Livni: We will stand by PM if he pursues direct talks

Leader of the opposition Tzipi Livni on Tuesday made comments regarding Israel's participation in direct talks with the Palestinians at the Inter-Disciplinary Center in Herzliya where she gave a talk at a conference regarding the "delegitimization of Israel" in the international sphere.

"Direct talks are especially important and I hope that the prime minister will proceed into them with an understanding that they are not just a favor done for the Palestinians or the US, but in our [Israel's] interests," Livni said

She added, "The prime minister's success [in the direct talks] is a success for all of us, and if he succeeds [in the talks], we won't attack him for making a move in the right direction."

Blair: De-legitimizers against all who share Israel's values

Quartet envoy Tony Blair also spoke at the conference at the IDC in Herzliya and gave a speech stating that those in the world who want to de-legitimize Israel are also de-legitimizing those around the world who share Israel’s values and admire its free spirit.

Blair said that the “best answer to the de-legitimization of Israel lies in the character of Israel and in the openness and creativity of Israelis."

Blair continued saying it was important not only for Israelis to fight against attempts to de-legitimize it, but also people around the world who share its values. He said that there were two kinds of de-legimization.

The first, he said, was practiced by Iranian Presdient Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who talks about wiping Israel off the map. That version, he said, is easier to deal with, because it is so open and blatant.

The other, perhaps more pernicious kind, is those who either consciously or not, resist or refuse to accept the idea “that Israel has a legitimate point of view."

Blair, in a very warm speech, said that a consistent conversation he has had with European colleagues is “not to apply rules to the government of Israel that you would never dream of applying to your own government or country."


Barak welcomes Blair to Israel

Earlier on Tuesday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with Blair and told him that Israel hopes for a breakthrough in negotiations with the Palestinians.

Barak was referring to the recent announcement that direct negotiations will resume by telling Blair that Israel cordially welcomes him on his visit to Israel as part of the Quartet's efforts, along with the United States and others, to bring about a breakthrough in negotiations.

"Israel and the Palestinians will need to make courageous decisions during the negotiations," Barak said.

The Piercing of the Eye

There have been many instances, albeit widely separated by the span of time, whereby high-profile historical figures have died as a result of a piercing of the eye. Delving further into the authenticated circumstances surrounding these events, I wanted to bring clarity to what I have come to refer to as “The Piercing of the Eye”. One such example is symbolized here, courtesy of the Bayeux Tapestry, commissioned by Odo, the Bishop of Bayeux. The Bayeux Tapestry is a long embroidered cloth that illustrates the events leading up to, and including, the Norman invasion of England in 1066. What may not be known to some is that the Bishop of Bayeux was a half-brother to William, Duke of Normandy, a major player in this 1066 drama.

Not only was I taken aback by these happenings, but I also found myself quite surprised that they had been over looked for such a long time. Extensive research proved most illuminating in that I was quick to identify that many of these high-profile figures shared a common bond, besides the manner in which they died, of course. This bond, I was to discover, was the connection of a shared bloodline. One key family in particular seems to have had a direct lineal line of descent from the very individuals involved in these events; namely, the Sinclair family. Given the sensational success of Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code, the name Sinclair, in direct association with Rosslyn Chapel, is continuing to garner attention on a world-wide level.

It needs to be shared here that the Sinclair family is currently active in the area of DNA research, and, as a result, we are beginning to further our lineal descent based on actual DNA findings. A few of the historical names related to this family are Hugh De Payens, the first Grand Master of the Knights Templar, and Godfroi (Godfrey) de Boullion, the first ruler of Jerusalem.

Other affiliated surnames have been Valois, Vermandois, Anjou, deBrus (later became Bruce), Beauchamp, de Clare and Montgomery, to name but a few. In addition, there are a multitude of others, all able to trace their ancestry back to Charlemagne, with some even to the Davidic line itself.

In dealing with the Sinclair family and its lineage to the Ulvungar Dynasty, it makes sense to understand the origins of the family. More on Ulvungar later.

The delivery of Hugh Montgomery’s The God-King’s of Europe is said to be a gold mine of truths. Upon reading, you will find that these truths are easily displacing the history that was written by the conquerors of the day. It has been stated that the Sinclair’s were mere players during these bygone days. In actuality, this has never been the case for the Sinclair family; a family that has been involved in the very making of the history we have come to know. It has even been suggested, by contemporary authors, that the Sinclair family is directly connected to the House of David, direct descendants of the Davidic lineage of Jeshua and Mary of Bethany. In following this same vein, Montgomery shares the existence of a version of a well-known French manuscript, dating from 412-420 AD, hereafter referenced as Document 4, from which the following words come.

