ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 001309

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. PM Netanyahu's Speech


2. Iran

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

1. PM Netanyahu's Speech



I. "The Gratuitous Condition"


Author A. B. Yehoshua wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist
Yediot Aharonot (6/17): "The idea of two states was rejected by a
majority of both Israelis and Palestinians.... We all know that the
road to making that idea become manifest is paved with digressions
and obstacles, but among the preconditions that were set by the
prime minister in his speech at Bar Ilan University, there were some
that are crucial and others that are gratuitous.... Having the
Palestinian state banned from possessing heavy and sophisticated
weaponry is an essential, justified and vital condition. Even the
great and independent Egypt accepted the need to demilitarize the
Sinai peninsula, and armament and other military restrictions have
been in place for decades.... The precondition rejecting the
settlement of Palestinian refugees inside the area of the State of
Israel is reasonable, logical and justified. What is the point in
the return of millions of refugees into the area of a state that is
foreign to them insofar as pertains to its character, symbols and
the nationality of a majority of its residents? To the houses and
lands that no longer exist for all intents and purposes? Those
refugees can be settled in their homeland, Palestine, among their
fellow countrymen, under the flag of Palestine and Palestinian
sovereignty.... But the condition that was set by the prime minister
about Palestinian recognition of the Jewish people's right to
establish a state, or the existence of a Jewish nation-was
gratuitous. In my opinion, it is gratuitous to demand that the
Palestinians recognize the nationality of an historic people that is
thousands of years old, whose state has diplomatic relations with
more than 150 countries. That demand was never set as a precondition
for peace with either Egypt or Jordan, and it creates a needless
obstacle.... The negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian
state are going to be fraught with troubles and obstacles in any
event. Let us focus on solving the principal
problems-demilitarization, settlements, borders and refugees, and
leave the theological and historical questions to be solved by real
peace.

II. "New Member of the Club"

Pundit Eitan Haber wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot
Aharonot (6/17): "The speech of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at
Bar Ilan University was outstanding, perfectly structured. It was a
masterpiece that pleased everyone.... But as far as we're concerned,
what's the big deal?... Every prime minister "learns the material"
and the tom-tom drums of politics and the media start to pound him
with: a Palestinian state, a state, two states for two peoples. In
this case, for Netanyahu, it wasn't simple: the current prime
minister comes from the foundations of the "national home," which
for generations sang "two banks for the Jordan" before laying
themselves down to sleep at night.... He most likely had to do some
soul searching, but he is no different from a long line of Likud
princes who thought as he did for years and changed their minds.
Starting from Menahem Begin, Ezer Weizman, Arik Sharon, Ehud Olmert,
Tzippi Livni, Tzahi Hanegbi, Dan Meridor, Roni Milo and many other
good people who, according to their current views, could easily lead
center and left wing-lite parties.... He, forever, will go down in
history as one of the people of the national camp who converted
their religion."


III. "With Honesty and Courage"
Author David Grossman wrote in the independent, left-leaning
Ha'aretz (6/17): "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech was
indeed, as it has been decribed, the speech of our lives. Our
bogged-down, hopeless lives.... What the speech exposed, beyond all
its juggling and parities, is the desistance we have come to, we
Israelis, in the face of a reality that requires flexibility, daring
and vision....Other than acceptance of the two-state principle,
which was wrung out of Netanyahu under heavy pressure and sourly
expressed, this speech contained no tangible step toward a real
change of consciousness. Netanyahu did not speak "honestly and
courageously."... He did not look the settlers in the eye and tell
them what he knows full well: that the map of the settlements
contradicts the map of peace. That most of them will have to leave
their homes.... I looked at him, and at the impressive data on the
support he received after the speech, and I knew how far we are from
peace.... I also observed the Palestinians who responded to the
speech, and I thought that they are the most faithful partners to
desistance and missed opportunities. Their response could have been
much wiser and more prescient than the speech itself; could they not
have grasped even the drooping branch Netanyahu offered them,
unwillingly, and challenged him to begin negotiations with them
immediately... But the Palestinians, trapped like we are in a
mechanism of contention and haggling, preferred to speak of the
thousand years that would pass before they would agree to his
conditions.... Netanyahu's speech... tells us... that there will be
no peace here if it is not forced upon us. It is not easy to admit
it, but it seems increasingly that this is the choice Israelis and
Palestinians face: a just and secure peace - forced on the parties
through firm international involvement, led by the United States -
or war, possibly more difficult and bitter than those that came
before it."

