Turkish Prime Minister warns Middle East peace will prove impossible without unity among Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

“If this reconciliation is not achieved, then I don’t believe that a solution or result will come out of the Israeli-Palestinian discussions,” he added.

The Turkish Prime Minister also insisted that “Israel has to withdraw to the ’67 borders” to mark the outlines of a future Palestinian state and demonstrate that it truly believes in a two-state solution.

“As long as Israel does not accept Palestine as a state, there is not much to talk about in terms of trying to achieve peace,” he said, according to AFP, adding, “I hope that common sense prevails and this problem in the Middle East is resolved.”

Erdogan revealed he had told Tony Blair, the special envoy for the Quartet of nations shepherding the talks, that “Hamas has to be around the table for peace to emerge in the Middle East.”

The comments come a day after Erdogan met with U.S. President Barack Obama and confirmed that he plans to visit Hamas-controlled Gaza as well as Fatah-controlled Judea and Samaria.

The dual stops mean Erdogan would meet with the Hamas rulers of Gaza as well as with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, likely in Ramallah.

“Turkey, I think there is a lot that we can do because we can talk to Hamas, we can talk to Fatah… We want them to get together, to agree to each other,” Erdogan told the Brookings Institution, speaking through a translator.

If a reconciliation between the two Palestinian sides were reached “I think that the talks with Israel would be moving forward more swiftly,” he added.

Washington on Thursday urged Erdogan to postpone any visit to Gaza, saying it would be a “distraction” from its efforts to revive the moribund Middle East peace process.

“As we’ve said consistently, we oppose engagement with Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization which remains a destabilizing force in Gaza and the region,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters.

“We urge all parties who share our interest in the creation of a Palestinian state to take steps that promote the resumption of peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel.”

Hamas and Fatah have been at odds since the terror group violently seized control of Gaza in 2007.

Washington has stood fast in its support of Abbas’s Palestinian Authority as the legitimate representative of PA Arabs.

Fatah and Hamas signed a reconciliation deal in Cairo in 2011, pledging to set up an interim consensus government of independents that would pave the way for legislative and presidential elections within 12 months.

Implementation of the accord stalled over the make-up of the interim government, and a February 2012 deal signed by Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in Doha intended to overcome outstanding differences was opposed by Hamas members in Gaza.

Egypt’s new anti-Muslim-Brotherhood militia, is radically different from the US organization of the same name, says the writer.

Ashraf Ramelah, founder and president of Voice of the Copts, has recently given testimony to the Canadian Parliament on the revolution taking place in Egypt. Please visit www.voiceofthecopts.org to read more.

Egypt’s Black Bloc grew out of the struggle for liberation from an authoritarian system, only after non-violent civil efforts had failed.

Ironically, the U.S. Black Bloc and Egypt’s Black Bloc are on opposite sides of the political struggle – one, in the U.S., a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood and doubtless trying to gain prestige through their nominal association with international fighters; the other, in Egypt, an enemy to the Brotherhood, and fighting for democracy and legitimate government.

Clad in black, faceless in black ski masks, the nameless Black Bloc soldiers lock arms to create a human shield in defense of pro-freedom protesters — the Black Bloc’s number-one priority — in the streets and squares of Egypt. Expert in martial arts and ostensibly military-trained, Black Bloc warriors only recently surfaced in Egypt to safeguard fellow freedom-fighters from their arch-enemies, the foes of democracy: President Mohamed Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas militia.

Originating out of a plan to protect women protesters from sexual assault, this huge band of men and women numbering in the thousands (the exact number is not known) form a dedicated and determined corps of combatants divided into local groups of 30-50 individuals in Egypt’s communities. Self-described as “anti-Muslim-Brotherhood,” and generated out of disgust toward years of police and military brutality, the Black Bloc is, for modern Egypt, a completely new phenomenon.