“Now it came to pass in those days that a Priestess of the Goddess from the village of Bethany of the Tribe of Benjamin and a keeper of the Sacred Doves was affianced to a man called Jeshua for she had served her six years. Now Jeshua was of the House of David the King and they were married.

And Jeshua rebelled against the oppressors against Rome and was defeated, but many Romans were devotees of the Mother and were unwilling to kill her priestess who was with child. So Miriam took ship and was secretly smuggled into Gaul where she was delivered and there she abode many years. Now she bore a daughter who was exceedingly fair and the king of that place looked upon her and demanded that she be his wife but she was promised to the Goddess. But the king would not have it so and made her his wife and she bore him a son and a daughter.

But the Goddess was exceeding wrath for his rape of her daughter and cursed him saying, “Thy seed shall be estranged from me and thine inheritance taken from thee. Thy seed shall end by the piercing of an eye and so shall thine inheritance cease. Yet for the sake of my priestess whom thou ravished shall I forgive thee and thy seed if they fulfill those labors which I shall give them.

They must fight and capture that which was lost to the oppressors of thy wife though they shall not hold it for they shall suffer betrayal (as thou betrayed me). Unless one of thy seed shall end the House of their betrayers by piercing the eye of its Liege. To this family shall I award greatness if they return to me and from this time to that shall be four and one hundred generations” ”.

In continuing to focus on the “eye” of the story, we are better able to note a recognizable understanding of the very families involved in the crusades and why, perhaps, it was felt that Jerusalem had to be rescued from the infidels. In keeping with the aforementioned

Document 4, might there have been a certain destiny to fulfill? Might this also explain why we find these families within the Templar Order? Likewise, for the purpose for the Order having been created in the first place?

Montgomery also speaks about an Abdias Manuscript dating to 120 AD. Abdias was the first Bishop of Babylonia in the 1^st century. The Catholic Church, however, has claimed that the document was written by a French Monk from the 6^th century. Montgomery provides three reasons as to why this cannot possibly be true; namely,

(1) He is mentioned by Eusebius, the Church historian, in his book written in 306 AD.

(2) Eusebius mentions the Latin text of Julius Africanos and says that it was produced prior to 200 AD.

(3) The Latin is the rather better Latin of the first and second century AD and not the far more clumsy Latin of later dates when Latin was no longer a spoken language.

Currently held at Dickson College, as part of the Norris Collection, Abdias “wrote 10 sermons, one on each of the Apostles, in Hebrew. These were translated into Greek and then later into Latin by Julius Africanos. There is some indication that Abdias may have been a member of Jesus’ family” in that he claimed to know various members of this family. Montgomery tells us that this Abdias Manuscript is about the Early Church Apostles, particularly Jesus’ brothers and half brothers.

Looking back throughout history, as depicted through the prophesied words of Mary of Bethany, we can identify many corroborated references, which, to my mind, further substantiates the validity of Document 4.

It is important to note that both the “eye piercing” as well as the meaning behind the action had a significant connection with the beginning of the decline of the Merovingian House in the 750’s. Having been in power for more than 300 years, the Merovingians belonged to one of the early Gaulish Houses, assuming the throne after the fall of the Roman Empire in the 4^th century. Merovingian, named after Merovée, was an Ulvungar through Atualf, the King of the Visigoths in the 3^rd century. The last of the Merovingian line was Dagobert II. Itis said that his death was brought about in the following manner. He was sleeping in the forest and, whilst there, “pierced” in the left eye, ending the Merovingian dynasty. The immediate successors, the Mayors of the Palace, had served under the Merovingian kings. As a result of their marrying into the Merovingian dynasty, they claimed the right to rule, becoming the Carolingians.

Earlier in the article I made mention of the Sinclair family and its related lineage to the Ulvungar Dynasty. What is the Ulvungar Dynasty? Ulvungar is another name for a Scandinavian family of Royals that some may know as Ylinnlingeatt (Yngling). They ruled over vast domains, and, depending on who was in charge, the kingship bounced from Sweden to Norway to Denmark. Likewise for the nobles that supported them. They held land in most of the northern countries such as Scotland, Orkney, Shetland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, as well as Frisia and the Ukraine. They not only wanted to seize the Western Empire, but also the Eastern, with the eventual prize being Jerusalem itself.

Montgomery describes the Ulvungar Dynasty, saying that “... the Odinpeople (Kassites) had fled from somewhere (Mesopotamia), finished up in Sweden, and ultimately called the Goths. Later a second migration, now mixed with the Benjamite and Elchasaite peoples, had fled north again and founded the Ulvungar dynasty of Scandinavia. These two events had been telescoped into one legend, as often happens, and memory of the persecutions of the Goths by the Roman Army in the 3rd century was now remembered as the reason for their fleeing north. Of small things are great events remembered”.

