Yediot Aharonot says that "In Israel, nobody is asking if non-conventional weapons, such as chemical weapons, or other strategic weapons, such as advanced anti-aircraft missiles or the latest Scuds, will be transferred to Lebanon, they are asking when this will happen. According to assessments in Israel, it is only a question of time and opportunity before such weaponry falls into Hezbollah’s hands." The author believes that "From Israel’s point-of-view, the transfer of weapons systems such as SA-8 anti-aircraft missiles from Syria to Lebanon would constitute a threat to the air force’s freedom of action in the north," and adds that "This would require Israel to make decisions in order to neutralize this threat." The paper avers that "The likelihood that Assad would use strategic weapons against Israel in a situation in which his back was pushed to the wall is low," partly because "The use of missiles and heavy rockets against Israel would require a series of actions that the Syrian regime, which is on the verge of crumbling, would find it difficult to carry out." The author concludes by cautioning that further collapse in Syria might lead to Sinai-like anarchy in the regions bordering on the Golan Heights.
Ma’ariv suggests that the ultra-orthodox rabbinical and political leadership is beginning to digest the full import of last week’s High Court of Justice decision to overturn the Tal Law. The author speculates that "The ultra-orthodox will try to formulate a new law that will hardly differ from its predecessor," but adds that "The problem is that most parties are already looking at elections, a High Court test would be difficult and the story will be complicated if not impossible."
Yisrael Hayom refers to Palestinian Authority Chairman Abu Mazen’s remarks in Doha yesterday and says that "For two decades now, the Palestinians have been reinventing the history of Jerusalem." The author reminds his readers that the Palestinian leader accused Israel of seeking to erase the symbols of the city’s Islamic and Christian past and declares that "It is hard to sink lower than this." The paper strongly criticizes the Arab record in eastern Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967 and the destruction of artifacts from the Temple Mount, and notes the increasing Islamization of Bethlehem since the advent of Palestinian Authority control. The author contends that "The ‘Al Aqsa is in danger’ libel that Abu Mazen and his cohorts repeat ad nauseum is not just an abominable lie but the opposite of the truth," and says that "On the Temple Mount, Israel made an unbelievable concession when it delivered de facto control of Judaism’s holiest site to Muslims even though it is only Islam’s third holiest site." Lastly, the paper points out that "The neighborhoods [over the pre-1967 Green Line] in which 200,000 Jews live today were built by Israel on mostly open areas," and adds that more Arabs currently live in the city’s Jewish neighborhoods than Jews in its Arab neighborhoods.
The Jerusalem Post comments on the moderate approach of incoming Supreme Court president Asher Grunis, and wonders if this change marks the end of the era of judicial activism begun by former Supreme Court President Aharon Barak and continued by current president Dorit Beinisch. The editor feels that “the Supreme Court’s strength and legitimacy is best protected when exercised with restraint and when judges are not perceived as partisan or politically motivated, and concludes: “Grunis’s moderate approach will best ensure that the court remains a respected and honored institution.”
Haaretz is puzzled and outraged by the fact that Israel is not one of the countries condemning the events in Syria and demanding Assad’s removal. The editor states that “if Jerusalem castigates the Assad regime, it will not only be seen as intervening in Syria’s internal affairs, it will be accused by the regime of planning to bring it down,” but nevertheless adds: “The Israeli government is not entitled to play the role of a pundit wondering if and when Assad will fall from power. The Israeli government represents a public that wants to hear it express a clear moral stance and even a willingness to provide humanitarian aid.”