SPECIAL ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 000500 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: SPECIAL ISRAEL MEDIA REACTION -------------- SUBJECTS COVERED IN THIS REPORT: -------------- Secretary Clinton to Israel, West Bank, March 2-4, 2009 -------------- Key stories in the media: -------------- The media reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Israel last night and will meet with various Israeli officials today Q PM Ehud Olmert, FM Tzipi Livni, DM Ehud Barak, PM-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. She will travel tomorrow to Ramallah for meetings with Palestinian officials. The Jerusalem Post quoted GOI officials as saying that both Clinton and Netanyahu would likely be in Qlistening mode,Q to hear the positions of the other side. Similarly, a Yediot headline reads: QClinton on a Listening Trip.Q Yediot cited NetanyahuQs belief that, subsequently, Clinton will not pressure Israel. The Jerusalem Post quoted an Israeli official as saying that he did not expect QfireworksQ around either the two-state issue or construction in the settlements. HaQaretz reported that Israel plans to present Secretary Clinton with a series of "red lines" it wants Washington to incorporate into its planned dialogue with Tehran about Iran's nuclear program. The red lines were jointly formulated by the Foreign Ministry and the defense establishment, and Netanyahu has been briefed on them. The document recommends that Israel adopt a positive attitude toward the planned U.S.-Iranian dialogue, but proposes ways of minimizing what Israeli officials see as the risks inherent in such talks. Its main points are as follows: ¶1. Any dialogue must be both preceded by and accompanied by harsher sanctions against Iran, both within the framework of the UN Security Council and outside it. Otherwise, the talks are liable to be perceived by both Iran and the international community as acceptance of Iran's nuclear program. ¶2. Before the dialogue begins, the U.S. should formulate an action plan with Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain regarding what to do if the talks fail. Specifically, there must be an agreement that the talks' failure will prompt extremely harsh international sanctions on Iran. ¶3. A time limit must be set for the talks, to prevent Iran from merely buying time to complete its nuclear development. The talks should also be defined as a "one-time opportunity" for Tehran. ¶4. Timing is critical, and the U.S. should consider whether it makes sense to begin the talks before Iran's presidential election in June. HaQaretz reported that the red lines were approved by PM Ehud Olmert, FM Tzipi Livni and DM Ehud Barak at a meeting with senior defense officials last week. All three plan to raise them at their respective meetings with Clinton Tuesday. Within the defense establishment, the majority view, led by chief of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin, is that Israel should regard the U.S.-Iranian dialogue as an opportunity rather than a threat. The minority view, spearheaded by the Defense Ministry, is that the dialogue entails grave risks. Israel's estimate of the progress of Iran's nuclear program differs from both that of the International Atomic Energy Agency and that expressed on Sunday by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Israel's assessment is that Iran does not yet have enough uranium for a bomb; it thinks Iran will reach this point only in late 2009 or early ¶2010. Nevertheless, Olmert told Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon on Sunday that the "timetable for Iran's nuclear program is pressing, and therefore, determined action is necessary. Israel will not tolerate a nuclear Iran." HaQaretz said that one question to which Israeli officials will be seeking an answer from Clinton is what role Dennis Ross, the Secretary of State's newly appointed special advisor for the Gulf and Southeast Asia, will actually play. HaQaretz reported that it is widely expected that Ross will focus on the Iranian nuclear issue, but this has not been stated officially. The Jerusalem Post quoted a senior State Department official as saying that yesterday Secretary Clinton expressed doubt that Iran would respond to the Obama administration's expressions of interest in engaging Tehran on nuclear and other issues. The Jerusalem Post quoted the official as saying that Clinton made the remarks in a private meeting with the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who had expressed to Clinton concern among Persian Gulf nations that Obama might make a deal with Iran without full consultation with U.S. allies. The media reported that at least $4.4 billion in aid was pledged yesterday in Sharm el-Sheikh by donors for both the Palestinian economy at large, and Gaza in particular Q about twice the sum that PA President Mahmoud Abbas had expected. The plan is to make the money