IV: "The PM at Bar-Ilan: A Damage Assessment"

Martin Sherman, the Academic Director of the Jerusalem Summit and
lecturer in security studies at Tel Aviv University, wrote in the
conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (6/17): "One can only
wonder why Netanyahu would agree to accept an approach he has always
refused to accept - just when that approach has been utterly
discredited and disproved, and when more and more informed pundits -
including among the Palestinians - are realizing that it is
unworkable.... One of the most astonishing aspects of the ongoing
phenomenon of ostensibly "hawkish" politicians adopting, once in
power, "dovish" policies they previously repudiated is the fact that
these policies have consistently and continuously proved a
disastrous failure.... Instead of confronting today's two-state
advocates with their yesterday rejection of the idea, instead of
compelling them to explain their dramatic volte-face, he came to
them for counsel and co-optation - however grudgingly (or not).
Instead of challenging the US administration to explain its demands
that Israel accept a policy the US military itself deemed would
gravely undermine its security, he chose to accommodate those
demands... Netanyahu chose surrender over resistance, and in so
doing he put in grave danger not only his country and his people but
the very rationale of Zionism itself...


V. "The Right's Knuckleheaded Response"

Pundit Michael Freund wrote in the conservative, independent
Jerusalem Post (6/17): "ANY FAIR-MINDED OBSERVER who listened to the
speech, or merely read it afterward, could not help but come away
impressed by two main themes: A sincere desire for peace, alongside
the undeniable historical rights which underpin the existence of the
Jewish state.... With regard to the issue of a Palestinian state,
Netanyahu succeeded in outwitting US President Barack Obama at his
own game, using his considerable rhetorical skills to marshal an
unprecedented consensus among the public.... By conditioning the
creation of a Palestinian state on comprehensive demilitarization,
he has shown just how utterly utopian, and unrealistic, the Left's
dream truly is.... By insisting on a set of entirely reasonable
demands, such as Palestinian recognition of Israel as "the nation
state of the Jewish people," and the negation of a Palestinian
state's ability to forge military pacts or to control its airspace,
he has recast the definition of "statehood" in such a way as to
reduce the danger it would pose to our existence.... Only a
knucklehead could fail to see this, but that is precisely what some
on the Right so excel at doing. For all their ideological savvy,
many seem to lack an equal level of political skill and
sophistication.... His speech on Sunday represents a subtle, yet
seismic, shift in the country's stance, one that clearly places the
burden on the Palestinian side to put up or shut up."

2. Iran

I. "Still Worried' Just a Little Less"
Aluf Benn, senior diplomatic commentator, wrote in the independent,
left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/17): "Israel has decreased the extent of
the public concern over the Iranian nuclear threat: That is the
conclusion to be drawn from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's
Bar-Ilan speech and from Mossad chief Meir Dagan's remarks to the
Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday. Netanyahu
has returned to the positions of his predecessors, and placed
responsibility for Iran on the international community.... Dagan
said the Iranian bomb was a significant threat, but only in another
five years and only if there were no technical glitches....If Dagan
was speaking forthrightly and not just using the parliamentary
platform for a feint, the Iranian bomb has now receded beyond
Netanyahu's term in office. The cabinet will not have to decide in
the next few months whether to attack Iran. Israeli intelligence
assessments are in line with American ones, and this means U.S.
President Barack Obama can breathe easy: Netanyahu will not surprise
him with an attack on Iran.

IV. "Israelis for Ahmadinejad"

Aluf Benn, senior diplomatic commentator,wrote in the independent,
left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/17): "The prize for this week's most stupid
remark has to go to the officials, officers and experts who
described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the candidate
Israel prefers to win the election in Iran, and were even happy he
did... Bush, the friendly president who gave Israel a green light in
Lebanon and Gaza and to bomb Syria, did not allow Israel to attack
Iran's nuclear facilities. Barack Obama is specifically demanding
that Israel does not attack, and that it does not spring any
surprises on the United States. The presentation of Ahmadinejad as
Hitler and Iran as a police state a la "1984" ignores the internal
pressure in Iran for greater democracy and openness. Those who see
Iran only through its centrifuges will also find it hard to
understand and accept the Obama approach, which seeks dialogue with
Tehran's rulers and smiles at the Muslim world. To the Israeli
establishment this amounts to kowtowing to the neighborhood
bully.... Obama was right not to intervene. He did not accept the
results of the election but he did not publicly declare support for
the protesters. Thus he gave the reformists room, without seeming to
be pulling the strings from afar. It is too early to tell how events
will pan out in Tehran, if the regime will really mellow, but the
demonstrations offer a chance of change in Iran for the first time
in 30 years.... Netanyahu has internalized the strategic change that
Obama generated. He quickly responded to the Cairo speech with
agreement to a Palestinian state, and also changed his public
position on Iran: Instead of threatening war and talking about the
Holocaust, he returned to Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert's approach
that the problem is international and not only Israel's. Perhaps
after meeting Obama, Netanyahu understands the reality better than
his officers and his officials.

CUNNINGHAM