Three papers discuss the multi-national intervention against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi:
Ma’ariv reminds its readers that "Italy, France and Austria are the main buyers," of Libyan oil and suggests that "There is certainly a possibility that [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy intends to topple Gadhafi," by trying to provoke a move against him from within. The author believes that the US is participating in the assault because President Barack Obama chose to side with those of his advisers who argued that it was vital for American standing in the Arab world to show that Washington would not support dictators like Gadhafi and that abandoning the Libyan rebels to their fate would have guaranteed a massacre. The paper suggests that this convergence of French and US interests might portend deeper cooperation between Paris and Washington.
Yisrael Hayom contends that ‘The use of force, however limited, has proven that the West is ready to act and not just talk," and adds that ‘Hidden within it is an important message for Iran." However, the author asserts that "The question of questions is whether it will stop there," and believes that "If aerial pressure is sufficient [to provoke Gadhafi’s ouster], good. If not, it will not be simple for the Americans and their allies – neither domestically nor internationally – to open a third front, against a third Arab country."
Haaretz feels that the “West’s intervention in Libya may undermine future civil revolts.” The editor opines that any Western peacekeeping responsibility will win enhanced legitimacy if it is applied not just by military means against dictatorial regimes, and states that “In addition to the threat and actual use of force, the wealthy states should assist in the development and rebuilding of states in which the democratic revolutions are taking place.”
Yediot Aharonot comments on the "price tag" and "hilltop youth" phenomena in the larger context of Jewish residence in Judea and Samaria and suggests that "The traditional leadership’s revulsion over the unrestrained wildness does not absolve it of responsibility. For years they taught that settlement was a divine prerogative that took precedence over state law and to which the jurisdiction of the state did not apply." The author acknowledges that "The teachers of the generation did not intend a full-blown rebellion against the state, but they taught disdain for the law and portrayed settlement as above the state. They have repeatedly seen that such words have consequences and have refused to take responsibility. It seems to them that uttering ‘We said it, but we didn’t really mean it’ is enough. But it is not enough because the hilltop youth are not an errant weed. They grew in the garden that the settlers’ leadership has been cultivating for many years."
[Gadi Taub, Alon Pinkas, and Aharon Lapidot wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma’ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]