VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTV #1291/01 1661043
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 151043Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2189
RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEADWD/DA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/CNO WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHAD/AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI PRIORITY 5549
RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 2129
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN PRIORITY 6090
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 6360
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT PRIORITY 5593
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 4153
RUEHDM/AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS PRIORITY 6417
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 3227
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 1429
RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT PRIORITY 0119
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 7628
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 2609
RUEHTU/AMEMBASSY TUNIS PRIORITY 6622
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 8674
RUEHJI/AMCONSUL JEDDAH PRIORITY 1448
RUEHJM/AMCONSUL JERUSALEM PRIORITY 2193
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RHMFISS/COMSOCEUR VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/COMSIXTHFLT  PRIORITY

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 001291 
 
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: 
-------------------------------- 
 
Block Quotes Only: 
------------- 
 
 
 
¶1. Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech 
 
 
I: "For Obama's Ears 
Senior columnist Nahum Barnea wrote in the mass-circulation, 
pluralist Yediot Aharonot (6/15): "Three words will remain from the 
speech at Bar Ilan University: "demilitarized Palestinian state." 
...  They clarify that if there should be a resolution to the 
conflict, that is what it will look like. Not autonomy, not 
something less than a state, not annexation to Israel, not a return 
to Egyptian or Jordanian sovereignty. ... Netanyahu's speech was 
meant for one pair of ears - the most prominent and famous pair in 
the world: the ears of Barack Obama. Netanyahu, through his own 
fault, got into a stalemate in his relationship with the president 
of the United States. The speech was written as a rescue tool. 
Netanyahu calculated the manner in which the White House would 
receive his speech so carefully that he took the trouble to 
telephone Vice President Joseph Biden at 5:00 PM yesterday afternoon 
to tell him its main points.... Netanyahu wrote a speech that 
brought together everything that is considered a consensus in Jewish 
public opinion in Israel: the blood-soaked narrative of the history 
of the Jewish people and settlement in the Land of Israel, the 
feeling of victimization and the aspiration for peace (the word 
"peace" was uttered in the speech more than any other word), 
national unity, the emphasis on the state's Jewish character, and 
the supremacy of security considerations. Even two contradictory 
values - a Palestinian state and the settlers - were brought into 
the consensus. All were his children." 
 
II. "You Have to Start Somewhere" 
Ben Caspit, senior diplomatic correspondent, wrote in the popular, 
pluralist Maariv (6/15): "It was one small step for the peace 
process, one giant leap for Binyamin Netanyahu. Even the most 
difficult of treks has to start somewhere.... Netanyahu took his 
first small and hesitant step.... If Netanyahu had the slightest 
belief that there was some chance that the Palestinians would be 
capable of acquiescing to any of the conditions he had set, he would 
have refrained from saying what he did.... The right wing will say 
today that now the slippery slope has begun, the left wing will say 
that this was too little, too late, but what is really important is 
what the Americans will say. They are saying that this is an 
important first step. Now they are waiting for additional ones. In 
the end' he uttered those horrible words, what he had only alluded 
to until today. He said "Palestinian state" and was able to remain 
alive. Looked to his right, looked to his left, felt for his vital 
organs and realized much to his amazement: everything is still where 
it should be, in peace (and security). 
III. "A Big Step for Netanyahu, a Small Step for the Middle East" 
 
Pundit Sima Kadmon wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yedioth 
Ahronot (6/15): "It was a big step for Netanyahu, and a small step 
for the Middle East. It was a big step for Netanyahu because one 
does not have to be an expert in body language in order to see how 
difficult it was for him, physically, to utter the words. And one 
does not have to be a psychologist in order to understand that 
Netanyahu did not reach an internal realization... that this is what 
needs to be done. Rather, it was forced upon him.... In other words, 
the man who until recently was considered a media wizard, the 
number-one public-relatins man of the State of Israel, an eloquent 
and carismatic speaker in a class by himself, looked muc less sure 
of himself and, almost ironically, muh more real.... But even if 
Netanyahu looked lik someone who vomited the words, even if he 
wrappd them in conditions and reservations that one douts will 
ever come true, he said it. Binyamin Netayahu accepted the 
two-state principle, and so fel the last bastion of the right 
wing.... It was certainly a courageous speech.... It is true that 
all Netanyahu did was to throw the ball into the Palestinians' court 
with the clear knowledge that they would not be able to deliver the 
goods." 
 
