Yediot Aharonot predicts increasing disorder and conflict in Iraq after the projected American withdrawal as Al Qaida-backed Sunni extremists and Iranian-backed Shiites battle for control. The author suggests various outcomes – Somalia-style anarchy, de facto partition or the rise of a new dictator who will impose stability by force. The paper believes that "Israel’s preferred result – the growth of a stable Iraqi democracy – is difficult to foresee."
Ma’ariv comments on former IDF Chief-of-Staff Dan Halutz’s expected entry into politics, presumably through Kadima. The author suggests that if Halutz succeeds in securing a high place in the party, he could supplant former Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz as the main threat to party leader Tzipi Livni, which might prompt Mofaz to bolt. On the other hand, the paper says that if Halutz fails, Mofaz might emerge from the struggle strengthened and a more cogent threat to Livni. "Both possibilities," the author opines, "should worry Livni."
Yisrael Hayom discusses the projected beginning of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and believes that "As of now, there is no certainty that the direct talks will yield positive results, certainly not within the imaginary timeframe of 24 months," especially given the warlike statements that emanated from the recent Arab League meeting in Libya.
The Jerusalem Post discusses Israel’s efforts to lure expatriates to return to Israel, and notes that a record 12,000 returned home in 2009. The editor praises a new Absorption Ministry initiative to attract Israelis living abroad, which will be announced in coming weeks, and says that "With signs of recovery in the world economy, it is unclear whether the new package will succeed as well as the 2009 campaign. But for the sake of Jewish continuity, it’s worth a try."
Haaretz discusses the photographs humiliating Palestinian detainees published by a former IDF soldier on her Facebook page, and claims that "Facebook humiliations reveal an ethical vacuum in the IDF." The editor states that "It is imperative that explicit, unambiguous rules for what soldiers are and are not permitted to do to detainees are set, and to impress upon troops an ethical code that makes clear such behavior will not be tolerated," and concludes: "The humiliation of Palestinian detainees must not be remembered as the ‘best time’ of any soldier’s army experience."