Two papers discuss the state of US-Israel relations in the context of the controversy over the Iranian threat:
Yediot Aharonot suggests that "President Obama was never enthusiastic about the idea of a meeting with Netanyahu at the height of the presidential campaign, but the possibility was not dismissed outright: Even though the two will not speak on the same day at the UN General Assembly in New York at the end of the month, the White House tried to be flexible until, in the end, they reached the conclusion that a light blow to Jewish voters\’ sensibilities would be preferable to public embarrassment in front of the cameras, as occurred last year when the Israeli Prime Minister tried to educate the American President and give him a lesson on the history of the Iranian threat, as if he did not know." The author contends that the White House "believes that if there is one thing Netanyahu wants – it is to see Obama ejected from the White House," and concludes: "From Obama\’s point-of-view, Netanyahu can wait until after the! elections, and he has no one to blame but himself. Because they who sow the wind, reap the whirlwind (Hosea, 8:7).
Ma\’ariv reminds its readers that "Israel\’s significant defense purchases, the reserves on which part of its calculations for an emergency are based upon, and diplomatic protection at international institutions – all these depend on the good will of the US," and adds: "Ehud Barak\’s remark last night, to the effect that \’Differences with the US must be worked out behind closed doors\’ is a relatively delicate reference to the possible damage of the present conflict." The author cautions that "If he [Obama] will be the next President of the US, and as of now that is what the polls are saying, at least the start of his second and final term will see an icy chill towards the current government in Israel." The paper suggests that the Prime Minister "is apparently willing to live with this situation," while "Israel\’s security and diplomatic establishments see the price that will be paid."
Yisrael Hayom discusses the national soccer team\’s 4-0 home defeat to Russia in last night\’s 2014 World Cup qualifier and laments the team as "the best entertainment show in the State of Israel." The author says: "This was a typical, characteristic Israeli game, i.e. weak."
Haaretz criticizes “The decision by the Council for Higher Education not to permit new students to enroll in Ben-Gurion University of the Negev\’s Department of Politics and Government, and thus to bring about its closure,” and notes that the move “is unprecedented in its severity.” The editor asserts that the decision “should disturb anyone who is concerned with higher education and academic freedom,” and is left with the impression that “the decision was based not on issues of academic quality but on political considerations.”
The Jerusalem Post compares historic US opposition to Israeli attacks against military targets in hostile Middle Eastern countries, including the unconfirmed Israeli attack on the Syrian nuclear reactor in September 2007, with US opposition to an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities today, and maintains that “In all of these cases, Israel pursued its best interests despite US opposition.” The editor believes that “in retrospect, in all of these cases, Israel pursued its best interests despite US opposition. And in retrospect, Israel was right to do so.” The editor asserts that “The same sort of independence of thought and action that directed Israeli policy in each of these fateful turning points should be applied with the question of stopping Iran,” and concludes: “That should be the lesson that Syria, September 2007 teaches us with regard to Iran, September 2012.”
[Orly Azoulai, Ofer Shelah and Doron Kramer wrote today’s articles in Yediot Aharonot, Ma\’ariv and Yisrael Hayom, respectively.]