IV: "What He Did Not Say" 
 
Shimon Shiffer, senior diplomatic correspondent, wrote in the 
mass-circulation, pluralist Yedioth Ahronot (6/15):  "In Binyamin 
Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech one must pay attention to what he did 
not say together with what he did.... He deliberately chose not to 
mention other subjects at all.... Netanyahu mentioned the two words 
"Palestinian state," but did so in a negative, conditional 
context.... The second time, he said, "We cannot be expected to 
agree in advance to the principle of a Palestinian state without 
assurance of its demilitarization." The third and most important 
time, he said, "If the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of 
the Jewish people, we will be willing, in a future agreement, to 
reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the 
Jewish state."... [Netanyahu] 
settled for a mention of "Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, will 
remain united" without mentioning the words "Israeli sovereignty," 
which he used a great deal in the past every time the subject of 
Jerusalem was mentioned. Netanyahu refrained from making clear 
statements even on the subject of halting construction in the 
settlements... Netanyahu sufficed with a vague statement that "It is 
necessary to allow the residents to live normal lives, to allow 
mothers and fathers to bring up their children like in all other 
families in the world."... The Obama administration's unequivocal 
demand that Israel dismantle the outposts did not get even a trace 
of a mention from Netanyahu. ... He said that Netanyahu did not want 
to open a new front with the settlers because, among other reasons, 
he believes that the outposts will be evacuated in the end, either 
by agreement or by force. The Golan Heights were not mentioned at 
all, either. It is possible that Netanyahu believes that at the 
moment, the American administration does not expect him to open a 
front in his coalition regarding Syria, or that the Americans 
believe that Bashar Assad should be allowed to sweat first under 
their demand that he stop supporting terrorism. It is also possible 
that Netanyahu wanted to hint that he is willing to negotiate. 
The person not mentioned in the speech was Palestinian Authority 
Chairman Abu Mazen. Netanyahu mentioned the Palestinian Authority, 
but not its chairman. He did take the trouble to mention the names 
of the president of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan." 
 
V: "Netanyahu's Ideological About-face" 
 
Senior Diplomatic Correspondent Aluf Benn wrote in the independent, 
left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/15): "Last night, Benjamin Netanyahu 
underwent an ideological reversal in two important areas. First, the 
prime minister accepted the idea of a Palestinian state as the basis 
for a peace agreement after vehemently opposing it for years.... 
Netanyahu is now joining the international consensus with respect to 
the idea of "two states for two peoples." ... The second major 
change is that Netanyahu insisted that America guarantee a future 
security arrangement in the West Bank so that a Palestinian state 
does not turn into "Hamastan." He hinted at the deployment of U.S. 
soldiers at border crossings, and even within the territory of a 
future state, to protect Israel from existential dangers.... Obama 
will have to decide whether what Netanyahu offered him yesterday 
will be enough to prod Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas into 
renewing negotiations, or whether the American leader must now 
embark on another campaign of pressure and arm-twisting vis-a-vis 
his Israeli counterpart to achieve the results he seeks." 
 
VI. "Reality Check: Netanyahu's Lost Opportunity" 
Jeff Barak, former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, wrote in 
the conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (6/15): "Netanyahu had 
the worst of all worlds last night. He annoyed right-wing Likud MKs 
and his right-wing coalition allies by accepting... the future 
existence of a Palestinian state while failing... to win 
Washington's approval for his new stance. ... Netanyahu is allowing 
Israel to become enmeshed in an argument with Washington that 
endangers Israel's most vital interests....  Frittering away US and 
western support for Israel over the issue of a few houses here and 
there in the West Bank is irresponsible in the extreme. ... By 
failing to offer a convincing vision last night, Netanyahu... is 
going to find himself being dragged by the United States into a 
Middle East peace process he does not want, and in which he is 
viewed with suspicion by all sides. ... Netanyahu should have showed 
his willingness to play his part in helping move the peace process 
forward with a clear suggestion for breaking the current 
impasse...His refusal to do so will prove costly to Israel in the 
months to come." 
 
