PM HARPER ENDS MIDEAST TRIP TO ISRAEL

JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.

Prime Minister Harper ends Mideast visit with tour of refugee camp in Jordan

AMMAN, Jordan - Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced more funding initiatives Friday to assist Syrian refugees and to aid in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons.Harper, on the final day of his visit to Israel and Jordan, made the announcement during a tour of the Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan, some 12 kilometres from the Syrian border.Harper, who was in Amman Thursday to meet with King Abdullah at his opulent presidential palace, said an additional $15 million would be spent to support the international effort to destroy the weapons.The bulk of the money, $10 million, will go to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is overseeing the program.That’s on top of the $2 million Canada gave the OPCW in early 2013 to help the organization investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The remaining $5 million announced Friday will assist the U.S. Department of Defence in the destruction of chemicals aboard an American ship.“The use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians was an atrocity that cannot be allowed to happen again,” said Harper.Harper also announced additional support for 6.5 million internally displaced people in Syria and the 2.3 million refugees who have fled the civil war.
He said $150 million would be disbursed this year for humanitarian needs in Syria and to help Syrians who have taken refuge in Jordan and other countries.The third Canadian-funded project is designed to help Syrian refugee children rediscover what many kids around the world take for granted — the joy of play.
Funding will be provided to enable more than 1,500 teachers and coaches to use a play-based learning method in partnership with an organization called Right To Play."Canada’s support will help ensure that children living in Jordanian communities hosting Syrian refugees have the opportunity to learn, play and succeed despite difficult circumstances," said Harper.The prime minister added that Canada will do its best to ensure Syrian children "do not become a lost generation."All told, Canada has so far committed more than $630 million in humanitarian, development and security assistance in response to the Syrian crisis.
The prime minister and his wife, Laureen, were welcomed at the camp by a UN official who thanked Canada for its strong support of Jordan.The official filled them in on the size of the camp and the number of Syrian refugees there, now estimated to number about 125,000.The camp has grown to more than eight square kilometres since it was created in July 2012.Time Magazine has described it as the size of nearly 1,000 American football fields.Harper says camp represents just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the Syrian crisis."This is only one small piece of the refugee crisis." he said."We sometimes forget these are all individual lives ... We are touched by this."After touring the camp, Harper and his wife, Laureen, visited Petra, a historical and archeological city famous for its rock-cut architecture and water system.UNESCO says Petra, between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea, has been inhabited since prehistoric times. It is half-built, half-carved into rock, and is surrounded by mountains riddled with passages and gorges.
The Harpers stopped and posed for photos on edge of the spectacular valley."We need a geologist," Laureen said with a laugh.One of the prominent features carved into the rock called Al Khazneh, or the Facade of the Treasury, was used to depict the front of a temple housing the Holy Grail in the film "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."Harper and his entourage hiked through the stunning crevasse to take in the Facade of the Treasury and the prime minister and his wife posed for more photos.

OPEN LETTER TO HARPER ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2014/01/open-letter-to-stephen-harper-of-canada.html 

Letter writers express anger, shame towards Harper, Baird on Palestine

By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press |-JAN 24,14-yahoonews