available to the PA over the next two years. In its lead story, HaQaretz (Hebrew Ed.) quoted French President Sarkozy as saying at the donorsQ conference that the release of Gilad Shalit Q a dual Israeli-French citizen -- in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners should be given first priority, a message that Israel Radio said irritated Egypt. Israel Radio reported that French PM Francois Fillon conveyed the same message to an audience of Jewish leaders in Paris. Maariv reported that American officials did not accede to a request by ShalitQs family to meet Secretary Clinton. Yediot reported that Syrian President Bashar Assad told foreign sources over the past few days that he is willing to sign a peace treaty with Netanyahu and that he will not condition it on the Palestinian issue. The media reported that, despite opposition within his own party, Labor Chairman Ehud Barak is expected to meet PM-designate Benjamin Netanyahu once more before the end of the week. Barak signaled to the members of the Labor Party's Knesset faction yesterday that he wished to enter the government, ending the uncertainty shrouding the matter since the polls. Yediot reported that even the QBarak camp in the party is opposed to joining NetanyahuQs government. Makor Rishon-Hatzofe cited the fear of senior Labor members that the party might split. Yediot reported that yesterday Kadima cabinet minister Shaul Mofaz failed in a bid to make his party join the government coalition. Yediot quoted political sources as saying that Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman MK Avigdor Lieberman has stated over the past few days that he had accepted the post of foreign minister. The newspaper reported that Likud is offering him either the foreign affairs or treasury portfolio, but that Lieberman prefers the former. The Jerusalem Post reported that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress are calling for an investigation into Charles Freeman, the new chairman of the National Intelligence Council over his ties with Saudi Arabia and criticism of Israel. The media reported that the report issued yesterday by the State Comptroller on efforts to develop a missile defense system against Qassam rockets, which the south has been desperately awaiting for eight years now, reveals a worrying picture of bureaucratic confusion, wasted money and broken rules. The bottom line: The Iron Dome system is still far from completion, and Israel still has no effective defense against short-range rockets. All media reported that a rocket was launched yesterday at the Ashkelon area. -------------- BLOCK QUOTES -------------- Summary: -------------- The independent, left-leaning HaQaretz editorialized: Q[NetanyahuQs] attempt to turn back the diplomatic process is fated to fail, and it will only embroil Israel with the Obama administration at a time when it needs America's crucial support for the struggle against the Iranian nuclear bomb. Senior columnist and longtime dove Yoel Marcus wrote in Ha'aretz: QThe U.S. Secretary of State is coming with the same mantra [as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni]. But for now, it's not working, neither with us nor with the Palestinians. Don't you have anything new to offer, Hillary? Giora Eiland, former Director of the National Security Council, wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot: QThe maximum that an Israeli government can offer the Palestinians while surviving politically is much less than the minimum that a Palestinian regime can accept while surviving politically. The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized: Q[Tzipi LivniQs choice] may prove unfortunate for Israel, for her party, and for her personally. Yoav Shorek editorialized in the nationalist, Orthodox Makor Rishon-Hatzofe: QThe second Netanyahu government is a golden opportunity for a strategic turn. Block Quotes: -------------- ¶I. QNetanyahuQs Naysaying The independent, left-leaning HaQaretz editorialized (3/3): QUnder different circumstances, there would be nothing new to [Secretary] Clinton's positions, which continue the previous administration's policy. However, the outcome of Israel's election undermines the international consensus. The Obama administration is going to demand of Netanyahu that he continue the process his predecessors have led, just as it is demanding of Hamas that it adopt the Quartet's conditions and recognize Israel. Israeli intransigence will have a double price: It will create an unnecessary and damaging conflict with the United States and, worse than that, it will strengthen those voices calling for abandoning the two-state solution and granting the Palestinians full rights in a bi-national state. Netanyahu, who wanted to lead Israel from the center, is barricading himself into the extreme right of the political spectrum.... His attempt to turn back the diplomatic process is fated to fail, and it will