Another reference to this migration comes from The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail as written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. In discussing the Grandmasters of the Priory of Sion, these authors reference Nicholas Flamel, saying that:

“Around 1361 Flamel, according to his own account, happened upon the alchemical text that was to transform his life. Its complete title is both puzzling and interesting -- The Sacred Book of Abraham the Jew, Prince, Priest, Levite, Astrologer, and Philosopher to That Tribe of Jews who by the Wrath of God were Dispersed amongst the Gauls”.

As one can see, herein lies additional proof that a certain group of Jews left modern day Israel and migrated to France. Flamel is said to have found his “transmutation” after he left Spain, for it was there that he spoke to a Jewish man who had converted. He returns home to France, applies what the Jewish man has shown him, becoming very wealthy, owning and building many things.

Once again, we return to the piercing.

With Dagobert II out of the way, we see another great figure arise from the Ulvungar Dynasty by the name of Harald Hardrada (Harald III of Norway). Most historians would say he was a mighty warrior, himself an Ulvungar through lineal descent from Harald Fair-Haired. As a child, he was said to have spent time in the court of his cousin, or rather second uncle, Robert II (called both The Magnificent as well as The Devil), Duke of Normandy, who died on his way back from a pilgrimage in 1035. Interestingly enough, one is left to wonder if he had even been on a pilgrimage. It is quite possible that Robert may have been laying the groundwork for an invasion, instead!

While journeying about the Byzantine Empire, Harald kills Michael V by “piercing” his eye. He returns just in time to invade England, a full two to three weeks before William, Duke of Normandy. Harald lands and is killed in the Battle at Stamford Bridge by King Harold Godwinson of England. Harold is also a member of the Ulvungar Dynasty as well as a distant relative to William. Interestingly enough, William had been forced to remain along the French coast for six weeks due to bad weather.

William, the son of Robert II, Duke of Normandy, shared an affiliation to the St. Clair’s of St. Clair-sur-Epte, courtesy of his great grandfather Rollo the Viking (also known as Hrólf the Ganger) who signed a treaty with the Carolingian king, Charles the Simple, in 911 AD. The duchy of Normandy was established and ceded to Rollo, who became the first Duke of Normandy. What many do not know is that the descendants of Rollo took the name St. Clair. In essence, therefore, the Conqueror was William de St. Clair.

At the battle that changed history, that being the Battle of Hastings in 1066, William was said to have fought for a large part of the day, against Godwinson, almost coming to a standstill due to the Godwinson camp being unable to move its front line forward. In the end, however, it is William that wins the day. Godwinson is supposed to have fallen in this battle, due to his injury, and it is this very part of the story that gives further credence to my theory; namely, that the Bayeux Tapestry vividly shows the fall of Harold Godwinson as depicted by the arrow “piercing” his right eye! Many historians have said that Godwinson did not fall by the arrow, which only serves to make one pause just long enough to pose the pertinent question – if he did not die in this fashion, why has it been depicted in such a manner? In accordance with words of Document 4, we know why.

Another “piercing” that comes to mind, although deemed accidental, was that of Henri II of France. What interests me is that Michel de Nostradame, better known throughout history as Nostradamus, foretold the king of his death and how it would occur … by “his eye being pierced”. In this instance, the Scottish Guard’s captain, Gabriel de Montgomery, was responsible for the piercing. It is important to note that Henri was a Valois, a line that is also related to the St. Clair’s.

Informed of a fifth event, which provides as much clarity as the other events mentioned to date, such involves William the Conqueror’s son, William II (Rufus), who succeeded his father to the throne. He met his end by a piercing of the eye, giving way to a younger brother Henri who becomes known as Henri I of England. William the Conqueror’s son Richard tries to usurp the throne, with the help of the Montgomery’s and the de Clare’s, direct descendants of the illegitimate son of Richard I, Duke of Normandy, Godfrey, Count d’Eu.

Does this, then, give further credence to the fact that Nostradamus knew of a plot to kill Henri II of France? Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh think it possible, as do I, for one has to consider the underlying theme. It has been acknowledged that the Mayors of the Palace were responsible for the demise of the Merovingian kings, themselves becoming known as the Carolingians. In keeping with what the fact that the Montgomery’s and the de Clare’s were actively assisting Richard, son of William the Conqueror, in his attempt to commandeer the throne of England, albeit much later and within the same bloodline, is this not similar?

As has been shared here, we have several instances that have occurred chiefly within the Ulvungar lineage -- Dagobert, Harald Hardrada, William the Conqueror and William II (Rufus) were all related. In addition, all were connected to the same ritual killing as prophesied by Mary of Bethany in accordance with Document 4.

