ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 001291

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:
--------------

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




1. Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech


I: "For Obama's Ears
Senior columnist Nahum Barnea wrote in the mass-circulation,
pluralist Yediot Aharonot (6/15): "Three words will remain from the
speech at Bar Ilan University: "demilitarized Palestinian state."
... They clarify that if there should be a resolution to the
conflict, that is what it will look like. Not autonomy, not
something less than a state, not annexation to Israel, not a return
to Egyptian or Jordanian sovereignty. ... Netanyahu's speech was
meant for one pair of ears - the most prominent and famous pair in
the world: the ears of Barack Obama. Netanyahu, through his own
fault, got into a stalemate in his relationship with the president
of the United States. The speech was written as a rescue tool.
Netanyahu calculated the manner in which the White House would
receive his speech so carefully that he took the trouble to
telephone Vice President Joseph Biden at 5:00 PM yesterday afternoon
to tell him its main points.... Netanyahu wrote a speech that
brought together everything that is considered a consensus in Jewish
public opinion in Israel: the blood-soaked narrative of the history
of the Jewish people and settlement in the Land of Israel, the
feeling of victimization and the aspiration for peace (the word
"peace" was uttered in the speech more than any other word),
national unity, the emphasis on the state's Jewish character, and
the supremacy of security considerations. Even two contradictory
values - a Palestinian state and the settlers - were brought into
the consensus. All were his children."

II. "You Have to Start Somewhere"
Ben Caspit, senior diplomatic correspondent, wrote in the popular,
pluralist Maariv (6/15): "It was one small step for the peace
process, one giant leap for Binyamin Netanyahu. Even the most
difficult of treks has to start somewhere.... Netanyahu took his
first small and hesitant step.... If Netanyahu had the slightest
belief that there was some chance that the Palestinians would be
capable of acquiescing to any of the conditions he had set, he would
have refrained from saying what he did.... The right wing will say
today that now the slippery slope has begun, the left wing will say
that this was too little, too late, but what is really important is
what the Americans will say. They are saying that this is an
important first step. Now they are waiting for additional ones. In
the end' he uttered those horrible words, what he had only alluded
to until today. He said "Palestinian state" and was able to remain
alive. Looked to his right, looked to his left, felt for his vital
organs and realized much to his amazement: everything is still where
it should be, in peace (and security).
III. "A Big Step for Netanyahu, a Small Step for the Middle East"

Pundit Sima Kadmon wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yedioth
Ahronot (6/15): "It was a big step for Netanyahu, and a small step
for the Middle East. It was a big step for Netanyahu because one
does not have to be an expert in body language in order to see how
difficult it was for him, physically, to utter the words. And one
does not have to be a psychologist in order to understand that
Netanyahu did not reach an internal realization... that this is what
needs to be done. Rather, it was forced upon him.... In other words,
the man who until recently was considered a media wizard, the
number-one public-relatins man of the State of Israel, an eloquent
and carismatic speaker in a class by himself, looked muc less sure
of himself and, almost ironically, muh more real.... But even if
Netanyahu looked lik someone who vomited the words, even if he
wrappd them in conditions and reservations that one douts will
ever come true, he said it. Binyamin Netayahu accepted the
two-state principle, and so fel the last bastion of the right
wing.... It was certainly a courageous speech.... It is true that
all Netanyahu did was to throw the ball into the Palestinians' court
with the clear knowledge that they would not be able to deliver the
goods."

IV: "What He Did Not Say"

Shimon Shiffer, senior diplomatic correspondent, wrote in the
mass-circulation, pluralist Yedioth Ahronot (6/15): "In Binyamin
Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech one must pay attention to what he did
not say together with what he did.... He deliberately chose not to
mention other subjects at all.... Netanyahu mentioned the two words
"Palestinian state," but did so in a negative, conditional
context.... The second time, he said, "We cannot be expected to
agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without
assurance of its demilitarization." The third and most important
time, he said, "If the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of
the Jewish people, we will be willing, in a future agreement, to
reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the
Jewish state."... [Netanyahu]
settled for a mention of "Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, will
remain united" without mentioning the words "Israeli sovereignty,"
which he used a great deal in the past every time the subject of
Jerusalem was mentioned. Netanyahu refrained from making clear
statements even on the subject of halting construction in the
settlements... Netanyahu sufficed with a vague statement that "It is
necessary to allow the residents to live normal lives, to allow
mothers and fathers to bring up their children like in all other
families in the world."... The Obama administration's unequivocal
demand that Israel dismantle the outposts did not get even a trace
of a mention from Netanyahu. ... He said that Netanyahu did not want
to open a new front with the settlers because, among other reasons,
he believes that the outposts will be evacuated in the end, either
by agreement or by force. The Golan Heights were not mentioned at
all, either. It is possible that Netanyahu believes that at the
moment, the American administration does not expect him to open a
front in his coalition regarding Syria, or that the Americans
believe that Bashar Assad should be allowed to sweat first under
their demand that he stop supporting terrorism. It is also possible
that Netanyahu wanted to hint that he is willing to negotiate.
The person not mentioned in the speech was Palestinian Authority
Chairman Abu Mazen. Netanyahu mentioned the Palestinian Authority,
but not its chairman. He did take the trouble to mention the names
of the president of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan."

