(Israel Government Press Office)
Four papers discuss the implications of a US attack on Syria – or a delay in such an attack – in the wake of the Assad regime's recent chemical weapons attack on rebels near Damascus:
Ma'ariv discounts the possibility that Syria might attack Israel in response to an American assault. The author asserts: "Assad's regime is not in immediate danger, certainly not a greater danger than prevails at present. One may ask why Assad would risk himself by opening another front against Israel, which really could wreck his regime? Assad knows very well that if Israel is attacked with non-conventional weapons or weapons that cause large-scale destruction, it will use all means at its disposal to punish Syria. The Israeli blow, from Assad's point-of-view, could be decisive and, therefore, he has no interest in attacking Israel. Assad is capable of emerging from the American-European attack still in power; thus, the panic in Israel is unnecessary."
Yediot Aharonot says: "The Obama administration has done its utmost not to intervene in the civil war in Syria. Its conscience was quiet during the long two years in which 100,000 people have been slaughtered. Large countries do not like small wars; they want influence without cost. Obama became entangled when he opened his mouth. He drew a red line and Assad crossed it." The author believes: "Until the American Congress approves the attack (if it approves it), the chemical weapons depots will be moved. The headquarters will be replaced. The targets that have been chosen will become empty buildings. The achievements of the possible attack will shrink, the bloodbath will remain." The paper concludes: "From Israel's point-of-view, it is hard to ignore the lessons. The international helplessness is also significant for those who are looking for commitments vis-à-vis the Iranian issue. Netanyahu was right when he sought to act independently. No one else will do the work. Israel needs to ask itself what it wants, not what America will do. Red lines are a matter of national pride; the international community has only flexible lines."
Yisrael Hayom asks: "If the proven use of chemical weapons (for the 14th time in less than six months) does not rouse the world to action, what will? And if Obama needs to plead for Congressional approval for a small-scale attack, what will happen if he seeks to attack – let us assume – Iran's nuclear installations? And the most painful question: If – Heaven forbid – we are attacked with chemical weapons by Syria or another enemy, could we really be certain that the US would line up alongside us, or Jordan, or Saudi Arabia, to whom the Americans have also sworn eternal loyalty?"
Haaretz contends: “if and when Syria is attacked, the main purpose will be to prove that the U.S. president is a man of his word, and only incidentally to eliminate some of the Syrian regime's military capabilities.” The editor asserts: “On the eve of the strike on Syria, when scholarly analyses suggest that the Assad regime will survive it and that Syria and its allies could retaliate, there is at least one terrifying lesson to be learned: The Israeli home front is not prepared for war, and the Israeli public is not protected,” and concludes: “The joy of war cannot compensate for that failure.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jerusalem Post comments that “The state comptroller has leveled fines on no fewer than 50 MKs for assorted infractions of party primary regulations,” and notes that “Primaries seem fair, but they tip the scales against new challengers in the political contest.” The editor believes that “The inescapable truth is that there are no instant facile solutions. The primaries, most of all, are no magic formula,” and concludes: “Each party must be left free to opt for a system it deems best, to exercise common sense rather than be legally coerced to follow trendy or opportunistic dictates, of which the primary system is a sad example.”
[Dr. Chilo Rosenberg, Yoaz Hendel and Yoav Limor wrote today’s articles in Ma'ariv, Yediot Aharonot and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]