VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTV #1309/01 1681017
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 171017Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2218
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 5559
RUEHAS/AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY 2138
RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN PRIORITY 6100
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 6369
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT PRIORITY 5602
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 4163
RUEHDM/AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS PRIORITY 6426
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 3236
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 1438
RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT PRIORITY 0128
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 7637
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH PRIORITY 2618
RUEHTU/AMEMBASSY TUNIS PRIORITY 6631
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 8683
RUEHJI/AMCONSUL JEDDAH PRIORITY 1457
RUEHJM/AMCONSUL JERUSALEM PRIORITY 2204
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RHMFISS/COMSOCEUR VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/COMSIXTHFLT  PRIORITY

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 001309 
 
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. PM Netanyahu's Speech 
 
¶2. Iran 
 
Block Quotes Only: 
------------- 
¶1. PM Netanyahu's Speech 
 
 
¶I.   "The Gratuitous Condition" 
 
 
Author A. B. Yehoshua wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist 
Yediot Aharonot (6/17): "The idea of two states was rejected by a 
majority of both Israelis and Palestinians.... We all know that the 
road to making that idea become manifest is paved with digressions 
and obstacles, but among the preconditions that were set by the 
prime minister in his speech at Bar Ilan University, there were some 
that are crucial and others that are gratuitous....  Having the 
Palestinian state banned from possessing heavy and sophisticated 
weaponry is an essential, justified and vital condition. Even the 
great and independent Egypt accepted the need to demilitarize the 
Sinai peninsula, and armament and other military restrictions have 
been in place for decades....  The precondition rejecting the 
settlement of Palestinian refugees inside the area of the State of 
Israel is reasonable, logical and justified. What is the point in 
the return of millions of refugees into the area of a state that is 
foreign to them insofar as pertains to its character, symbols and 
the nationality of a majority of its residents? To the houses and 
lands that no longer exist for all intents and purposes? Those 
refugees can be settled in their homeland, Palestine, among their 
fellow countrymen, under the flag of Palestine and Palestinian 
sovereignty.... But the condition that was set by the prime minister 
about Palestinian recognition of the Jewish people's right to 
establish a state, or the existence of a Jewish nation-was 
gratuitous. In my opinion, it is gratuitous to demand that the 
Palestinians recognize the nationality of an historic people that is 
thousands of years old, whose state has diplomatic relations with 
more than 150 countries. That demand was never set as a precondition 
for peace with either Egypt or Jordan, and it creates a needless 
obstacle.... The negotiations for the establishment of a Palestinian 
state are going to be fraught with troubles and obstacles in any 
event. Let us focus on solving the principal 
problems-demilitarization, settlements, borders and refugees, and 
leave the theological and historical questions to be solved by real 
peace. 
 
II. "New Member of the Club" 
 
Pundit Eitan Haber wrote in the mass-circulation, pluralist Yediot 
Aharonot (6/17): "The speech of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu at 
Bar Ilan University was outstanding, perfectly structured. It was a 
masterpiece that pleased everyone.... But as far as we're concerned, 
what's the big deal?... Every prime minister "learns the material" 
and the tom-tom drums of politics and the media start to pound him 
with: a Palestinian state, a state, two states for two peoples. In 
this case, for Netanyahu, it wasn't simple: the current prime 
minister comes from the foundations of the "national home," which 
for generations sang "two banks for the Jordan" before laying 
themselves down to sleep at night.... He most likely had to do some 
soul searching, but he is no different from a long line of Likud 
princes who thought as he did for years and changed their minds. 
Starting from Menahem Begin, Ezer Weizman, Arik Sharon, Ehud Olmert, 
Tzippi Livni, Tzahi Hanegbi, Dan Meridor, Roni Milo and many other 
good people who, according to their current views, could easily lead 
center and left wing-lite parties.... He, forever, will go down in 
history as one of the people of the national camp who converted 
their religion." 
 
 
III. "With Honesty and Courage" 
Author David Grossman wrote in the independent, left-leaning 
Ha'aretz (6/17): "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech was 
indeed, as it has been decribed, the speech of our lives. Our 
bogged-down, hopeless lives.... What the speech exposed, beyond all 
its juggling and parities, is the desistance we have come to, we 
Israelis, in the face of a reality that requires flexibility, daring 
and vision....Other than acceptance of the two-state principle, 
which was wrung out of Netanyahu under heavy pressure and sourly 
expressed, this speech contained no tangible step toward a real 
change of consciousness. Netanyahu did not speak "honestly and 
courageously."... He did not look the settlers in the eye and tell 
them what he knows full well: that the map of the settlements 
contradicts the map of peace. That most of them will have to leave 
their homes.... I looked at him, and at the impressive data on the 
support he received after the speech, and I knew how far we are from 
peace.... I also observed the Palestinians who responded to the 
speech, and I thought that they are the most faithful partners to 
desistance and missed opportunities. Their response could have been 
much wiser and more prescient than the speech itself; could they not 
have grasped even the drooping branch Netanyahu offered them, 
unwillingly, and challenged him to begin negotiations with them 
immediately... But the Palestinians, trapped like we are in a 
mechanism of contention and haggling, preferred to speak of the 
thousand years that would pass before they would agree to his 
conditions.... Netanyahu's speech... tells us... that there will be 
no peace here if it is not forced upon us. It is not easy to admit 
it, but it seems increasingly that this is the choice Israelis and 
Palestinians face: a just and secure peace - forced on the parties 
through firm international involvement, led by the United States - 
or war, possibly more difficult and bitter than those that came 
before it." 
 