In perusing Roland Saint Clair’s book, The Saint Clair’s of the Isles, I tried to locate pieces of information that I may have overlooked. Sure enough, I was to find another piece of the puzzle. This time, I found myself armed with certain patterns and events.

I had been telling everyone that I was seeing a historical repeat with certain events as first described in Montgomery’s book, namely Document 4.

The ritual of killing the Liege, with the piercing of his eye, was both uppermost and very obvious in my mind. As stated in The Saint Clair’s of the Isles on page 269, Roland Saint Clair makes mention of another related event. Involving the usual suspects, this time it is King Canmore (Malcolm III) who is pierced through the left eye, by a person that is not named. As a result of further delving, I was able to conclude that the children of the person responsible for this particular eye piercing took the last name Percy. Eureka! We have the de Percy family!

During a siege with the Saint Clair’s, the people of Alnwick Castle are starved and at their last, an armed man come forth with the keys to the castle. He goes directly to the king, through all the men, with a lance. At the end of that lance are the keys to the castle.

The Scottish army let him through in order to present the keys to their king, perceiving this to be an act of final submission. To the horror of all, the armed man with the lance pierces the Scottish king in the left eye, and he dies. A cross near Broomhouse Hill, across the river from the castle, marks the spot where Malcolm III was killed in 1093.

The Percy’s were descended from a Danish raider by the name of Mainfred. I believe Mainfred may have been of rank in Rollo’s army, possibly even related to him, as Rollo brought many family members with him to Normandy. It suddenly makes sense when we see that the Percy’s received lands from William the Conqueror.

Quite possibly, William was wanting to lay all others to rest, with this ritual killing. Might this have been why Odo gave him the Bayeux Tapestry? Whether Harold actually died by the piercing of his eye, as depicted on the Tapestry, one may never know. One does, however, see William making an attempt at trying to clean house, making sure of his duty to the prophecy of Mary of Bethany.

In the search for proof in the recounting of these eye piercing events, I only have to look at these historical happenings to see what has been hidden. There are no coincidences.

When the Ulvungar and Davidic families seized Jerusalem, they were acting on the prophecy of Mary in association with the “inheritance of that which was lost”. Involved in the brutal killing of Jew, Muslim, and Christian alike, blood ran as high as a horse’s knee. It was their intent to take the city at all costs, an interesting side note being that the Pope did not react to this information in a negative sense at all.

In attempting to better understand the connection to all of these families, one begins to wonder what they may have had access to. Did they know of Document 4? Might there have been other manuscripts known to these key players?

It bears saying that with all of the nobility found in Europe, there is only one lineage that demonstrates a clear link to the words of Mary of Bethany; that of the Ulvungars. In so doing, it appears as if they attempted to fulfill her prophesied destiny. No other family in history has such a unique past that directly connects them to Document 4 as does the Ulvungar (Yinling) conquest of so many lands, places, and religions.

In conclusion, Document 4 has clearly been a significant find, perhaps serving to shed much light on events that shaped both families and history

Giving way to what many believe to be of the realm of mythology for a brief moment, the earliest recorded reference to a piercing of the eye has come to be associated with Horus, the Egyptian God of the sky. In Cracking the Symbol Code, Tim Wallace-Murphy states, “Then there is the all seeing ‘Eye of Horus’, a representation of the eye that Horus lost in his battle with Seth”.

Although we may not be related by blood to a God of Ancient Egypt, could it be that we mortals have come to make a philosophical and/or symbolic connection with this Eye of Horus? As a matter of interest, it is important to share that Odin, the chief god in Norse mythology, is said to also have lost an eye to gain wisdom. Thereafter, he was known as one-eyed Odin.

When one takes the time to pry further into the historical accuracy of certain events, a much truer picture of history starts to emerge. In my observation, it is clear that the Sinclair family has much to learn about their own history. Knowing that the mode of death was written in such a fashion, as shared within this article, lends more credence to the importance of the tale(s) being spun, for those with ears to hear, whether or not they actually happened as written.

What one has to wonder about the Sinclair family, in light of what has been shared here by this author, is what might their inheritance have been?

Author: Shawn Sinclair

The war on de-legitimisation

The political war aimed at delegitimising Israel, and at preventing the IDF from acting to stop terror attacks, is now recognised as a major threat. These are not the sentiments of alarmists; this is the conclusion drawn by Eitan Haber, a close advisor to prime ministers, including Yitzhak Rabin (“IDF isn’t enough in face of global de-legitimisation campaign faced by Israel.”)