OTTAWA - The Harper government was flooded with angry letters from Canadians after it opposed the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations, newly disclosed documents show.More than 1,000 letters arrived over several weeks in late 2012 and early 2013 at the offices of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and several other Conservative MPs, the vast majority of them complaining that the government was not representing the balanced and fair-minded views of Canadian citizens on the divisive Middle East issue.More than 80 per cent of the correspondence expressed clear opposition to the Conservative government's own vocal attempts to block the Palestinian bid for greater recognition at the UN.The letters, released recently under the Access to Information Act, emerge just as Harper and a large delegation of Conservative MPs, cabinet ministers and Canadian business, religious and cultural leaders prepare to wrap up a week-long visit to Israel and Jordan.Some of the writers — their identities were excised before the documents were released — expressed shame and anger, while others described themselves as Tory voters who would be voting differently in 2015 because of their stand.
Many expressed embarrassment for their country on the world stage because of the Conservatives' stance — notably Baird's November 2012 speech to the UN General Assembly that passionately opposed the Palestinian bid.In one January 2013 letter, a writer expressed dismay at "the unconditional support given to Israel by the prime minister and his party. I believe this stance contradicts the opinions of the vast majority of Canadians."Another noted, "I know that courting the Jewish vote is important to you. But the Palestinians have had a tough time in the last half-century. Couldn't you be a little nicer to them?"Many criticized the Harper government for refusing to publicly denounce Israel for building illegal settlements on Palestinian territory — something the prime minister pointedly told reporters travelling to Israel with him this week that he had no intention of doing.Indeed, the settlement issue was mentioned repeatedly in the more than 1,360 pages of correspondence that was reviewed by The Canadian Press.In all, the pages contained more than 1,030 letters, with more than 830 expressing condemnation of the government's Middle East policy. More than 180 wrote in support of the government.This flurry of letter writing mainly took place in the days leading up to and the weeks following the UN General Assembly vote on Nov. 29, 2012, in which the Palestinian Authority overwhelmingly won greater recognition.Only a handful of countries — Canada, the United States, Israel, and six smaller nations — voted against the Palestinians. Baird's speech to the General Assembly that day was a lightning rod for letter writers.Baird was flooded with letters in the days leading up to his speech — his opposition to the Palestinian bid was publicly known — urging him to change his position, or deriding him for a stance and rhetoric that many realized could not be swayed.Some letters writers hurled angry, personal insults. Others wrote to Harper; one demanded to know whether the prime minister knew what his foreign minister was up to and whether he had "spoken up against John Baird's dreadful stance."All of the letters eventually passed through Baird's office; the PMO appeared to copy him on everything sent to Harper."Shameful — shameful — shameful. What a disgusting Canadian you are, making us all ashamed of your biased and hypocritical position," one writer told Baird the day before his UN speech.Another urged him to "stop spitting your venom at the United Nations."One writer, having voted for Baird in the past, pledged never to do so again. "The current Conservative view will be on the wrong side of history and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians," the letter read.Another added: "Canada is becoming a joke to the rest of the world."Several Conservative MPs who received critical letters forwarded them to Baird, asking for an answer they could provide their angry constituents.On the day of Baird's speech, then-Alberta Conservative MP Ted Menzies, who retired late last year, forwarded a series of letters from an angry constituent that he had been corresponding with."I no longer consider myself a PC voter at the federal level," the writer told Menzies. "I will not be voting PC next election!!!"At various times, the writers said they were "mortified" or "ashamed" or "disappointed" at a government that was "out of touch" on the issue.
Baird was called a "spoiled child" by one, while another called the government a "Zionist lapdog.""Your government sickens me," said another.Despite a preponderance of negative sentiment, there is nonetheless a trickle of support for the Conservatives."It is to Canada's credit, yourself, and your government that you took a moral position at the United Nations, a body that sadly lacks any integrity when it comes to dealing with Israel, and is challenged in many other areas too," one writer told Harper and Baird four days after the UN vote.Another supportive constituent of Baird's fondly recalled him knocking on their door nine years earlier, when he was a member of the Ontario legislature."At the door, you asked for my vote, I remember asking you what your opinion was on the subject of Israel. You wowed me with your historical knowledge of the Middle East conflict, and your appreciation of Israel," the letter said."You told me you believed in the Jewish state."Several others, some of whom described themselves as Jewish, offered sincere thanks to the prime minister for siding with Israel."God bless Canada and Israel forever!!" said one.Some correspondents offered thoughtful anecdotes, and a small number of others offered no position, but asked Harper or Baird for more information on theirs.In a handwritten note, Harper was asked if he had ever travelled without a delegation "to the Palestine occupied area of Israel?" The woman, who said she travelled there with husband in 2010, found "deplorable" living conditions. She Canada should be standing up for the "underprivileged."
"Our Parliament and you, Mr. prime minister, have shirked your humanitarian duty by voting with the United States. I am ashamed of this action."Harper departed Israel on Wednesday after becoming the first Canadian prime minister to speak to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. He returns home Saturday after visiting neighbouring Jordan, capping his first trip to the Middle East.Harper was feted by the Israelis during his visit with an honorary university degree, as well as a tour of a bird sanctuary that will bear his name.He also visited the West Bank, pledging $66 million in new aid to help the Palestinians build their battered economy.
Follow @mblanchfield on Twitter

And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.

Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.

12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE

Australian FM’s settlement empathy prompts furious dispute

Julie Bishop’s refusal in Times of Israel interview to brand settlements as illegal provokes bitter row between PLO and Australian Jewish leaders