V: "Netanyahu's Ideological About-face"

Senior Diplomatic Correspondent Aluf Benn wrote in the independent,
left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/15): "Last night, Benjamin Netanyahu
underwent an ideological reversal in two important areas. First, the
prime minister accepted the idea of a Palestinian state as the basis
for a peace agreement after vehemently opposing it for years....
Netanyahu is now joining the international consensus with respect to
the idea of "two states for two peoples." ... The second major
change is that Netanyahu insisted that America guarantee a future
security arrangement in the West Bank so that a Palestinian state
does not turn into "Hamastan." He hinted at the deployment of U.S.
soldiers at border crossings, and even within the territory of a
future state, to protect Israel from existential dangers.... Obama
will have to decide whether what Netanyahu offered him yesterday
will be enough to prod Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas into
renewing negotiations, or whether the American leader must now
embark on another campaign of pressure and arm-twisting vis-a-vis
his Israeli counterpart to achieve the results he seeks."

VI. "Reality Check: Netanyahu's Lost Opportunity"
Jeff Barak, former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote in
the conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (6/15): "Netanyahu had
the worst of all worlds last night. He annoyed right-wing Likud MKs
and his right-wing coalition allies by accepting... the future
existence of a Palestinian state while failing... to win
Washington's approval for his new stance. ... Netanyahu is allowing
Israel to become enmeshed in an argument with Washington that
endangers Israel's most vital interests.... Frittering away US and
western support for Israel over the issue of a few houses here and
there in the West Bank is irresponsible in the extreme. ... By
failing to offer a convincing vision last night, Netanyahu... is
going to find himself being dragged by the United States into a
Middle East peace process he does not want, and in which he is
viewed with suspicion by all sides. ... Netanyahu should have showed
his willingness to play his part in helping move the peace process
forward with a clear suggestion for breaking the current
impasse...His refusal to do so will prove costly to Israel in the
months to come."

VII: "Reconciliation"

The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (6/15):
"Did Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan
University last night outlining his vision of Arab-Israel peace
satisfy mainstream Israelis? Did it contribute to shaping an Israeli
consensus? The answer: Yes.... Netanyahu announced his support for a
demilitarized Palestinian state. The territorial details will need
to be negotiated. And the Palestinian leadership will have to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and abandon the demand to
resettle in it millions of descendants of the original 650,000 Arab
refugees from the War of Independence. This offer - coming from a
Likud leader - is momentous. Now the ball is in the Arab court. ...
Netanyahu's speech demonstrated that Israeli governments honor the
commitments of their predecessors.... Netanyahu was right to say
that settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. While most
Israelis do not support unauthorized outposts, they do want to find
a reasonable compromise with the US over natural growth in
settlements that Israel intends to retain under a permanent
accord....Now is the time for Israelis to pull together, for the
national interest to take precedence over partisan preferences.
Above all, now is the time for the US to persuade the Palestinians
to return to the negotiating table and pursue Netanyahu's call for a
viable reconciliation."

VIII: "40 Years Too Late"

Pundit Yaron London wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot
Aharonot (6/15): "This speech should have been delivered by the
leader of the Israeli right some 40 years ago. If it had been
delivered some 30 years ago, there may also still have been some use
to it. Even two decades ago. Perhaps. Now it's too late. The
historic hour has been missed.... The reason for this is the
dominant spirit that governs the Jewish people. This spirit,
sometimes quiet, sometimes turbulent, pushes us towards territorial
expansion and dictates Israel's policies.... We never give up one
piece of occupied land unless severely wounded in the battlefield or
unless the world powers make it clear that we have no other
choice.... Each time the price we are forced to pay grows higher.
This time the price will be tens of thousands of Israelis who will
be forced to leave their homes. This is a heavy burden, which we
shall refuse to pay, unless faced with an even worse alternative.
Some temptation, and even a charming temptation like peace with the
Arabs, will not be sufficient to convince us.... Only threats or a
devastating defeat of some sort will serve to convince us. Without
these there will be no government in Israel that will step up to the
task. They will talk, mumble, dispense promises, remove a shed or
two from some hill, destroy by fire some olive groves, and then
continue building. This is the important point. All the rest is
nonsense and folly.

XI: "The Unifer"

Ari Shavit, senior pundit, wrote in the independent,left-leaning
Ha'aretz (6/15): "Benjamin Netanyahu crossed the Rubicon yesterday.
In order to serve the country, he abandoned his father's ideological
home.... Netanyahu did the right thing... he placed the spotlight
squarely on one irreplaceable phrase: a demilitarized Palestinian
state next to a Jewish State of Israel.... Bibi Netanyahu's message
yesterday was one of unity. Bibi, who in the past was seen as
divisive, yesterday became a unifier of Israel. He put on the table
a clear, realistic and precise diplomatic formula that reflects the
worldview of the Israeli majority... he proved that he is not a
politician but a statesman.... Netanyahu's new truth is not that of
Peace Now.... However, this bitter truth is... being translated into
two principles whose morality is incontrovertible: recognition of
the Jewish state and demilitarization of the Palestinian state.
These two principles have now been laid before the White House. If
Obama refuses to accept them, we will all know that we are facing an
American president who is no longer committed to the existence of
the State of Israel. But if Obama does accept these two principles
and grants Israel international guarantees for peace, he will prove
himself a genuine peace leader - a leader who will pave the way to
the correct, stable solution of two nation-states: a Jewish state
and a Palestinian one.


CUNNINGHAM