As participants in this well-organized system for safety and preservation, the secret members of the “elite” Black Bloc guard first appeared in the streets of Cairo this January, when revolutionaries commemorated their two-year anniversary with protests in Tahrir Square. Now everywhere the Egyptian opposition stages protests, the rank-and-file Black Bloc, whose leaders remain unknown to them, dutifully move in to police the area on behalf of fellow protesters.

Deemed “terrorists” and “outlaws” by the Morsi regime, the shadowy Zorro-like heroes refer to their network as the “United Ghosts Revolution” and represent a just cause in the ongoing rebellion against Egypt’s Islamist government. The Black Bloc mission is to ensure that no more assaults, kidnappings, and torture occur from Morsi’s security forces [the Muslim Brotherhood militia] and so-called law enforcement, and that a “camel gazwa,” [invading crowds on galloping camels] as in the early days of the revolt, never takes place again. Many Black Bloc members carry firearms, most likely acquired through the illegal networks smuggling weapons from Libya and Gaza.

If the best defense is a good offense, the forceful Black Bloc has aggressively expanded its scope beyond the scene of gathered protesters and their protection. With a physical presence in more than eight cities across Egypt, the anonymous soldiers have claimed responsibility for ransacking at least eight separate Muslim Brotherhood Freedom and Justice Party offices.

At first, the shrouded Black Bloc raised the fears; the public saw them as terrorists. This wrong impression, however, was soon dispelled as their image as guardians took shape. Appearing first in the social media, the Black Bloc now has the moral support of more than 57,000 Facebook members for the purpose of countering Islamic supremacy and brutality.

Their core concern is to facilitate the pursuit of Western-style democracy. Its members claim no affiliation with existing political parties, as the group states that it “aims only to stand against the Muslim Brotherhood and any group exploiting religion to achieve political goals.” As pro-democracy secularists using slogans such as, “Our mess prevents chaos” and, “We are confusion that prevents confusion,” their challenge to the Muslim Brotherhood has prompted a new crackdown by President Morsi and his Prime Minister, Hasham Kandil. The state now targets opposition protesters who wear black, tracking those who do and conducting investigations. By mid-February, Morsi began arresting members of Black Bloc and its sympathizers.

Running under the banner of “Allah, Country, Revolution,” the “outlaws” have been accused by Islamists of having Israeli backing and connections to Western funding. Further, rumors charge them with burning the rear building of the scientific complex in Cairo, and of involvement in attacks upon city infrastructure, including damaging government buildings, paralyzing traffic, and obstructing subway transportation. The Black Bloc flatly denies participation in these crimes and blames the Muslim Brotherhood for tarnishing their image and credibility.

The group does fully admit, however, to targeting Brotherhood locations in the following Cairo incidents: burning the Muslim Brotherhood headquarters in the Sixth October area, storming the media offices of “Brothers Online,” torching the Freedom and Justice Party newspaper headquarters and targeting more than one Moomen[Believer] Brotherhood-owned restaurant.

In keeping with their mission statement, Egypt’s Black Bloc members claim they have nothing against state institutions per se, “but against control by a particular system, the supremacy of a certain group.” They further contend that “the best thing is to hit the existing system and its economy by sabotaging the system’s institutions and not ones belonging to the public.” Despite this, a U.S. “Black Bloc” attempts to connect its mission against America and governmental power structures to the cause of Egypt’s Black Bloc.

Egypt’s Black Bloc grew out of the chaos of President Morsi’s actions, which necessitated a course correction – such as the use of security, weaponry and attacks — for freedom-fighters in their struggle for liberation from an authoritarian system.

Although tactics similar to the U.S. Black Bloc anarchists are used, Egypt’s fighters do not seek anarchism. Furthermore, the Shariah religious state is contrary to the western democratic state, and the roles of their respective revolts find their meaning and identity by way of the system they fight, not the tactics and strategies they use.

U.S. Black Bloc vandalism is class-warfare, a staple of the progressive political agenda of some in America who opportunistically seem to have intertwined themselves with Muslim Brotherhood goals. While actions by the U.S. Black Bloc ultimately favor the short-term goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s Black Bloc interrupts the Muslim Brotherhood’s power structure with material and moral losses.

