in the Golan"

IV. "Only Under Pressure"

Senior columnist Dan Margalit wrote in the popular, pluralist Maariv
(06/08): "Israel doesn't have a serious option to avoid negotiations
with any certified Arab source who declares his wish for peace.
Inner and outer pressure will do its own. So will common sense. But
the government is having difficulties. Because the loss of
confidence at home and the fear that it would be dragged to
concessions due to its weakness. There were years in which Israel
mocked Arab countries saying their governments cannot talk peace out
of fear for their own removal. Now Syria claims that that is the
reason why Israel cannot do peace and no one disagrees with it. The
impression is that Israel is being dragged to talks only after it is
threatened with war.... After it declared that it will not negotiate
with Syria, it became clear that reality is different. It is
already there."


V. "A Year Ago"

Diplomatic correspondent Ben Caspit opined in popular, pluralist
Maariv (06/08): "Up until a year ago entering negotiations with
Syria was pretty simple. But at that time we were strong.
Meanwhile the Second Lebanon War broke. Now we are weak. The
Syrians feel confident.... The Israeli leadership is panicked.
Winds of war are blowing in its face.... Olmert is embarrassed. He
has no clue whether the Syrian deal is still valid. What is certain
is that the price has gone up. If he was less arrogant and proud a
year ago, everything could look different.... So now what we do?
It's simple: stand up on the Knesset's podium and call upon Assad
for an immediate meeting, with no preconditions. Say you know the
price of peace and present Assad with the Israeli rate. Reach out a
hand clearly, bravely, determinably for peace with Syria. Israel
could never afford itself -- even when it thought that it is really
strong -- to refuse peace.... It is possible that negotiations will
not ripen or not succeed. It is possible that the move would lead
us to war. But the effort in necessary."

--------------

2. Mideast:
--------------

Summary:
--------------
Senior columnist and chief defense commentator Zeev Schiff wrote in
the independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz: "If what is happening in the
Gaza Strip were to happen to Israel in the West Bank, we would be
back in a situation like that during the War of Independence, and
this could include the expulsion of terrorism supporters.
Therefore, Israel must insist for now on isolating the West Bank,
and it must also reject the security benchmarks plan proposed by
U.S. security coordinator Major General Keith Dayton, as it is
liable to lead to Hamas penetration of the West Bank."

The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized: "In his
speech this month, Bush should build on his insight that the
Palestinians were 'treated as pawns' in the conflict. This is an
obvious reference to the Arab states, which have used the conflict
to distract from their own stagnant regimes."

Block Quotes:
--------------


I. An Israeli defeat in Sderot

Senior columnist and chief defense commentator Zeev Schiff wrote in
the independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (06/08): "Even if we declare
dozens of times that Hamas is under pressure and wants a cease-fire,
it will not erase the fact that in the battle for Sderot, Israel has
in effect been defeated.... Israel is experiencing something in
Sderot that it has not experienced since the War of Independence, if
ever: The enemy has silenced an entire city and brought normal life
there to a halt.... The present government in particular, but its
predecessor as well, has suffered a resounding defeat here. The
government has not succeeded in turning bombarded Sderot into a
national defense project. That reinforces the assessment that this
government is incapable of leading the nation in a major military
confrontation. It is also a defeat for the defense establishment,
including the Israel Defense Forces.... Israel finds itself in a
military draw with Hamas. That is a serious national failure, which
in my opinion is worse than the failure of the Second Lebanon
War.... If what is happening in the GAZA Strip were to happen to
Israel in the West Bank, we would be back in a situation like that
during the War of Independence, and this could include the expulsion
of terrorism supporters. Therefore, Israel must insist for now on
isolating the West Bank, and it must also reject the security
benchmarks plan proposed by U.S. security coordinator Major General
Keith Dayton, as it is liable to lead to Hamas penetration of the
West Bank. Even if we achieve a real cease-fire in the GAZA Strip,
at least one year of quiet should pass until the cease-fire is
extended to the West Bank."

II. "Shift the Spotlight"

The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (06/08):
"The US-Israeli talks this week took place with two scheduled events
in the background: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's White House visit on
June 19, and a speech by President George W. Bush around June 24,
the fifth anniversary of his landmark address calling for a new
Palestinian leadership.... In his speech this month, Bush should
build on his insight that the Palestinians were 'treated as pawns'
in the conflict. This is an obvious reference to the Arab states,
which have used the conflict to distract from their own stagnant
regimes. Five years on, Bush should say that it is no longer the
lack of a Palestinian state that is perpetuating the conflict, but
the conflict -- in the form of the Islamic refusal to accept Israel
-- that is blocking a Palestinian state. The weak and radicalized
Palestinians cannot change this on their own; they need the Arab
states to lead the way by taking concrete steps to make peace, which
means accepting Israel. Though the Palestinians must still be held
responsible for their own destiny, the spotlight that Bush rightly
trained on them should now be shifted to the Arab states."
CRETZ