By Raphael Ahren January 24, 2014, 3:13 pm 0-The times of Israel

A bitter verbal battle has erupted in Australia over the legal status of Israeli settlements, with Jewish leaders and top Palestinian officials sparring over pro-settlement comments Foreign Minister Julie Bishop made last week to The Times of Israel. The argument reached its peak on Friday, with conflicting op-eds and comments flying back and forth from Palestinian leaders and Australian Jewish officials.Bishop “wants to reinvent international law and call Israeli settlements legal. Or what else was Bishop trying to accomplish by showing her support to Israeli settlements?” Palestinian chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat wrote Friday in the Sydney Morning Herald. “If Bishop wanted to show solidarity with an occupation that harms the rights of an occupied population, she did well. I would be unsurprised if her next step was a cup of coffee with her Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, in the illegal settlement of Nokdim, where he lives, in land stolen from Bethlehem.”Australia is now the only country, besides Israel, that considers the settlements legal, wrote Erekat, who is also a senior member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s executive committee. “If Bishop wanted to support the negotiations process, she did the opposite… The terms of reference for negotiations do not include legitimising illegal Israeli settlements, but ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.”In an immediate response to Erekat’s article, Peter Wertheim, the executive director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, accused him of making “false and inflammatory accusations against Israel..“This manner of conduct is unbecoming of the representative of an aspiring state which seeks to take its place among the family of peace-loving nations,” Wertheim told The Times of Israel. “We sincerely hope that the PLO and its negotiating team will focus on the enormous and grave tasks before them instead of slandering those with whom they are negotiating and diverting themselves with clumsy forays into Australian politics.”In an exclusive interview with The Times of Israel on January 15, Bishop appeared to contest the view that Israeli settlements anywhere beyond the 1967 lines are illegal under international law. “I would like to see which international law has declared them illegal,” she said, adding that she did not want to “prejudge the fundamental issues,” which should instead be discussed in the peace negotiations.Bishop, who made her comments during a short visit in Israel, also defended her government’s decision to abstain or vote against anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations as “balanced” and “not one-sided.”The position that settlements breach international law — adopted by the UN Security Council, the European Union and many other states and international bodies, but rejected by Israel — is based on an interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 49, paragraph 6, states that an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Violations of the convention are considered war crimes under international law. Israel is a party to the convention and therefore bound by it.Bishop’s unwillingness to condemn Israel’s settlements immediately caused a stir among Palestinians and some Australian Jews. PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi on Sunday released a first statement saying the foreign minister’s position represents “dangerous shifts in Australian foreign policy” and called for an official clarification of Australian policy on the issue.“I would like to remind the Australian government that in accordance with international human rights law and international humanitarian law, all settlements are illegal,” Ashrawi wrote, citing the Geneva Convention and other legal sources purportedly proving the settlements’ illegality. Bishop’s comments are a “willful defiance of international consensus,” Ashrawi stated.Some Australian Jews joined the chorus of protest. “For Australia to refrain from any criticism in the UN, or to cast doubt on the agreement in the international community that the occupation is illegal, and cruel, is a highly irresponsible and damaging act by this country, the heads of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, Larry Stillman and Jordy Silverstein, wrote in a January 17 letter to Bishop.Next, Australia’s former foreign minister Bob Carr — Bishop’s immediate predecessor, who is now in the opposition — said her position showed “an ignorance of international law,” adding that considering Israeli settlements illegal was a “commonplace and commonsense opinion.”‘Bishop’s actual statement was reasonable, indeed innocuous’

Bishop has so far been silent on the controversy. But Wertheim’s Executive Council of Australian Jewry has taken up her defense, weighing in on the legal debate about the correct interpretation of international law as it concerns Israeli settlements.“At a time when Israeli-Palestinian peace talks are ongoing and delicately poised, Bishop’s actual statement was reasonable, indeed innocuous,” Wertheim, and the Council’s public affairs officer, Alex Ryvchin, wrote Friday in an op-ed in The Age. “Bishop prudently sought to avoid acting as judge and jury on a bitterly contested and unresolved legal question. After all, Israel and the Palestinians have themselves agreed that the question of settlements is one of the core issues to be resolved by the delimitation of a final border in the course of final status negotiations between the parties.”Wertheim and Ryvchin rejected Ashrawi’s assertion that the settlements violate international law. The Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations do not mention Israel specifically, and the often-cited 2004 International Court of Justice opinion, which claims settlements do contravene international law, is merely a non-binding advisory opinion and not legally determinative, they stated.Whether settlements are illegal under international law, they wrote, “is a serious legal question that is hotly disputed.” While they noted that there has never been a definitive ruling, they quoted a 2012 legal opinion issued by James Crawford, a prominent Australian international law expert, who stated that some settlements are “probably lawful.”In any event, they added, a “preponderance of opinion, one way or another, by legal experts does not decide the issue.” And Ashrawi’s claim that Bishop defied international consensus is “utterly baseless,” they posited, as there is no such consensus. “Australia is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected government which makes decisions according to its own assessment of Australia’s national interests, they went on. “Ashrawi’s crude attempt to bully Australia with the specter of a non-existent ‘international consensus’ should be ignored.”Ashrawi, in response later Friday, published a lengthy statement — her second on this issue — asserting,“It is incontrovertible that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory have been established in contravention of international law.”“While the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion is not legally binding according to the ICJ Statute, the legal instruments and obligations to which it refers are,” read the statement, issued by the PLO Executive Committee’s Department of Culture and Information, which she heads. ”This includes binding resolutions of the UN Security Council and multilateral treaties to which Israel is a party, including international human rights treaties and the Fourth Geneva Convention.”The PLO’s statement also referred to Crawford’s legal opinion, arguing that it related to the Nahal settlements, which were established and populated by soldiers. While Crawford “is correct that these settlements were probably lawful under the law of occupation at the time they were established,” these settlements were “always intended to be converted into civilian settlements, which have no lawful military purpose.”Quoting a host of UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, her statement concluded that there is a “wide consensus among nations that Israel’s settlements have been established in breach of international law.”‘We reject the PLO’s assertion that its legal claims about the settlements are incontrovertible truths’Responding to Ashrawi’s second pronouncement on this issue, Wertheim, the director of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, told The Times of Israel that this time around, her words are “much more cautious and credible” than her first statement. “Ashrawi [initially] claimed not only that the Fourth Geneva Convention and Hague Regulations apply to the settlements, which is arguable, but also that these and other international conventions ‘explicitly’ refer to and condemn Israel, which is plainly false. We corrected this particular error and our correction has not been refuted,” he said.“We reject the PLO’s assertion that its legal claims about the settlements are ‘incontrovertible’ truths,” Wertheim continued. “International legal instruments are binding on states that are parties to them but the application of those instruments to particular fact situations is frequently a matter of dispute. The application of international law to the settlements is such a dispute.”The Geneva Convention article that outlaws the “deport or transfer” of settlers into occupied territory implies compulsion, “and Israel has never compelled anyone to be a settler. The settlers have made that choice themselves,” Wertheim continued. “The argument is whether the financial, tax and other material benefits which settlers have received from the state amount to a ‘transfer’ by Israel of parts of its own civilian population into the West Bank. This is not a straightforward question but clearly a matter for judicial interpretation.”Settlements also should not be considered a “land grab,” Wertheim contended. “In the past Israel has dismantled settlements in the Sinai and Gaza and vacated those areas in the pursuit of peace.”