Ironically, the U.S. Black Bloc and Egypt’s Black Bloc are on opposite sides of the political struggle – the one in the U.S. a friend to the Muslim Brotherhood; the other, in Egypt, an enemy to the Brotherhood.

Nonetheless, the U.S. Black Bloc has appealed to Egypt’s Black Bloc in a Feb 9th open letter to initiate intercontinental dialogue. The naive U.S. Black Bloc views tactics and strategies on YouTube and mistakes them for “consensus” – then seeks the thrill of joining hands with Egyptians, and using these tactics as a more “generalized revolt.” They are hardly, as the letter suggests, fighting the same “stable power structure.” Egypt’s revolt reached the point of violence only after non-violent civil efforts failed and were no longer an option for achieving democracy.

The U.S. Black Bloc members, in advancing their “project of revolt,” are doubtless trying to gain prestige through their nominal association with international fighters, and probably see their dream being “enacted spontaneously” in a full-fledged, high-stakes revolt on the brink of civil war in Egypt. The Egyptian freedom-fighters, on the contrary, aim unequivocally for democracy and legitimate government. “We want to take the struggle out of the hands of political parties entirely,” states the U.S. Black Bloc; but Egypt’s Black Bloc struggles with the hope of the rise of new political leadership and a real democratic party.

The U.S. Black Bloc, according to its letter to Egypt, wishes to have the Muslim Brotherhood in governments around the world, to “clarify” the global power structure and then assert Black Bloc tactics uniformly worldwide to defeat the state.

Egypt’s revolutionaries, fighting for freedom within the heart of political Islam, would not take any chance with such a sinister plan.

Official tells ‘NYT’ Israel will act to prevent arms transfers to Hizbullah; says Israel will retaliate if Assad reacts.
.
Israel will continue to take military action to prevent the transfer of advanced weaponry to Syria, The New York Times quoted a senior Israeli official as saying Wednesday, a day after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi to discuss the troubled situation.

According to the Times, the Israeli official – who contacted the paper – said, “Israel is determined to continue to prevent the transfer of advanced weapons to Hizbullah. The transfer of such weapons to Hizbullah will destabilize and endanger the entire region.”

“If Syrian President Assad reacts by attacking Israel, or tries to strike Israel through his terrorist proxies, he will risk forfeiting his regime, for Israel will retaliate,” the official was quoted as saying.

The comments came some two weeks after Israel reportedly hit a Syrian arms depot, a chemical weapons site and a weapons convoy in Damascus believed to be in transit from Iran to Hizbullah. Both Assad and Hizbullah’s head Hassan Nasrallah have threatened to retaliate.

The Prime Minister’s Office would not comment Wednesday evening on the report.

Meanwhile, Putin – at a press conference with Netanyahu following their meeting – said the two countries would continue to maintain contact regarding the Syrian situation.

“We agreed to continue contacts – both on the personal level and between our organizations, special services,” the Russian news service RIA Novosti quoted Putin as saying.

“A negative scenario may only be prevented by the earliest termination of the armed conflict and transition to a political settlement,” Putin said. “It is particularly important to avoid any actions that may sway the situation.”

Netanyahu said Israel and Russia were “trying to find ways to strengthen stability and security, we have a remarkable opportunity to directly speak with each other.”

Just prior to the three-hour meeting, Netanyahu – who set out for Russia soon after the cabinet approved the budget early Tuesday morning – said “the region around us is very stormy, unstable and explosive.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to try and consider together how to stabilize the region and look for ways to bring security and stability, which are certainly important for us but for you as well, for our common goals.”

Netanyahu was accompanied by National Security Council head Ya’akov Amidror, head of military intelligence Maj.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi and Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin, a native Russian speaker who has accompanied Netanyahu on previous meetings with Putin.

Kochavi is believed to have given Putin intelligence having to do with Iranian and Hizbullah involvement in the fighting inside Syria.

Russian Foreign Intelligence Service chief Mikhail Fradkov and defense ministry officials accompanied Putin in the talks.