Haber’s analysis only scratches the surface of the de-legitimisation campaign waged against Israel. These efforts are not new; since the 2001 UN “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa – international NGOs and some within Israel have introduced into the public lexicon slogans referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” guilty of “war crimes” that does not have the right to exist.

The campaign is gaining strength, and as Haber notes the importance of mobilising the Jewish people “to fight back against the ubiquitous de-legitimisation process, against the indifference, and possibly also against the despair among us.”

Examples of NGO campaigns are, unfortunately, plentiful. The recent “Free Gaza” flotilla incident demonstrated the sophisticated use of the “humanitarian,” “peace” and “non-governmental” labels to cover a preplanned attack on IDF soldiers, resulting in injuries and deaths. Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation) – a Turkish “charity” with close links to Hamas, jihadist groups, and the Turkish government – led the efforts in this instance.

Working with European and American anti-Israel campaigners, including the confrontational International Solidarity Movement (ISM), they tapped into a wider diplomatic and political campaign driven by the false charges of “war crimes” and “collective punishment.”

NGOs orchestrate these incidents, stripping away the context of terror and hate, and placing Israel and its supporters on the defensive. This strategy is coupled with ongoing efforts, such as the boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, to single out and isolate Israel.

A parallel tactic, promulgated by Israeli-Arab NGO Adalah (funded by the New Israel Fund -NIF and the European Union) portrays “Israel as an inherent undemocratic state.” Similarly, NGO “lawfare” cases against Israeli officials in foreign courts attempt to delegitimise the Israeli justice system.

Detailed research reports published by NGO Monitor document the damage caused by powerful NGOs that use the façade of liberal agendas, and the funders that enable these campaigns. European governments provide tens of millions of dollars annually, without the necessary transparency, to many of these NGOs.

‘Soft power’ war

Many of these groups, including the NIF, are attempting to prevent the Knesset from adopting legislation that would provide transparency regarding how and where NGOs receive their funding. These groups fear that they too would lose their funding and impact, and placed their private agendas and interests above the right of the public to know who is paying for the de-legitimisation efforts.

Haber's is a welcomed voice, joining the growing mainstream chorus that has highlighted the power of NGOs in the “soft power” war against Israel. Other prominent liberals in the US - including NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who echoed the criticism of Human Rights Watch by founder Robert Bernstein -have criticized the “foul… trend, both deliberate and inadvertent, to delegitimize Israel - to turn it into a pariah state, particularly in the wake of the Gaza war.”

Criticism and debate on particular policies is an appropriate part of all democratic societies. Blanket de-legitimisation is not. The fact that Friedman, Bernstein, Haber, and others are calling attention to this danger shows that the mainstream Left and Right in Israel and the Diaspora have found an issue around which they can unify.

It also means those who care about Israel should follow their lead and take action. This includes demanding the implementation of NGO funding guidelines based on transparency and assurance that their donations will not be used for de-legitimisation. Other guidelines reject the BDS campaign and international “lawfare” cases in all forms and arenas; offer criticisms of Israel in proper context; and use the vast resources available to assist those whose human rights truly are being infringed upon, in Iran, Sudan, Europe, and elsewhere, but are overshadowed by the obsessive emphasis on Israel

Haber’s call for a military-type effort and a “huge body” to “fight back” against the de-legitimisation process is understandable. But size is less important than intelligence, in both senses of the word. Israel and the Jewish people, working in partnership, need to think and act strategically, to name and shame the hardcore anti-Israel activists who use the façade of morality to promote their racism.

The funders and enablers, particularly the anonymous officials in European governments, need to be similarly exposed. In parallel, we need alliance with those who agree on the wider principles of Israel’s place among the nations, despite polity differences, including on settlements and other issues.

The alternative to this war strategy would consign us to watching from the sidelines as Israel’s place among the nations erodes further, and our ability to defend citizens against mass terror becomes more difficult. This alternative, as Eitan Haber has discovered, is unacceptable.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor and professor of Political Science at Bar Ilan University

Palestinian Authority has neither desire nor ability to finalize agreement with Israel

While the Palestinians debate whether to enter direct negotiations with Israel, we would do well to again ask the following question: Are their peace intentions genuine?

The State of Israel had a golden opportunity to scrutinize the frankness of their intentions to finalize a future peace agreement during Operation Fortress in 2002. Security forces uncovered the most guarded secrets of Arafat and his men in the PLO’s Ramallah archive, which contained thousands of security and political documents of unprecedented quality.

However, one document was conspicuously absent; a document that could have shed genuine light on the Palestinian Authority’s attitude to a future peace deal with Israel.