JERUSALEM DIVIDED

GENESIS 25:20-26
20  And Isaac was forty years old (A BIBLE GENERATION NUMBER=1967 + 40=2007+) when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
21  And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22  And the children (2 NATIONS IN HER-ISRAEL-ARABS) struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23  And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;(ISRAEL AND THE ARABS) and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;(ISRAEL STRONGER THAN ARABS) and the elder shall serve the younger.(LITERALLY ISRAEL THE YOUNGER RULES (ISSAC)(JACOB-LATER NAME CHANGED TO ISRAEL) OVER THE OLDER ARABS (ISHMAEL)(ESAU)
24  And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25  And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.(THE OLDER AN ARAB)
26  And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob:(THE YOUNGER-ISRAELI) and Isaac was threescore (60) years old when she bare them.(1967 + 60=2027)(COULD BE THE LAST GENERATION WHEN JERUSALEM IS DIVIDED AMOUNG THE 2 TWINS)(THE 2 TWINS WANT JERUSALEM-THE DIVISION OF JERUSALEM TODAY)(AND WHOS IN CONTROL OF JERUSALEM TODAY-THE YOUNGER ISSAC-JACOB-ISRAEL)(AND WHO WANTS JERUSALEM DIVIDED-THE OLDER,ESAU-ISHMAEL (THE ARABS)

ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

Kerry, Netanyahu Discuss Peace Talks At Davos

US Secretary of State approaches Israeli Prime Minister at World Economic Forum to push US agenda for peace - even abroad.-By AFP and Arutz Sheva Staff-First Publish: 1/24/2014, 2:10 PM-INN

John Kerry and Binyamin Netanyahu-Flash 90

US Secretary of State John Kerry met Friday with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as he seeks to force the US's agenda for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), according to AFP.
The two men held closed talks on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain town of Davos, ahead of what Washington has billed as a major address by Kerry on the Middle East to the gathering later in the day.Amid turbulence and upheaval across many Arab countries, including the war in Syria, the US administration's foreign policy in the region has been heavily criticised at home and by key Gulf allies for lacking focus.But Kerry was expected to hit back at the accusations to "talk about our commitment to engagement in every region of the world and our commitment to diplomacy as a first resort," a senior State Department official said."He will make the argument that the myth of disengagement - and particularly the notion that the US is pulling back from the Middle East -- is not only false, but flies in the face of several major diplomatic initiatives in the region."Asking not to be named, the official pointed to the interim deal with Iran to rein in its nuclear weapons program and an agreement to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.The US has also been a prime mover behind efforts to bring together the Syrian opposition and the regime to end the three-year war in ongoing talks in Geneva.Kerry's talks with Netanyahu on Friday were expected to "be pretty lengthy," a US official said, after he met earlier in the week with Israel's top negotiator Tzipi Livni. The PA negotiating team is expected in Washington next week.The US-brokered peace talks that began in July, after a three-year hiatus in direct negotiations, have faltered over seemingly irreconcilable demands from both sides, failing to bring any glimpse of a final agreement that would end decades of conflict.Kerry, who has made 11 trips to Israel and the PA in his first year in office, is trying to hammer out a framework deal to chart the talks going forward, which would set down guidelines on the toughest issues such as the contours of a future Palestinian state and the fate of Jerusalem for the months ahead.The two sides have agreed to stay at the negotiating table for nine months, until some time in late April. But with the deadline looming, there has been mounting criticism by both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs as Kerry has pushed them to accept tough compromises.Kerry's push comes just hours after a report surfaced claiming that Kerry, as well as US President Barack Obama, have expressed "disappointment" in Jewish criticism over their policies on Israel, which analysts and Israeli officials have repeatedly noted place Israel at strategic risk. The report claims that both officials see a "Jewish lobby" in Congress; if true, both officials would be guilty of adhering to a myth which has deep anti-Semitic roots.