Neither leader made any public reference to the Russian intention – opposed by Israel and the United States – to sell state-of-the-art S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.

AUSTRALIA (ANS) — As the rebel army, Seleka, advanced towards Bangui, the capital of Central African Republic (CAR), CAR President François Bozizé appealed to France (the colonial power) and the US for help. However, this was to no avail, even though French troops were already in the country. Desperate for support, Bozizé appealed to South African president Jacob Zuma, who did send troops. But on 23 March, after fierce fighting, Seleka defeated the South African Defence Force, paving the way for the rebels to enter Bangui on Sunday 24 March unhindered. Seleka then embarked on a campaign of raping, killing, looting and pillaging. Micopax, the European Union-funded peace-keeping force in CAR, has made no effort to engage the rebels. International Crisis Group (ICG) finds this ‘disturbing’ and wonders if Micopax has been instructed to stand aside. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), ‘One of the first targets was the Bangui Cathedral, where Seleka rebels entered the church, fired in the air, and robbed the worshippers.’ Something HRW and ICG both fail to mention is that whereas CAR is a French-speaking, mostly Christian country (76 percent Christian according to Operation World), the rebels who have seized power are Arabic-speaking Muslims.

The rebels, who claim to be liberating CAR from the dictator Bozizé, hail from the Vakaga district, a poor, remote north-east region of CAR bordering Chad and Sudan. Vakaga is the only part of the CAR where Arabic is the common language and Islam the dominant religion. Despite their poverty, the rebels entered Bangui wearing brand new military uniforms, driving brand new pickups and brandishing brand new weapons. Amongst them were janjaweed (Arab militiamen) from Darfur, Sudan, and jihadis from Mali and Northern Nigeria. In a FIDES press release, Church leaders in CAR denounce ‘a rebellion characterised by religious extremism’. They describe a systematic and ‘planned desecration and destruction of religious Christian buildings, and in particular the Catholic and Protestant churches’. They lament the heavy price the Church is paying, with churches destroyed and ‘priests and religious women’ attacked.

Archbishop Dieudonné Nzapalainga has written a courageous letter to the self-proclaimed new president, rebel leader Michel Djotodia, listing Seleka’s crimes: ‘threats, terror, and psychological torture . . . rape of young girls and women, some of whom have committed suicide and recruitment of child soldiers’. Observing that Seleka consists ‘largely of foreign Muslims and some from the nation’, the prelate notes that ‘the Muslim population in Bangui was largely spared looting’, and asks, ‘What are the real intentions of this movement against our Christian institutions?’ According to one missionary’s blog, hospitals and charities have all been looted. ‘Rebels do not save anybody or anything,’ she writes, ‘except for mosques and Muslim traders, who buy the stolen property from them.’
The questions arising out of this crisis are enormous and ugly. Who is funding and equipping Seleka and with what aim? Why did France not intervene in CAR, when it intervened in Ivory Coast (to support Islamic rebels) and in Mali (to fight Islamic rebels)? Why is the US refusing to send aid? Why did the EU-funded Micopax not protect CAR civilians as it is paid to do?

In early 2011, Ivory Coast’s president Laurent Gbagbo — who believed in advancing African rather than Western interests — found himself the victim of regime change at the hands of Islamic forces backed by Western powers pursuing Western ‘interests’. Could the same be happening in CAR? President Bozizé had recently signed oil concessions over to Chinese and South African companies. Soon after proclaiming himself president, rebel leader Michel Djotodia promised to ‘sort out’ CAR’s mining and oil contracts. If these contracts are handed to Western powers, then we will have most of our answers. Meanwhile, Seleka has seized control of CAR’s extensive diamond industry. The global body of Christ must stand united, demanding truth — no matter how unpalatable — and justice. She must speak up for the Church in CAR and remember them in prayer as they have to navigate this crisis.

