(Israel Government Press Office)
Four papers discuss various issues regarding a projected US-led punitive strike on Syria for the latter's use of chemical weapons against its own civilians:
Ma'ariv discusses reports to the effect that AIPAC has entered the fray and is now heavily engaged in lobbying members of Congress to support a strike on Syria. The author suggests that "It is not at all certain that it [AIPAC] is working for Israel this time," and adds: "The efforts to tie Israel's future to the American attack on Assad could cause us damage from two sides: One, Israel – via AIPAC – will be seen as provoking a quarrel between members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and prodding Obama into going to a war that they oppose. Israel, which everyone links with AIPAC, will become, to those Americans who oppose an attack, as having dragged America in. Two, and this is the more important, Israel is doing its utmost to stay out of this conflict. AIPAC is also forcibly dragging us in. The lobby's people who are swooping on members of Congress are claiming that the attack is designed to help Israel and are thus providing Assad with the legitimacy to fire missiles at Israel if he is attacked. In the end, they will still be sitting in Washington while Israelis are going down to shelters because of them." The paper says: "President Obama has become embroiled due to an unnecessary delay and, therefore, he needs to solve his problems on his own without entangling us via the Jewish lobby, to which he turned in his hour of distress," and commends official Israel "for maintaining the relative silence that is required at present. The Prime Minister and his ministers are taking a balanced and responsible line that is neither provocative nor inflammatory. What a pity that AIPAC, which works for our benefit vis-à-vis the administration, will destroy this achievement due to an internal-Jewish interest, which, this time, we do not share. It must be told simply 'Stay out of this', but unfortunately it seems a little too late."
Yediot Aharonot asserts: "Obama could have ordered a quick missile strike against military targets in Syria and thus finish with his part in the story. But instead he embarked on a global campaign of persuasion that is doomed to fail. The Europeans have not been convinced, most members of Congress in Washington have not been convinced and, mainly, the American public has not been convinced. Obama's appeal to the world and to Congress has caused only damage: He turned a symbolic, almost minor, military move, into a world war. The molehill became a mountain." The author concludes: "What should worry us is how Syria's chemistry affects the Iranian nuclear program. The two have much in common: Both deal with weapons of mass destruction, both come from the same axis of evil and have the external support of Russia, China and North Korea. Both have red lines around them sketched by President Obama. The difference is the magnitude of the damage; an Iranian bomb is liable to fundamentally change the face of the region. If the American President is unable to summon international legitimacy and domestic support for action in Syria, how will he be able to meet his promises on the Iranian issue?"
Yisrael Hayom says: "Syria in 2013 is Spain in 1936-39. The victory of Fascism in Madrid and Barcelona paved the way to World War II. A significant achievement for Bashar Assad in the brutal civil war that he is waging in his country will pave the way to Iran taking over the Middle East. Whoever does not want to pay the price for stopping Assad now will need to do so with compound interest in innocent blood in the next rounds."
The Jerusalem Post discusses the involvement of AIPAC activists in US president Barack Obama’s attempt to garner support in Congress for US intervention in Syria, and states: “Jewish groups have same the right as other American organizations to come out publicly in support of military intervention in Syria.” The editor adds: “that support should emerge from a starting point of Americans backing an American action initiated by the president of their country,” and concludes: “It should not be predicated in any way on whether the action against Syria is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for Israel.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haaretz comments on “The impure alliance between officials and settlement construction,” and states: “Many government officials try to obscure the nature of their ties to settlement construction but the conflict of interests is crystal clear.” The editor suggests that “it is not so far-fetched to suspect that there are winks and handshakes in the process of receiving construction permits,” and declares: “This situation has been going on since the start of the settlements, based as they are on legal and moral corruption that must be uprooted immediately.”
[Shalom Yerushalmi, Nahum Barnea and Dan Margalit wrote today’s articles in Ma'ariv, Yediot Aharonot and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]