In the few historical junctions where the Palestinian national movement was called upon to make a decision regarding a possible historic compromise with the Zionist movement, the Palestinian leadership’s reply was unequivocally firm and determined: There would be no compromise because we, the Arabs, view the entire territory as belonging to the Arab Palestinian people.

The passing years have turned Palestinian rejectionism into a sanctified notion, one which current-day Palestinians address with the kind of reverence reserved for things that are greater than life.

Today we clearly know that Arafat, too, resorted to manipulation via the Oslo Accords. Even the greatest leader to rise within Palestinian society in the past 100 years froze in place when facing the dilemma of whether to shun the value of rejectionism. “Those who preach for compromise put their lives on the line,” is a commonly used dictum across the Palestinian Authority.

Those holding their breath ahead of Ramallah’s next moves should be aware of another important detail. Even the formulation of an agreed-upon Palestinian agenda is an impossible mission over there. The PA cannot close ranks even ahead of the possibility of make-belief direct talks.

We’ve seen that movie before

The Israeli side is insufficiently familiar with one of the main reasons for this: The deepening rift between the two main population groups comprising Palestinian society - the rural “mountain community” that never left the area, and the “coastal plain community” comprising the “1948 refugees.” Both groups realize that should talks get underway, a more “lenient” Israeli position could be elicited on only one of the four “core issues.”

And so, the group of 1948 refugees presses for focus on the “right of return” and the arrival of as many refugees to the area, while the first group clings to the notion of holding on to the land – that is, the removal of as many settlements as possible.

What our troops did find in the PLO archive, in large quantities, were numerous documents showing that the Palestinians are drawing immense benefits from the transitional status of “being less than a state” – which explains why they fell in love with the “peace process.” A peace activist recently told me that he tried to voluntarily bring hundreds of donated computers to PA children. “How much do I get for mediating this?” wondered a senior Fatah figure asked to offer his assistance.

Over the years, the PA’s leadership adopted techniques and skills that enable it to fully exploit its situation to its economic benefit. This transitional political situation, a twilight-zone government facing no scrutiny, is a political heaven for them made up of bottomless barrels of money. Who needs an actual state that would get into trouble sooner or later and be declared a failed state?

Palestinian society is not ripe for the great change planned for it by Barack Obama and heads of the European Union. A historical compromise is off-limits. In the wake of the last photo opportunity it will turn out again - for the umpteenth time - that Abbas can at most commit to “upgraded security arrangements,” in exchange asking for a high price in terms of settlements, prisoners, roadblocks, and so on. Regrettably, we’ve seen that movie before.

Beware Palestinian apartheid

The Palestinian Authority is under heavy international pressure, mostly American, aimed at facilitating the transition from proximity talks to direct negotiations with Israel.

The written message recently sent by President Obama to Palestinian Chairman Mahmud Abbas indicated that the American administration is not content, to say the least, with the Palestinian foot-dragging in the peace process, or with what is perceived to be a lack of appreciation for American pressure on Israel (which led PM Netanyahu to accept the two-state solution and to temporarily freeze settlement activity in the West Bank and Jerusalem.)

However, there is no obvious fundamental change in the Palestinian stance. The PA hesitates and refrains from explicit commitment to direct negotiations without any pre-conditions. Instead, it tries to weather the American demands by raising a new proposal to convene a three-way meeting of Palestine, Israel, and America to discuss the agenda of the negotiations, its legitimacy, and the settlement cessation.

While briefing the Egyptian media in Cairo, Abbas divulged last week his version of the failure of the peace talks with former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his positions regarding the political settlement of the conflict. Abbas noted that he almost reached an agreement with Olmert, but the negotiations failed at the final stretch because of disagreement on the discussed land swap.

Olmert proposed 6.5% but Abbas accepted to no more than 1.9%. Abbas said that he demanded to divide Jerusalem, with the city’s eastern section handed over to the Palestinians and the western part remaining in Israeli hands, and insisted that the refugee problem must be settled in accordance with an Arab peace initiative from March 2002, and UN resolution 194. He also stressed that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” he was quoted by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.

A state without Jews

The Palestinians intend to demand the implementation of the UN resolution regarding refugees, from a Palestinian perspective, which gives the 5.5 million refugees and their descendants the right of return and to settle in the State of Israel. In his briefing to the Egyptian media, Abbas presented this strategy and denied the Jewish character of Israel. He maintains that Israel should, in fact, become a bi-national state, but on the other hand that Palestine must become a state “clean” of Jews.

The term “Israeli” used by Abbas means “Jew,” as the PA sees Israeli Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike as an integral part of the Palestinian people. The future State of Palestine, according Abbas, must resist any Jewish presence in its territory. In other words, the PA embraces a racist policy – Palestinian apartheid – directed at Jews, based on denial of Jewish history and the cultural and religious linkage of the Jewish people to the land.