only embroil Israel with the Obama administration at a time when it needs America's crucial support for the struggle against the Iranian nuclear bomb. II. QAnything New, Hillary? Senior columnist and longtime dove Yoel Marcus wrote in Ha'aretz (3/3): QWe need to understand that Hillary has enormous influence, and it would be a mistake to circumvent her via the President or Congress and the Jewish lobby. It is vital to treat what she says as if it came from the President's mouth, to avoid getting into fights with her, and to make sure we keep our promises.... The most important element in the relationship between the Obama administration and whoever winds up leading Israel is an agreement in principle that each country refrain from surprising the other, according to Danny Halperin, an expert on the United States. In other words, neither they nor we should surprise each other with plans, initiatives or actions to which both parties have not consented. A sort of Qno surprises pact,Q under which neither side takes any action without giving the other a chance to have its say. Hillary will not be here long enough to find out what kind of government we will ultimately have. But as an observer from the sidelines, it seems that Livni's opposition to joining a Netanyahu government is both firm and justified. [Livni] is following the right instincts when she says she must not participate in a nationalist government that may pay lip service to two states for two peoples, but will never make it happen. The U.S. Secretary of State is coming with the same mantra. But for now, it's not working, neither with us nor with the Palestinians. Don't you have anything new to offer, Hillary? III. QNo Chance for Two States Giora Eiland, former Director of the National Security Council, wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot Aharonot: QThe Qtwo-stateQ idea is based on a series of assumptions: first, the main Palestinian national ambition is statehood. There is no basis for this. The Palestinian ethos is based on values such as justice, the recognition of their being victims, a desire to take revenge, and above all the Qright of returnQ.... The second assumption is that if a Palestinian state is established, it will be completed by Qmoderate elements.Q There is no basis for that.. The third assumption is that two stable states can coexist in the narrow strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.... The Palestinian state will not be able to be independent and Israel will not be able to defend itself. The fourth assumption is that Israel can implement such an agreement, which entails the evacuation of 100,000 settlers. Such an operation would cost $30 million, not including the billions of dollars needed to relocate the army. Is this possible? In brief, one could say that the maximum that an Israeli government can offer the Palestinians while surviving politically is much less than the minimum that a Palestinian regime can accept while surviving politically. IV, QIsraelQs Interests The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (3/3): QThe question Netanyahu's various potential partners should ask themselves, however, is whether Israel can afford politics as usual right now. If Iran cannot yet build a nuclear bomb, it is certainly closing in on that goal. Operation Cast Lead plainly did not put an end to rocket fire from Gaza. Unemployment is soaring. And that is only the first trio of critical challenges. For Livni in particular, the choice is weighty. When it is formulating positions on settlements, on a strategy for dealing with Hamas and on facing the Iranian nuclear danger in the crucial next year or two, she might ask herself: Will Israel be better served by a narrow coalition, or by a government that demonstrably represents a wide electoral consensus? For all the shifts and reverses, signs are that Livni has irrevocably made up her mind, and that Kadima performed well enough under her leadership in the elections to respect her decision to go into the opposition and hold together for now. However, this choice may return to haunt her. It may prove unfortunate for Israel, for her party, and for her personally. Even when gauging her narrow interests, after all, there is no guarantee that a right-wing coalition will quickly crumble. And there is certainly no guarantee that, if it does, a new election will bring a better result for her party and its would-be prime minister. ¶V. QOne Large Country Yoav Shorek editorialized in the nationalist, Orthodox Makor Rishon-Hatzofe (3/3): QThe second Netanyahu government is a golden opportunity for a strategic turn. Given the collapse of disengagement, the rise of the Iranian axis, WashingtonQs opening to creative ideas, and first and foremost the recognition in Israeli society that the LeftQs solutions have been tried and failed, NetanyahuQs leadership will be a great hope if it is elevated to a bold vision. CUNNINGHAM