IV: "The PM at Bar-Ilan: A Damage Assessment" 
 
Martin Sherman, the Academic Director of the Jerusalem Summit and 
lecturer in security studies at Tel Aviv University, wrote in the 
conservative, independent Jerusalem Post (6/17): "One can only 
wonder why Netanyahu would agree to accept an approach he has always 
refused to accept - just when that approach has been utterly 
discredited and disproved, and when more and more informed pundits - 
including among the Palestinians - are realizing that it is 
unworkable.... One of the most astonishing aspects of the ongoing 
phenomenon of ostensibly "hawkish" politicians adopting, once in 
power, "dovish" policies they previously repudiated is the fact that 
these policies have consistently and continuously proved a 
disastrous failure.... Instead of confronting today's two-state 
advocates with their yesterday rejection of the idea, instead of 
compelling them to explain their dramatic volte-face, he came to 
them for counsel and co-optation - however grudgingly (or not). 
Instead of challenging the US administration to explain its demands 
that Israel accept a policy the US military itself deemed would 
gravely undermine its security, he chose to accommodate those 
demands... Netanyahu chose surrender over resistance, and in so 
doing he put in grave danger not only his country and his people but 
the very rationale of Zionism itself... 
 
 ¶V. "The Right's Knuckleheaded Response" 
 
Pundit Michael Freund wrote in the conservative, independent 
Jerusalem Post (6/17): "ANY FAIR-MINDED OBSERVER who listened to the 
speech, or merely read it afterward, could not help but come away 
impressed by two main themes: A sincere desire for peace, alongside 
the undeniable historical rights which underpin the existence of the 
Jewish state.... With regard to the issue of a Palestinian state, 
Netanyahu succeeded in outwitting US President Barack Obama at his 
own game, using his considerable rhetorical skills to marshal an 
unprecedented consensus among the public.... By conditioning the 
creation of a Palestinian state on comprehensive demilitarization, 
he has shown just how utterly utopian, and unrealistic, the Left's 
dream truly is.... By insisting on a set of entirely reasonable 
demands, such as Palestinian recognition of Israel as "the nation 
state of the Jewish people," and the negation of a Palestinian 
state's ability to forge military pacts or to control its airspace, 
he has recast the definition of "statehood" in such a way as to 
reduce the danger it would pose to our existence.... Only a 
knucklehead could fail to see this, but that is precisely what some 
on the Right so excel at doing. For all their ideological savvy, 
many seem to lack an equal level of political skill and 
sophistication.... His speech on Sunday represents a subtle, yet 
seismic, shift in the country's stance, one that clearly places the 
burden on the Palestinian side to put up or shut up." 
¶2. Iran 
¶I. "Still Worried' Just a Little Less" 
Aluf Benn, senior diplomatic commentator, wrote in the independent, 
left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/17): "Israel has decreased the extent of 
the public concern over the Iranian nuclear threat: That is the 
conclusion to be drawn from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 
Bar-Ilan speech and from Mossad chief Meir Dagan's remarks to the 
Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday. Netanyahu 
has returned to the positions of his predecessors, and placed 
responsibility for Iran on the international community.... Dagan 
said the Iranian bomb was a significant threat, but only in another 
five years and only if there were no technical glitches....If Dagan 
was speaking forthrightly and not just using the parliamentary 
platform for a feint, the Iranian bomb has now receded beyond 
Netanyahu's term in office. The cabinet will not have to decide in 
the next few months whether to attack Iran. Israeli intelligence 
assessments are in line with American ones, and this means U.S. 
President Barack Obama can breathe easy: Netanyahu will not surprise 
him with an attack on Iran. 
 
IV. "Israelis for Ahmadinejad" 
 
Aluf Benn, senior diplomatic commentator,wrote in the independent, 
left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/17): "The prize for this week's most stupid 
remark has to go to the officials, officers and experts who 
described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the candidate 
Israel prefers to win the election in Iran, and were even happy he 
did... Bush, the friendly president who gave Israel a green light in 
Lebanon and Gaza and to bomb Syria, did not allow Israel to attack 
Iran's nuclear facilities. Barack Obama is specifically demanding 
that Israel does not attack, and that it does not spring any 
surprises on the United States. The presentation of Ahmadinejad as 
Hitler and Iran as a police state a la "1984" ignores the internal 
pressure in Iran for greater democracy and openness. Those who see 
Iran only through its centrifuges will also find it hard to 
understand and accept the Obama approach, which seeks dialogue with 
Tehran's rulers and smiles at the Muslim world. To the Israeli 
establishment this amounts to kowtowing to the neighborhood 
bully....  Obama was right not to intervene. He did not accept the 
results of the election but he did not publicly declare support for 
the protesters. Thus he gave the reformists room, without seeming to 
be pulling the strings from afar. It is too early to tell how events 
will pan out in Tehran, if the regime will really mellow, but the 
demonstrations offer a chance of change in Iran for the first time 
in 30 years.... Netanyahu has internalized the strategic change that 
Obama generated. He quickly responded to the Cairo speech with 
agreement to a Palestinian state, and also changed his public 
position on Iran: Instead of threatening war and talking about the 
Holocaust, he returned to Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert's approach 
that the problem is international and not only Israel's. Perhaps 
after meeting Obama, Netanyahu understands the reality better than 
his officers and his officials. 
 
CUNNINGHAM