The anti-Semitism embodied in Abbas’ words refers also to his position towards the NATO observers’ force that may be deployed in the West Bank to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement with Israel. He is opposed to Jews being included in this force; meaning, he will ask Germany and all other partner countries in NATO to use their own forces in the West Bank, in an effort to the exclude any Jewish soldiers.

He didn’t explain how these countries would determine who is a Jew, whether according to orthodox Jewish laws or just if one of the parents or grandparents was a Jew. But even Saudi Arabia didn’t dare oppose the deployment of American Jewish soldiers on its land during operation Desert Storm (1990-1), and no one in Israel ever demanded to disqualify Muslim soldiers from serving in the international observers’ forces in Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Sinai.

The racist language used by Abbas is particularly despicable as it doubts the loyalty of the Jews to their country. It is for this reason that his comments call for a firm Israeli and European response.

Source:

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi is a senior researcher and fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Director of Research at the Orient Research Group

US boosts Israeli missile funding

US House appropriators have pushed funding for Israeli missile defense programs to its highest level ever, with $422.7 million now slated for 2011. Last week, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense added $95.7m. to the original White House funding request for the long-range Arrow programs and medium-range David’s Sling, according to sources close to the panel. The lion’s share – $108.8m. – will go to the Arrow 3 system, which the US signed off on after some initial hesitation.

In addition, the monies include $205m pledged this spring by US President Barack Obama to the short-range Iron Dome project.The package is more than twice as much as last year’s total, and adds up to nearly $1 billion in aid to joint US-Israel missile defense programs in the past four years.

“Chairman [Norm] Dicks, myself and all the members of the Defense Subcommittee understand how important it is to be at the cutting edge of anti-missile technology, both to safeguard our own citizens and troops, but also those citizens and troops of our allies and friends such as the people of the Jewish state of Israel,” Rep. Steve Rothman (D-New Jersey) told The Jerusalem Post on Friday.

Rothman has pushed for greater funding of joint US-Israel missile defense programs during his tenure on the committee.“It would be political suicide for the Senate to come in with a lower number”The funding will need to be voted on by the full House when it reconvenes in the fall, as well as approved by the Senate in its own defense appropriations bill.

That bill could be “marked up” next week but is more likely to be reviewed after the August recess. In the “mark-up session,” amendments may be offered to the bill, and the committee members would vote to accept or reject those changes.

“It would be political suicide for the Senate to come in with a lower number,” said one source close to the issue of his expectation that the Senate will agree to the totals set by the House last week. “There’s virtually zero chance that these [projects] don’t get funded at these levels.”The funding comes at a time when the US has been under pressure to tighten its belt given the recession, with the defense budget no exception.

“Given the concern and attention that we are focusing now on every dollar we are expending on behalf of the US taxpayer for all purposes, including the defense of the United States and its allies, it is a mark of the importance of these projects that they were all funded so robustly and fully by our subcommittee,” Rothman said.

There were also concerns among some elements of the pro-Israel community that the new money for the Iron Dome project announced by Obama would come at the expense of the funding for the Arrow and David’s Sling projects, so that overall missile defense aid would not significantly increase.The Israeli government is among those pleased by the outcome.

“The embassy of Israel deeply appreciates this latest expression of the congressional commitment to Israel’s security and to the development of systems that will enhance the defense of both Israel and the United States,” Ambassador to the US Michael Oren said.

Livni meets Ramon amid report he tried to derail talks

With international pressure growing on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to negotiate directly with Israel, Kadima council chairman Haim Ramon met on Friday with the Kadima chairwoman Tzipi Livni to discuss allegations he tried to convince the PA to reject such talks.Sources close to the two confirmed that in the course of the conversation, Ramon reiterated his denials of last week’s report that he told the PA’s chief negotiator Saeb Erekat not to enter into direct talks.

A man who allegedly heard the July 8 conversation between the two in the capital’s American Colony Hotel said Ramon told Erekat: “There is no point in starting direct talks, because Bibi won’t agree to anything.”Israel Radio’s Ayala Hasson described the witness as reliable and not politically motivated.

When the story of Ramon’s alleged comments broke, Livni said that she would meet with him on Friday, after he returned from a visit overseas.The meeting with Erekat, he told her on Friday, had been public and not hidden, and he never encouraged the Palestinians to avoid direct talks.He told Livni that the comments that he made in such meetings were no different than those that he has made in numerous public venues.

Ramon also denied reports that he told Erekat that he was speaking to him as an emissary of President Shimon Peres, telling Livni that he does not hold such meetings as a messenger from anyone.Livni’s office emphasized over the weekend that Kadima as a matter of principle is not trying to run any alternative peace process in place of the elected government, and that Livni herself is not an alternative channel.