PLEASE PRAY SPECIFICALLY THAT –
God will shine light into the darkness so that truth will be revealed; may the Lord himself bring justice, righteousness and liberty to CAR. (Habakkuk 2:6b-14)
‘The Lord looks down from heaven and sees the whole human race. From his throne he observes all who live on the earth. He made their hearts, so he understands everything they do.’ (Psalm 33:13-15 NLT)
the body of Christ in the world will stand as one against greed, megalomania, violence, deceit, repression and all manner of evil presently at work in CAR. ‘The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.’ (John 1:5 ESV)
the Holy Spirit will draw CAR’s Christians to himself, gracing them with faith and prayer, comfort and peace. May he bless, protect and sustain all those who put their faith in him. (Romans 8:31-39)

BEIRUT – Syria wants details on a US-Russian proposed peace conference before it decides whether to attend and says the role of President Bashar Assad is a decision “only for the Syrian people and the ballot box”, a minister said.

Syrian Information Minister Omran al Zoubi was quoted by state news agency SANA on Tuesday as saying Syria welcomed the proposal but “will not be a party at all to any … meeting which harms, directly or indirectly, national sovereignty”.

Obama pushes for Syria talks, warns of challenges

Assad’s departure has been a demand of the opposition since the revolt started two years ago and previous peace efforts have ground to a halt over failure to specify Assad’s future role.

Zoubi’s comments, which are in line with Syria’s longstanding policy, will pour more cold water over a conference proposal that is yet to be agreed on by either warring side. SANA said he was speaking in an interview on Monday with the Lebanese militant group Hizbullah’s television station al-Manar.

The minister said Syria wanted a political solution but that international efforts should also deal with “terrorists”, a term the Syrian government uses to refer to rebel fighters.

More than 80,000 people have been killed during the war, an anti-Assad rights group says, and millions more have been displaced. International powers have taken sides, with the West and Gulf countries supporting the opposition while Iran and Russia back Assad.

Western powers skeptical of Iran’s own nuclear ambition raise eyebrows at Iran’s role in Geneva conference.

NEW YORK – Iran will chair a United Nations conference on disarmament in Geneva this month, raising eyebrows from Western powers skeptical of Iran’s own nuclear ambitions.

The UN conference addresses not only nuclear proliferation but policies concerning the race to weaponize space, the production of radiological weapons and the stockpiling or use of other weapons of mass destruction.

In a statement issued Monday afternoon, the United States said it would withdraw ambassadorial representation at the conference in protest so long as Iran retained its chair. Calling Iran’s chairmanship “highly inappropriate,” the statement from the US mission to the UN noted that the Islamic Republic was under UN Chapter VII sanctions for weapons proliferation and human-rights abuses.

“While the presidency of the CD is largely ceremonial and involves no substantive responsibilities, allowing Iran–a country that is in flagrant violation of its obligations under multiple UN Security Council Resolutions and to the IAEA Board of Governors–to hold such a position runs counter to the goals and objectives of the Conference on Disarmament itself,” the statement read.

“Any member state that is the subject of UN Security Council sanctions for proliferation – and found guilty of massive human rights violations – should be ineligible to hold a leadership position in a UN body,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, which first noticed the chairmanship.

“We urge world leaders to declare that allowing Iran to chair a UN disarmament body is simply unacceptable, given the fundamentalist regime’s illicit activities in precisely the opposite direction,” said Neuer.

Iran will chair the conference barely a month after Geneva held a separate preparatory conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, where Iran and North Korea were the top two concerns of participating states.

Iran remains one of 189 signatories of that treaty, though the DPRK does not, since withdrawing in 2003.

At the preparatory meeting in April, Angela Kane, head of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, told member states that a cohesive international effort would be required to address Iran.

“The whole raison d’être of this review process is to focus on implementation of commitments relating to the treaty’s three pillars – nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” Ms. Kane said.

“What is most needed now in NPT arenas is to revive a sense of forward progress, however slow, however difficult it may be,” she added.

The office of Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon provided no comment on Iran’s position as chair, noting that such decisions are left to member states.