Israel Among Ten Most Powerful Nations In World

Recent study of National Power Index ranks Israel tenth; research is composite index of factors including military and economic capability.-By Ari Yashar-First Publish: 1/24/2014, 12:35 PM-INN

Israeli flag (file)-Flash 90

Israel, the tiny nation that defied history in coming back to life after 2,000 years of exile, is among the top 10 most powerful nations in the world according to a recent research study.Market Business News recently reported on the 2012 National Power Index (NPI), released by the Foundation for National Security Research (FNSR), a New Delhi-based think tank. The study is a comprehensively revised version of the previous indexes published in India's National Security Annual Review (INSAR) since 2002.According to the research, Israel achieved a 32.19 NPI ranking, placing it tenth on the list of the world's most powerful countries.The NPI is a quantification of a nation's power, meaning its ability to influence global events. The ranking is based on a composite of indexes of statistical analysis in terms of economy, military, diplomacy, technology and population. Each factor has a certain weight, and the composite index includes a detailed analysis of individual component.The research appraises Israel as a country of 8 million, with a GDP of $272.7 billion and 176,500 active military personnel.Israel stands out in military capability where it is ranked 6th in the world, and technological capability where it ranks 4th. Its capabilities ranked 25 in economy, 17 in population and 19 in foreign affairs.The index study notes that Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East, and is among the world's leaders in technology and science. It also notes that Israel ranks 15 on the UN development index, illustrating the high quality of life in the Jewish state.Unsurprisingly, The United States headed the list of most powerful nations, ranking in at 77.77 on the NPI. It was followed by China (58.66) and Russia (43.36). The remaining nations on the list were France, Japan, the UK, Germany, India and Canada in that order.A map by Maps of World displays the 10 leading powers in highlighted colors, including tiny Israel among its massive fellow powerful nations.Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu encouraged investment in Israel this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, touting Israel's innovation in developing "more conceptual products per capita than any nation on earth."

Peres: Boycott Iran like South Africa

Speaking at Davos conference, president insists Jerusalem and Tehran need not be enemies, but was unmoved by Rouhani’s speech

By Lazar Berman January 24, 2014, 12:37 pm 2-The times of Israel

The international community should boycott Iran beyond economic sanctions, as it did to South Africa, said President Shimon Peres, speaking Friday morning at the World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.“All of a sudden, they were boycotted by the rest of the world,” Peres said of Apartheid-era South Africa. “They weren’t invited to football games. They weren’t invited to the Olympics. They weren’t invited to anyplace. All of a sudden, they felt alone. If Iran will continue to do what they are doing, then automatically, I believe, in addition to the sanctions, they will see that the world doesn’t like these sorts of bluffs, which are so dangerous.”Peres was speaking at a Q&A session with WEF founder, Klaus Schwab.

The president said he was not impressed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s Davos speech.“The declaration was so promising and the omission was so obvious,” Peres said, referring to Rouhani’s speech on Thursday in which he called for better relations with all countries in the world.“Do you include all countries?” Schwab had asked the Iranian leader after his speech, presumably referring to Israel. There was a hum of laughter and expectation from the audience.Rouhani paused for a moment and laughed. “There are no exceptions; we wish for a better future and to have beneficial relations with all that we recognize,” he then said with a smile.Rouhani’s statements on Thursday thus evidently excluded Israel, which is not recognized by the Islamic Republic.“You got a smile, it’s nice, but it’s not an answer…,” said Peres Friday. “For the time being, it is a happy story… The part that you omit is more important than the part that you announce.”

Still, said Peres, the two countries are not fated to hostilities forever.“For us, Iran is not an enemy. We don’t want to fight. We are not historically hostile.”Earlier in a CNN interview, Peres said he stood by his previously declared readiness to meet with Rouhani. The problem with Iran’s president is “his positions, not his declarations,” Peres said.Turning to the ongoing peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Peres said that neither side has an alternative to peace.“All told, the present situation is killing the Arab world. The terror is tearing them to pieces… Israel offers, in real terms, a sincere peace.”Peres was pessimistic about this week’s conference in Switzerland, known as Geneva II, to find a solution to the brutal conflict in Syria.“All the elements which exist today in Syria are not elements for solutions, but elements for confrontation,” he said. “We have to discover a new element that may unite them.”Schwab asked Peres about his secret to staying young, noting, “You are the oldest participant on paper, but in your mind, you are one of the youngest participants.”“The greatest entertainment and interest is in working, and not resting,” Peres told the crowd, and urged them to focus more on the joys of work and less on vacationing.

