ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 001349

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. Mideast


2. Iran

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

1. Mideast


I."Obama, the Fly and the Revolution"

Senior columnist Yoel Marcus wrote in the independent, left-leaning
Ha'aretz (6/23): "Barack Obama's election campaign was the best
show in America.... He is now in the fifth month of his presidency,
and the world is anxiously waiting to see how he will solve global
problems and maintain America's position as a world leader. Yet for
all his White House activity, Obama has kept his sense of humor and
his popular touch. He was filmed killing a pesky fly with a single
blow during an interview with CNBC.... He plays handball in the
Oval Office, speaks on the phone with his legs on the table, is
photographed in a chef's apron cooking up a presidential barbecue,
and so forth. In between all this, Obama gave a 55-minute speech to
the Islamic world at the University of Cairo, of which seven minutes
were devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is not clear
why he chose this theatrical manner and this particular venue to
speak his piece. But it is even less clear what he hoped to achieve.
That... the lion and the lamb would lie down together? What did he
think, that the settlements are really the heart of the conflict
between us and the Palestinians, and not their opposition to
Israel's very existence? And while we are on the subject, why did he
not mention that they refused to accept the two-thirds of this land
that the United Nations allocated them on November 29, 1947, and
instead sentenced both us and themselves to decades of bloodshed?...
Obama placed his vision on the table and made it clear he is
waiting for an answer. But three weeks after his oratory in Cairo,
the Arabs have yet to bat an eyelid, because they interpreted
Obama's speech as being aimed solely at Israel. Netanyahu labored
over his response like someone suffering from constipation.... In a
carefully thought out speech..., he got to the heart of the problem:
He is willing to recognize a Palestinian state, albeit a
demilitarized one, in exchange for recognition of Israel as a Jewish
state. He thereby essentially recognized the principle of two states
for two peoples.... But the Palestinian response, contrarian and
infuriating as always, came from Saeb Erekat: "Even in 1,000 years,
we will not recognize the Jewish state." ... Thus, judged by the
test of results, Obama's speech proved empty, unless, in the wake of
his prose, a comprehensive American plan for ending the conflict is
secretly being cooked up.... Obama is a superb performer, but he
will be tested not on rhetoric, but on implementation, his ability
to stop the spread of radical Islam in our region. And, on a smaller
scale, his ability to force the Palestinians to accept the idea of
two states for two peoples."

II. "Don't Hold Your Breath"

Moshe Arens, a former Likud member, a former Minister of Defense and
Foreign Affairs, and a former Israeli Ambassador to the US, wrote in
the independent, left-leaning Ha'arez (6/23): "His [Netanyahu]
speech may have brought a feeling of satisfaction to all those who
have been preaching the merits of the two-state solution, but they
should not hold their breath in anticipation of its
implementation.... What is the significance of Netanyahu's speech?
Speeches rarely change the reality on the ground, and it is the
reality on the ground that will constrain progress. Hamas controls
Gaza and is amassing weapons with the objective of terrorizing
Israel's civilian population. And Mahmoud Abbas does not control
Judea and Samaria, despite the assistance he receives from Israel,
the United States and the European Union. He is not in a position to
implement any agreements he might sign. Palestinian terror remains
the major obstacle.... The task at hand is to suppress Palestinian
terror. When that task is accomplished a number of options for a
peaceful settlement in the area will begin to open up. The two-state
solution will be only one of them.... There was a time before the
State of Israel was established when the Jewish people had no choice
but to take orders from others. That time has passed. Israel's
leaders must steer a course that is in the best long-term interests
of Israel. We will gladly accept advice, but not orders."


2. Iran


I. "Obama's Odd Response to Iran"

Yaakov Ahimeir, anchorman and editor of the weekly international
news program "Roim Olam" on Israel Television's Channel One, wrote
in the conservative, pluralist Israel Hayom(6/23): "The free world
waited for the president's words, and he, even in the more assertive
statements he made on Sunday about events in Iran, is still
projecting silence.... True, Obama warned the Iranian government and
asked it to put an end to acts of violence and the illegal steps
taken against its citizens. But his statement was only made after
pressure on him from home mounted, from the political arena. This
silence, incidentally, was explained by his not wanting to meddle in
Iran's domestic affairs. Excuse me? Since when does the US, the
superpower, refrain from meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign
countries? In the past it meddled in Iran a great deal.... But in
the affair of the uprising in Iran, Obama suddenly forgot his art of
rhetoric that won him applause after the "Cairo speech."... His
limp statements are only the natural continuation of a policy that
he wishes to pursue and which he declared back during his race for
the presidency: the policy of dialogue with the regime of President
Ahmadinejad. But this policy is collapsing even before it began to
be implemented and before any quid pro quo was received from Iran
regarding its nuclear program.... To the explanation that blatant
presidential meddling, even rhetoric, will "play into the hands" of
the regime in Iran, it can be replied that a person who called the
US the 'great Satan' cannot not resent an ideological response."


II. "The Obama Effect"
Commentator Caroline B. Glick wrote in the conservative, independent
Jerusalem Post (6/23): "It took US President Barack Obama eight
days to issue a clear statement of support for the millions of
pro-freedom demonstrators throughout Iran risking their lives to
oppose the tyranny of the mullahs. He offered no American support of
any kind for the protesters. Indeed, it is hard to say that in
making his statement, the American president was speaking primarily
as an American.... According to several prominent Western bloggers
with direct ties to the protesters, Obama's statement left the
Iranians underwhelmed and angry....But as Cooper [Helen Cooper, the
New York Times' diplomatic correspondent, 6/21] sees it, the
protesters owe their ability to oppose the regime that just stole
their votes and has trampled their basic human rights for 30 years
to Obama and the so-called "Obama effect."... The real Obama effect
on world affairs relates to the US media's unprecedented willingness
to abandon the basic responsibilities of a free press in favor of
acting as propagandists for the president. From Cooper, who pretends
that Obama's unreciprocated open hand to the mullahs is what
empowered the protesters, to Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, who
referred to Obama earlier this month as a "sort of God," without a
hint of irony, the US media have mobilized to serve the needs of the
president.... The most important repercussion of the US media's
propagandistic reporting is that the American public is denied the
ability to understand events as they unfold.... If Times readers
were permitted to know just how demented Khamenei's views of the
world are, they might come to the conclusion that Obama's intense
desire to sit down with him, and his constant pandering to Iran's
"supreme leader," are ill-advised and counterproductive,... that it
is impossible to achieve a meeting of the minds with a man who calls
Americans "morons" and leads his subordinate government officials in
chants of "Death to America," "Death to Britain" and "Death to
Israel."... As far as his media servants are concerned, his "mere
election" is responsible for everything positive that has occurred
in the US and throughout the world since last November.... In free
societies, the media's primary responsibilities are to report
current events to the public, and place those events into an
historical context to enable the public to understand how and why
they occurred.... Obama and his media flacks would have us believe
that by speaking of American values and by distinguishing friend
from foe, former president
George W. Bush raised the hackles of the world against America.
Perhaps there is some truth to this assertion. Perhaps there isn't.
What they fail to consider is that by genuflecting to tyrants, Obama
has made the US an international laughingstock. And unlike the US
media, they realize that AMERICA has no understudy."
CUNNINGHAM