Yediot Aharonot contends that "If the army does not find determined political leadership that will defend its interests and that of the Egyptian people, it will completely lose its status as an influential element in Egyptian policy," and adds, "Israel views this scenario as a diplomatic catastrophe that would require a fundamental change in our national security outlook and would deeply affect our strategic position." The author says, "Washington is continuing to broadcast to the generals the demand for an orderly transition of authority to civilians, whoever they are," and claims that "They did the same thing with the Shah and with Mubarak, and thus they are doing with the Egyptian generals: Hand Egypt over to the Muslim Brotherhood (‘the moderates’) and the Salafists, on a silver platter." The paper asserts that the Salafists will set the tone for policy because the Muslim Brotherhood, which is competing with the Salafists for the same constituency, "will be unable to allow itself to be ‘less piously Muslim’ than the Salafists." The author concludes, "It is not too late. Perhaps the liberal movements will integrate and stand as a united bloc against the Islamic bloc. Perhaps the Muslim Brotherhood will prefer to reach a compromise – albeit temporary – with the army. The chance that this will happen is not high. It is more likely that Egypt is heading towards an Islamic constitution and presidential elections, the result of which will be a representative of the Islamist bloc will be elected president."
Ma’ariv says, "The Middle East has a special quality: If there are ten predictions regarding future scenarios, it is usually the most pessimistic forecast that is realized," and notes that the early, optimistic, predictions of a new, and liberal, Middle East have now been proven wrong. The author says, "The Arab world had been under dark regimes, but is now marching towards a much greater darkness," and believes that "When Assad falls, it will only be a matter of time before the Muslim Brotherhood takes over there too." The paper concludes: "It is possible to understand why this happened in Egypt in which there was continuous brain-washing in the mosques. But it also happened in Tunisia, which had a longstanding secular tradition. The result is the same. At this stage, there is a need for realism. There are liberal and reformist forces in the Arab world, but they are currently on the ropes. Spring seems further away than ever. Neither is there any reason to blame Obama, who abandoned Mubarak, or NATO, which crushed Gadhafi. It would have happened in any case. One can only wait and know that there is no room for illusions, until the rage passes."
Yisrael Hayom avers that "Egypt hastened, unprepared, to democratic elections, just like Tunisia. It is no wonder that the Islamists won in both places." The author asserts that "From now on, the Muslim Brotherhood may view itself as the leading force in Egypt, no longer the army. The balance of forces has changed." As to the claim that the Brotherhood represents a moderate style of Islamist politics, the paper cites French Minister Jeannette Bougrap, herself a Muslim of Algerian origin, who told Le Parisien that "I do not recognize moderate Islamism. As a jurist, I am unfamiliar with Sharia Lite." The author points out that the Algerian army cancelled the 1991 elections that saw an Islamist victory, touching off a long and bitter civil war which resulted in Algeria now being run by an "aging dictator" and in the Islamist parties being outlawed. The paper concludes, "As residents of the region, we need to hope that the Arab world has a third option to offer, apart from Islamism or dictatorship. As of now, it does not seem so."
The Jerusalem Post comments on last week’s attack on the British Embassy in Tehran: "The fact that Britain’s embassy was targeted practically as soon as London forbade all British financial institutions from trading with Iranian banks, especially Iran’s Central Bank, speaks volumes. Quite distressingly, Germany still hasn’t severed its massive commercial ties with Iran, while French petroleum giant Total keeps supplying Iran with refined fuel. But overshadowing the perfidy in the West are Russia and China. These two powers – motivated by callous self-interest, without even a semblance of ethics – shield Tehran from sanctions. Unless the international community acts in concert at literally the last opportunity, it can expect all hell to break loose and will have only itself to blame."
Haaretz comments: "A fair and proper justice minister has just two roles: defending the justice system in the cabinet, in the Knesset and with the public; and working with the President of the Supreme Court to improve and strengthen the judicial system and the service it provides the public. The incumbent justice minister, Yaakov Neeman, is serving other interests. He is not the person who should be serving as justice minister in a government that views the judicial system as Netanyahu does. Netanyahu has no alternative. If he does not replace the justice minister, he must become personally involved and come to a real agreement with Supreme Court President Beinisch on the appointment of justices to the High Court. He must halt the attempt to retroactively change the Israel Bar Association’s representatives on the Judicial Appointments Committee, and he must exert his authority over the destructive figures in his party."