Of those who fought for the Jewish state, and then went on to lead it, the two outstanding figures are David Ben-Gurion and Menachem Begin. Outstanding not just because of their contributions both to the establishment of the State of Israel and as Prime Ministers, but because they were the leaders of the two major political factions at the crucial moment of the state being declared and then in its formative first years.

Ben-Gurion was of course Israel’s founding Prime Minister and its dominant figure for its first decade and a half of existence. He was part of the triumvirate of truly indispensable Zionists – alongside Theodor Herzl and Chaim Weizmann – without whom Israel would likely not have arisen. The men who, at pivotal moments in the history of the Zionist movement, shaped and pushed events in the direction of Jewish statehood. He was also responsible for the extraordinary achievements of Israel’s early years, absorbing hundreds of thousands of new immigrants while also developing a modern democratic state and securing it against implacable foes on every border.

That said, I want to suggest that it is Menachem Begin who offers us the most compelling model of leadership for the State of Israel today, and for its continued development and flourishing in the future.

This Shabbat marks 100 years since his birth, according to the Hebrew date, 13th of Av. (And he only ever celebrated his birthday according to the Jewish calendar – an example of his fierce commitment to Jewishness, rather than just to Israeliness, about which more later.) One can disagree with certain political positions of Begin’s while appreciating the power and importance of the essential principles that governed his thinking in his more than 50 years as a Zionist activist, political leader, opposition parliamentarian and finally Prime Minister. In particular I would mention three pillars of his Zionist vision which I believe are increasingly relevant for today’s Israel.

Firstly, that a Jewish state must be not just a homeland for any Jew that wishes to live here, but the beating heart of the Jewish world. It should be “Jewish” in more than just name; its national culture imbued with the 3,000 years of Jewish history and heritage.

Begin was not religious in the strict sense, but he had a deep connection with Jewish tradition. The Labor Zionists knew and respected the Bible (when asked to identify the basis of the Jewish claim to Palestine Ben-Gurion replied: “’The Bible is our mandate”) but were far less interested in the rich Jewish religious and philosophical life that had developed in the Diaspora since the biblical period. Begin on the other hand was drawn to that world and it was not surprising that many Diaspora Jews could feel that Begin was “one of them”; that is, part of the Jewish people, in a way they couldn’t with the archetypal secular Israeli Prime Ministers that had preceded him. It was also his innate sense that all Jews are, in a very real sense, mishpacha – family, that enabled this exemplar of Ashkenazi Jewry to become the political hero of hundreds of thousands of Sephardi Jewish Israelis.

Today, one of Israel’s great challenges is to bridge the gap between religious and secular, including by making Jewish heritage accessible to all Israelis, without coercion or the requirement of greater religious observance. Ruth Calderon’s famous maiden Knesset speech in which she – a non-religious woman, with a PhD in Talmud studies – taught a lesson from the Talmud to her fellow MKs, was a wonderful example of what could be. Begin believed that Jewish traditions and teachings were the birthright of every Jew, regardless of whether or not they were religious.

The second value of Begin’s that should shape our thinking about Israel today is that the Jewish state must also be a liberal democratic state. Although Begin’s detractors have painted him as a hard-line nationalist, the accurate description of his political ideology would be “liberal nationalism.”

A recent publication analyzing Begin’s values, produced by a think tank with impeccable liberal credentials, the Israel Democracy Institute, described him as a “nationalist with an unwavering commitment to Israel’s security” adding that their analysis shows that, “Menachem Begin was a democrat and liberal par excellence, and consistently upheld human rights even when he felt they conflicted with national security.”

Begin understood that liberal democracy was not just about majority rule, but also about ensuring checks and balances were in place to protect minority rights and prevent the abuse of power by the majority – for instance, a Supreme Court with the power to overturn majority legislation that went against essential values of the state.