VII: "Reconciliation" 
 
The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (6/15): 
"Did Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan 
University last night outlining his vision of Arab-Israel peace 
satisfy mainstream Israelis? Did it contribute to shaping an Israeli 
consensus? The answer: Yes.... Netanyahu announced his support for a 
demilitarized Palestinian state. The territorial details will need 
to be negotiated. And the Palestinian leadership will have to 
recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and abandon the demand to 
resettle in it millions of descendants of the original 650,000 Arab 
refugees from the War of Independence. This offer - coming from a 
Likud leader - is momentous. Now the ball is in the Arab court. ... 
Netanyahu's speech demonstrated that Israeli governments honor the 
commitments of their predecessors.... Netanyahu was right to say 
that settlements are not the main obstacle to peace. While most 
Israelis do not support unauthorized outposts, they do want to find 
a reasonable compromise with the US over natural growth in 
settlements that Israel intends to retain under a permanent 
accord....Now is the time for Israelis to pull together, for the 
national interest to take precedence over partisan preferences. 
Above all, now is the time for the US to persuade the Palestinians 
to return to the negotiating table and pursue Netanyahu's call for a 
viable reconciliation." 
 
VIII: "40 Years Too Late" 
 
Pundit Yaron London wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot 
Aharonot (6/15): "This speech should have been delivered by the 
leader of the Israeli right some 40 years ago. If it had been 
delivered some 30 years ago, there may also still have been some use 
to it. Even two decades ago. Perhaps. Now it's too late. The 
historic hour has been missed.... The reason for this is the 
dominant spirit that governs the Jewish people. This spirit, 
sometimes quiet, sometimes turbulent, pushes us towards territorial 
expansion and dictates Israel's policies.... We never give up one 
piece of occupied land unless severely wounded in the battlefield or 
unless the world powers make it clear that we have no other 
choice....  Each time the price we are forced to pay grows higher. 
This time the price will be tens of thousands of Israelis who will 
be forced to leave their homes. This is a heavy burden, which we 
shall refuse to pay, unless faced with an even worse alternative. 
Some temptation, and even a charming temptation like peace with the 
Arabs, will not be sufficient to convince us.... Only threats or a 
devastating defeat of some sort will serve to convince us.  Without 
these there will be no government in Israel that will step up to the 
task. They will talk, mumble, dispense promises, remove a shed or 
two from some hill, destroy by fire some olive groves, and then 
continue building. This is the important point. All the rest is 
nonsense and folly. 
 
XI: "The Unifer" 
 
Ari Shavit, senior pundit, wrote in the independent,left-leaning 
Ha'aretz (6/15): "Benjamin Netanyahu crossed the Rubicon yesterday. 
In order to serve the country, he abandoned his father's ideological 
home.... Netanyahu did the right thing... he placed the spotlight 
squarely on one irreplaceable phrase: a demilitarized Palestinian 
state next to a Jewish State of Israel.... Bibi Netanyahu's message 
yesterday was one of unity. Bibi, who in the past was seen as 
divisive, yesterday became a unifier of Israel. He put on the table 
a clear, realistic and precise diplomatic formula that reflects the 
worldview of the Israeli majority... he proved that he is not a 
politician but a statesman.... Netanyahu's new truth is not that of 
Peace Now.... However, this bitter truth is... being translated into 
two principles whose morality is incontrovertible: recognition of 
the Jewish state and demilitarization of the Palestinian state. 
These two principles have now been laid before the White House. If 
Obama refuses to accept them, we will all know that we are facing an 
American president who is no longer committed to the existence of 
the State of Israel. But if Obama does accept these two principles 
and grants Israel international guarantees for peace, he will prove 
himself a genuine peace leader - a leader who will pave the way to 
the correct, stable solution of two nation-states: a Jewish state 
and a Palestinian one. 
 
 
CUNNINGHAM