Peres said he would continue working after he steps down from office this year. “I don’t need the official title to do anything,” he claimed.The discussion ended with Schwab presenting Peres with a bell, in recognition of his efforts at “tolling the bell of peace.”The president received a standing ovation from the crowd as he left the stage.Also Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a special conference called “Risk and Responsibility in a Hyperconnected World.” Justice Minister Tzipi Livni was also in attendance, according to a statement released by Netanyahu’s office.Netanyahu spoke about cybersecurity, noting Israel’s many leading companies in the field.

01/23/2014 VATICAN INSIDER

Bishop Farrell highlights importance of Pope’s meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew in Jerusalem

Bishop Brian Farrell (Photo by: Catholic News Agency)

In an exclusive interview, Bishop Brian Farrell, Secretary of Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, talks about next May’s meeting in Jerusalem between Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew, and the current state of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue

gerard o'connell rome Pope Francis will go on “a pilgrimage of prayer” to the Holy Land, May 24-26. The main purpose of his visit is to commemorate the historic 1964 meeting in Jerusalem between Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, which significantly transformed relations between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Looking ahead to the May meeting in Jerusalem and the ongoing  Catholic-Orthodox dialogue, I interviewed Irish-born Bishop Brian Farrell, who worked  in the Vatican’s Secretariat of State from 1981 to 2002, when John Paul II appointed him as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.  He has served in this role under three Popes, and has participated in the major Catholic-Orthodox meetings since then.The following is Part I of the extensive interview he granted me recently. Part II will appear in the coming days, and deals with Roman Catholic-Russian Orthodox relations, the fragmentation of Christian Churches, and the new horizons of ecumenism.

Q.  Pope Francis will go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in May and meet the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew 1 and other Christian leaders in Jerusalem for the 50th anniversary of the historic encounter of their predecessors -Paul VI and Athenagoras,  there on 5 January 1964.  How significant will the meeting in May be?
A. Well, as somebody once said, historical events can only happen once. Their anniversaries are never as effective as the first time; it’s impossible to repeat such an extraordinary event as happened in 1964. Fifty years later, however, it’s truly important that we have a public re-affirmation, on the part of the two Churches, of the intentions of Paul VI and Athenagoras at that time, and of the progress that has come as a result of that great meeting. So I think that what we have here is both an affirmation that we’ve been on the right track and a kind of intensification of the relationship so that we can move on now to further steps towards communion.

Q. Do you expect something particular to come out of the Jerusalem meeting?
A.  I would hope that the meeting would be well prepared and, in that sense, we are looking at the possibility of a small commission to work on it, just as happened before the 1964 meeting.  A commission of the then Secretariat for promoting Christian Unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate worked on the details, not just of the protocol but also of the content.  In this case too, I think we could repeat that and have a commission that would work in the next few months to prepare a statement of both leaders that would take account of the growth in communion already achieved and would be inspiring for the continuation of this work.Now, the great thing that has happened (since then) is that so many prejudices have been overcome; so many misunderstandings have been clarified. But we are talking about moving together towards communion as Churches, so it’s not enough for the leaders to get together, it’s not enough for the theologians to sit in the commission and work on these questions, we have to move the whole body of the Church towards communion.  So a meeting like this is a hugely symbolic event that sends ripples throughout the People of God, and that’s essential, that’s necessary!

Q.  After the1964 meeting both sides the Catholic and Orthodox sides lifted their mutual excommunications. Obviously nothing so important can happen in May, so what can we expect then?
A.  We don’t have any more centuries-old excommunications to lift, so there wouldn’t be anything like that. But we have a dialogue that is looking very seriously, very deeply, at the fundamental question that still divides us:  the exercise of authority in the Church, teaching authority, governance in the Church.It's clear that after a thousand years of separation, East and West have gone their own ways, and it’s going to be very difficult to find the model of the exercise of authority that will be fully acceptable to both sides. But if, with the help of these kinds of meetings, we could take the edges off the memories and reach a kind of healing of memories, then specific issues can be dealt with more positively. For Catholics, I think it is necessary that we do not project into the first millennium what we understand now to be the exercise of the Petrine ministry. In other words, we have to learn to distinguish what is essential and what is not, and we don’t really make a big enough effort to do that.On the Orthodox side, we have to recognize that the Orthodox Churches, in general, are living in free societies for first time; some of them for the very first time, some for the first time in many centuries or decades.  Not only that, but they are also faced with the reality that they are no longer tied to a particular area or region or country or ethnicity.  Most of them now have emigrants all over the world, and therefore communities all over the world, and this is leading to an internal transformation that still needs to be assimilated within Orthodoxy.  And we have to give them time to do that. From being limited to their ethnic origins, they are now becoming global Churches; you have the Greek Orthodox all over, you have the Russian Orthodox all over, you have the Romanian Orthodox all over, you have the Serbian Orthodox all over, and the others too to some extent. So in this sense we have to be patient enough to understand how they are going to absorb the diaspora into their life, and the changes that this will bring.I think, therefore, that we should recognize that our dialogue at the present time cannot reach ultimate conclusions.  We are in a process; we are in one of those historical moments that change our perspective on things, on important things, and that therefore all our discussions about the Petrine ministry and synodality are a work in progress.  It’s not enough for the theologians to sit in the commissions and write down what they think should happen.  It’s out of the life of the Church, out of the life of a huge body of Christians, Catholics and Orthodox, that these processes will be clarified. And that needs time.