The third and final value was absolutely fundamental to Begin’s worldview: His absolute, unbending commitment to the defense of the Jewish people. He grew up part of the 3 million-strong Jewish community of Poland, before the Second World War the largest outside of the United States. His parents and other family members were among the 90 percent of that population to be wiped out. He was determined that the establishment of a Jewish state must mean that never again would Jews be defenseless against anti-Semitic violence. Most famously, this principle informed his decision to attack Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, preventing Saddam Hussein, who frequently called for Israel’s destruction, from obtaining the means by which to do so. As Begin said to IDF chiefs at the time: “I will not be the man in whose time there will be a second Holocaust.”

I work as director of a Jewish leadership program inspired by the example of Menachem Begin. Our participants come from all over the world. They are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and none-of-theabove.

They are right-wing, left-wing and undecided.

As a program we are non-partisan, but unapologetically Zionist. The Israel that we hope our participants will help to defend, support and advocate for is an Israel with these three pillars of Begin’s vision at its base: an Israel proud of its Jewish heritage; committed to being part of the liberal, democratic world; and uncompromising in its defense of its citizens and in the global fight against anti-Semitism.

The author is the director of the Israel Government Fellows program of the Menachem Begin Heritage Center (www.igf.org.il), an elite leadership program that brings Jewish university graduates to Israel for a year’s internship in the government and prominent think tanks

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is to hold talks on Tuesday with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the conflict in Syria, the Kremlin said, amid concerns Moscow plans to deliver advanced missiles to the Damascus regime.

“During the meeting an exchange of opinion is planned on key aspects of bilateral ties,” the Kremlin said in a statement, according to the AFP news agency.

“It is expected that major attention will be paid to the current situation in the Middle East, first and foremost in Syria,” the statement said.

It noted the talks would take place in Russia, without giving further details.

Netanyahu is expected to call on Putin at his Black Sea residence in Sochi as the casualty toll in Syria climbed to more than 80,000 people.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Israel had provided information to Washington about the imminent sale to Syria of Russian S-300 missile batteries, advanced ground-to-air weapons that can take out aircraft or guided missiles.

The weapons would significantly strengthen Syria’s defenses and complicate any foreign military intervention.

Netanyahu will travel to Russia after Israel twice earlier this month carried out air strikes near Damascus, attacks a senior Israeli source said were aimed at preventing the transfer of sophisticated weapons to Hizbullah, the Lebanese Shiite terror group allied with Syria.

Russia last week refused to rule out supplying weapons to Syria, saying it has to honor existing contracts.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who paid a rare visit to Putin’s Sochi residence on Friday to discuss strategy on Syria, is believed to have also raised the issue of Russian arms supplies to the Damascus regime during talks with Putin.

“Vladimir Putin assured his British colleague that the S-300 complexes will be delivered to Syria for sure,” wrote the Kommersant daily on Monday, according to AFP.

On a visit to Warsaw on Friday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was continuing to fulfill contracts by delivering military hardware to Assad’s regime in defiance of calls for a freeze.

“Russia has sold and signed contracts a long time ago, and is completing supplies of the equipment, which is anti-aircraft systems, according to the already signed contracts,” he said on Friday.

Kommersant also said, citing a source who participated in Lavrov’s meeting with his German and Polish counterparts Guido Westerwelle and Radoslaw Sikorski, that the contract under question dated back to 2010.

“Part of the equipment has been sent to Syria, while another part is indeed being prepared to be shipped,” Kommersant said.

Israel might have just scored European Union support for finally allowing Jews the right to pray atop Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, the holiest site in the world for Jews and many Christians.

Whether or not it was her intent, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton on Friday issued a call for religious freedom in Jerusalem that by definition must also include Jewish access to the Temple Mount.

“The High Representative is disturbed by recent events in East Jerusalem such as those that took place at Orthodox Easter, the unrest in the area of the Haram al Sharif/Temple Mount and the temporary detention of the Mufti of Jerusalem. …It is essential that access to the holy sites in Jerusalem for peaceful worship for all denominations is fully respected,” said Ashton’s spokesperson.

For years Israeli police have denied Jews and Christians the right to pray, even silently, atop the Temple Mount for fear of sparking a Muslim riot. Islamic officials follow every Jewish and Christian group visiting the holy site to ensure this restriction is obeyed.