Her office said, following the Ramon-Livni meeting, that “meetings by Kadima members, including Ramon, with Palestinian Authority officials who oppose terror and work to advance peace arrangements with Israel – [meetings] of which Livni is aware – are designed to maintain a missing link today between the [two] nations and to advance cooperation and understanding in a way that will aid in reaching a peace arrangement.”

Kadima, her office said, calls on the prime minister “to take responsibility for Israel’s state today instead of placing the blame on others for Israel’s decline to one of the worst diplomatic states in its history and making capital out of an open meeting between an Israeli and a Palestinian.” Calling to return to the “negotiations that Livni and Abu Ala [former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei] held only a year-and-a-half ago,” Kadima officials said that picking up the talks where they left off then would bring a speedy end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel to UN: Rocket firing hurting peace efforts

Israel's UN envoy in Geneva Aharon Leshno Yaar sent a letter to the Human Rights Council over the weekend following the recent rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip. State officials claim the council has a "peculiar obsession" against Israel. In an official complaint letter sent at the Foreign Ministry's request it was noted that "The indiscriminate launching of rockets at civilians and civilian objects amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity."

The letter also stated that the attacks hurt the peace process and the resumption of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians. "The people of Israel have the right to live in peace and security. The recent attacks on southern Israel from the Gaza Strip seriously violate international law and undermine the peace process and the efforts to renew the direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority," it was stated.

A Qassam rocket fired from northern Gaza on Saturday night hit the roof of a building in an educational institution located in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council, outside of Sderot. There were no reports of injuries. Israel's Air Force responded by targeting a weapons smuggling tunnel on the Egyptian border and a tunnel below the border fence meant to serve terrorists in attacks inside Israeli territory. A mortar shell fired from the northern Gaza Strip on Sunday morning exploded near a kibbutz in the Shaar Hanegev Regional Council. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

The current round of violence along Israel's border with Gaza began Friday morning, when a Grad rocket fired from the Hamas-ruled territory landed near an apartment building in central Ashkelon. A few hours later two mortars landed within the limits of the Eshkol Regional Council. There were no reports of injury in either attack, but eight people suffered from shock in Ashkelon.

State officials postulated Friday that the Grad rocket fire was an attempt by terror groups in Gaza to strike up conflict in the region ahead of negotiations between Israel and the PA.

In response to the firing, the IAF bombed various targets in the Gaza Strip on Friday night killing a Hamas militant and injuring 12 people.

Peres says English are anti-Semitic draws fury

President Shimon Peres evoked the anger of Jewish parliament members and leaders in Britain when he said in an interview last week that England is "deeply pro-Arab and anti-Israel", adding that "they always worked against us". Still there were some groups that backed the Israeli president and noted that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in the UK had risen dramatically in recent years.

In an interview to a Jewish website, Peres said, "There is in England a saying that an anti-Semite is someone who hates the Jews more than is necessary." His remarks came days after British Prime Minister David Cameron called Gaza a "prison camp".

Peres said England's attitude towards Jews is Israel's "next big problem". "There are several million Muslim voters, and for many members of parliament, that's the difference between getting elected and not getting elected," he said. "And in England there has always been something deeply pro-Arab, of course, not among all Englishmen, and anti-Israeli, in the establishment," he added, noting that in contrast, ties with Germany, France and Italy are "pretty good".

Peres' comments were made in an interview with historian Professor Benny Morris, and were published on the Jewish website "Tablet". 'Britain among best countries to live in'

Following Peres' comments, Conservative MP James Clappison, who is also the vice-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel, said: "Mr Peres has got this wrong. There are pro- and anti-Israel views in all European countries. Things are certainly no worse, as far as Israel is concerned, in this country than other European countries."

Clappison told the British Telegraph that he understands the "frustration" that people in Israel feel with "certain elements of the British broadcast media" which present an unbalanced view of Israel.

While Clappison said he understands Peres' concerns, he added he does not "recognize what he is saying about England."

Dr. Jonathan Romain, a writer, broadcaster and minister of Maidenhead synagogue, did not agree with the president's statements, and said, "I am surprised at Peres. It is a sweeping statement that is far too one-sided.

"Britain has supported both Israel and Arab causes at different periods over the last 50 years. There are elements of anti-Semitism but it is not endemic to British society. The tolerance and pluralism here make Britain one of the best countries in the world in which to live."

According to Vince, the director of Christian Friends of Israel, the Cameron government is trying to appease the Arabs. "Peres' comments have serious connotations and I am sure would not be said lightly,"