Q.  You had this discussion around the Ravenna document in October 2007, but the Russians were not present at the end, they didn’t sign on to it at the end. Would it be correct to say that you haven’t yet moved beyond that in this whole discussion?
A.  Well, in one sense we haven’t reached a clear, new position beyond that, but this does not mean that a lot of work hasn’t been done, is not being done, to move on from Ravenna to the next stage.That next stage revolves around the role of the Bishop of Rome and the exercise of synodality in the Church in the first millennium, East and West.    We’ve had two meetings of the plenary of the commission, in Paphos (2009) and Vienna (2010), and various meetings of the coordinating committee. What we have here are two different theological cultures in conversation:  it was clear in the discussion that the Latin and Catholic side tended, as we always do in our theological discussions, to start with the biblical basis and then do the history and then do the theology on the basis of the facts; whereas Eastern theological culture is marked much more by a kind of ideal image of the Church, from which you then develop the practical aspects, and it was not possible in a week to bridge the gap between these two very different perspectives.I remember sitting in the commission and listening to the discussion and suddenly realizing, very clearly in my own mind, that the narrative of the life of the Church in the first millennium as it’s told in the West and as it’s told in the East is very different.  Therefore we have to learn to see things from each other’s point of view, and we haven’t really got to the point where we can do that easily and sufficiently.Still, we now have a working document for a further meeting of the commission, which will be held in Serbia, next September.But both the Catholic and the Orthodox members of the coordinating commission are somewhat unhappy with the working document, so we are going there knowing that we have a defective basis. The discussion, therefore, will be difficult, and none of the members expect that there is going to be a conclusive document at the end of this next plenary.  We’ve just got to realize that it is going to take longer (than we had expected), because the subject matter is so central, so much in the life of the Church, it’s just going to take a lot more time and study.

Q. Given this situation, I’m sure you would agree that it was highly significant that Patriarch Bartholomew came for the inauguration of Pope Francis on March 19 who fom the beginning Francis described himself as “The Bishop of Rome”.A. The presence of the Patriarch was very significant.  It was the first time ever that such a thing happened.  It was a huge sign of how far we have moved since formal relations began after the Second Vatican Council. And I go back to an idea that I keep repeating: this meeting of the heads of the Churches is very important because it sets the pace, but these meetings will not produce their full fruit until the whole body of the faithful accepts their significance.  That’s why ecumenism at the local level is so important, that’s why it’s necessary for us to continue to explain the processes that are taking effect. 

EU data bill delayed until after May elections

Today @ 09:27-JAN 24,14-EUOBSERVER By Nikolaj Nielsen

BRUSSELS - The EU's revamped data protection law will not be adopted before the European Parliament elections with several member states seeking to weaken it.EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding, the European Parliament lead negotiators on the package, the Greek EU presidency and the incoming Italian EU presidency Wednesday (22 January) agreed to set the deadline until before the end of the year.“They have elaborated a road map and now they need to deliver on it basically but I think the political agreement to get this done before the end of the year is there,” Reding’s spokesperson Mina Andreeva told this website.
German Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, who is steering the regulation through parliament, said the timetable aims at a mandate for negotiations in June and the beginning of inter-instutitional negotiations in July.
“If it will be possible to stick to this timetable, this would be good news and important,” he told this website in an email.But the deadline agreement does not guarantee the package, which includes a general data protection regulation and a directive on law enforcement, will be adopted.Member states still have to reach a general approach before kicking off negotiations with the European Parliament and the European Commission.The parliament and the commission had hoped to get the package adopted before the European elections in May.The civil liberties committee last October was given the mandate to start negotiations right away but member states at a summit in December failed to reach an agreement among themselves.The delay means deputies will now have to vote to start formal negotiations with member states at the plenary session either in March or in April.EU insiders are hoping the member states will at least reach a partial approach in March and then a full agreement over the summer.The delays are caused, in part, by a handful of member states that want to weaken the regulation, which aims at harmonising data protection rules across the bloc.
Among the core group is the UK, along with Denmark, Hungary, and Slovenia. All four are pushing to turn the regulation into a directive.Unlike a regulation, a directive gives member states room to manoeuvre and interpret the EU law to their advantage.Germany is also among the delaying camp of member states but for different reasons. The Germans support the regulation but do not want it applied to the public sector. “Obviously the German government is against European-wide common rules. This behaviour is irresponsible against the EU citizens,” said Albrecht.Support from Poland, seen a staunch ally of the reforms, is also waning, according to their data protection authority Wojciech Wiewiorowski.Wiewiorowsk, at a panel on data protection organised by the CPDP conference in Brussels on Wednesday, said the European commission had exhausted its political will to pressure member states to get the package adopted.He said support in Poland is dropping because the regulation, announced two years ago by the commission, is taking too long.Member states in October had agreed that the data protection package should be in place by the latest in 2015. 