The European Union has never before supported Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, and Ashton herself views the presence of Jews on the eastern side of the holy city as an obstacle to peace. As such, it is highly unlikely that she intended to throw her weight behind true freedom of religious expression for Israeli Jews in Jerusalem

JERUSALEM — President Obama, appealing to very disparate audiences to solve one of the world’s thorniest problems, moved closer on Thursday to the Israeli government’s position on resuming long-stalled peace talks with the Palestinians, even as he passionately implored young Israelis to get ahead of their own leaders in the push for peace.

“President Obama was standing before an Israeli audience, but he was speaking to the young people on both sides. They can do this, make peace.”

Addressing an enthusiastic crowd of more than 2,000, Mr. Obama offered a fervent, unsparing case for why a peace agreement was both morally just and in Israel’s self-interest. Younger Israelis, Mr. Obama said, should empathize with their Palestinian neighbors living under occupation — or, as he put it, “look at the world through their eyes.”

Hours earlier, visiting the Israeli-occupied West Bank, Mr. Obama urged the Palestinians to return to the bargaining table even if Israel did not meet their condition of halting construction of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories — a demand he, too, made at the start of his first term, but which had only a temporary, partial impact.

It was a striking mix of big-stage inspiration and closed-door compromise: with the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Obama was laboring to nudge two stubborn adversaries; with a younger generation, he was going over the two men’s heads, seeking to stir popular enthusiasm for his vision of peace.

Yet it also attested to the intractable nature of Middle East peacemaking over the past decade. By not renewing his demand that Israel halt settlement construction to get a new round of talks started, Mr. Obama was, in effect, conceding that years of careful study about how to nudge the peace process forward had failed to produce tangible results.

“Speaking as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do,” Mr. Obama said, in tones reminiscent of his own political campaigns at home. “You must create the change that you want to see.”

Standing before a blue-and-white banner emblazoned with the emblem of the Israeli state — a menorah flanked by olive branches — Mr. Obama spoke of the past and the future, from the biblical story of Exodus and from Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, to Israel’s reputation as a high-tech incubator with a mania for social media.

“Israel,” he said to prolonged applause, “is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own.”

Mr. Obama’s warm reception, after a polite but formal welcome by Mr. Netanyahu, recalled a visit by the Israeli Prime Minister to Washington in May 2011. Mr. Netanyahu, after rebuffing a peace proposal by Mr. Obama, spoke to Congress, receiving 29 standing ovations.

This week, Mr. Obama avoided proposals but promised that his administration would do its part to advance the process. He is sending Secretary of State John Kerry back to Israel from Jordan on Saturday to meet again with Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas to discuss next steps.

The President’s new activism, on the second day of a four-day trip to the Middle East, came hours after rockets from the Palestinian enclave of Gaza hit southern Israel. He condemned the attacks, which broke a three-month cease-fire, but said that the Israelis should not use the violence as an excuse to avoid negotiations.

“If we’re going to succeed, part of what we’re going to have to do is to get out of some of the formulas and habits that have blocked progress for so long,” Mr. Obama said, as Mr. Abbas stood next to him somberly. “Both sides are going to have to think anew.”

For his part, Mr. Abbas reiterated the Palestinian demand that Israel stop settlement construction. But he did not explicitly cite that as a precondition for entering into face-to-face talks with Mr. Netanyahu. Such talks have been quiescent since 2010.

“It is the duty of the Israeli government to at least halt the activity, so we can speak of the issues,” Mr. Abbas said in Arabic, speaking through an interpreter. “The issue of settlements is clear: we never gave up our vision, whether now or previously.”

There are signs that Mr. Abbas may be ready to return to negotiations with the Israelis. A draft copy of his talking points for the session with Mr. Obama, obtained by The New York Times, suggested that he was prepared to soften his long-held demand that Mr. Netanyahu publicly halt all building of settlements in favor of private assurances.

A senior administration official declined to discuss details of the meeting between Mr. Obama and Mr. Abbas.