EU sends mixed message on Ukraine, as death toll mounts

23.01.14 @ 18:32-EUOBSERVER By Andrew Rettman

European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso told him by phone on Thursday (23 January) that he risks EU sanctions, or, in his words, “possible consequences for bilateral relations,” if things do not get back to normal.Some EU countries have voiced similar views, including Lithuania, Poland and Sweden.But the same day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told press in Berlin that: “Sanctions against Ukraine are not on the order of the day … What is important now is to stop the violence.”The lack of clarity at the top is reflected lower down.“I have no instructions from my capital on where I’m supposed to go or what I’m supposed to be doing,” a diplomatic source at one EU embassy in Kiev told this website.Meanwhile, two EU envoys, Stefan Fuele and Catherine Ashton, are to meet Yanukovych in Ukraine in the coming days.Leading opposition MPs also met him for a second time this week on Thursday.The talks come after two months of increasingly violent protests against his decision, last November, to opt for closer Russian ties instead of EU integration.But away from the negotiating table, Yanukovych’s security forces are suspected of killing six people and abducting up to 40 others in recent days in an attempt to terrorise the opposition movement.
Four of the victims were shot by “snipers” in Kiev city centre, while two were kidnapped and “assassinated,” according to Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a former head of Ukraine’s internal intelligence service, the SBU, now an opposition MP.Suspicion surrounds special police units, such as Berkut, Sokol or Omega, as well as Alpha, a counter-terrorist squad in the SBU.But Nalyvaichenko told EUobserver no one will know who ordered the deaths unless there is an independent and international inquiry.He added that the killings, Berkut's beatings of protesters, and the work of hired “provocateurs” are the main threats to stability: “There are gangs, agents provocateurs, walking around at night in Kiev, beating up innocent people and setting cars on fire, with no reaction from local law enforcement officers. This has to stop.”There are several scenarios for how things could get worse.But few for how they might improve, short of Yanukovych giving in to demands to hold early elections, effectively ceding power and putting himself at risk of jail.If he opts to crush the opposition by force, he has plenty of resources at hand.Ukraine’s ordinary police has poor morale and training.But Oleg Martynenko, a Ukrainian security analyst, estimates there are currently 2,000 or so men from special police units in Kiev, as well as 3,000 interior ministry gendarmes from the so-called BBVV force.Up to 35,000 more could be bussed in from other cities if need be.Over the past few years, Yanukovych has surrounded himself with loyal security chiefs who are unlikely to hold him back.One group is linked to his home region of Donetsk, in Russophone eastern Ukraine, where many people feel little love for the EU or for Ukrainian speakers in the west of the country.It includes interior minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko, National Security Council chief Andriy Klyuyev, and Yanukovych’s head of personal security, Volodymyr Radchenko.A second group has direct links to Russia and includes the new head of the SBU, Oleksandr Yakymenko, who served in the Russian army.Zakharchenko and Klyuyev control the special police and the BBVV, which has access to military-grade weapons and armoured vehicles.In the worst case scenario, analysts say that if Yanukovych gives an order to open fire on crowds it will probably be carried out by Berkut from east Ukraine, because other officers might refuse to do it.“One never knows what will happen until such an order is actually issued,” Mark Galeotti, a US expert on security forces in former Soviet countries, told this website.“But if a regime is willing to be brutal, it usually wins: That’s the psychology of public order. Most people are not heroes.”Alongside the Berkut and the BBVV, the main role of the SBU is to snoop on the opposition and to advise Yanukovych how to handle the situation.Given that further bloodshed is likely to sever Ukraine’s ties with the EU, serving Russian interests, its advisory role could be significant.The former SBU chief, Nalyvaichenko, says that he tried to reform the service by weeding out Russian infiltrators and increasing parliamentary oversight “but the reforms were totally stopped three and a half years ago” when Yanukovych came to power.Galeotti described the SBU as “Russia’s trojan horse in Ukraine.”For his part, Eerik Kross, a former director of Estonia’s intelligence service, told EUobserver: “I don’t think Yanukovych takes orders from Moscow, but Moscow has plenty of channels of influence in Kiev.”Looking at the wider picture, Kross noted that Russia sees EU and Nato efforts to build closer ties with Ukraine, as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova, as a “fight for a zone of influence.”“Ukraine is on the brink. Russia already has Armenia. Belarus is gone. Georgia is a big question mark and Azerbaijan, for other reasons, is not so interested in the EU,” he said.“Right now, the West has only Moldova, and even here 20 percent is occupied by Russian troops,” he added, referring to Russian “peacekeepers” in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transniestria.   

ISAIAH 17:1,11-14
1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
11  In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
12  Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations,(USELESS U.N) that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
13  The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
14  And behold at evening tide trouble; and before the morning he is not.(ASSAD KILLED IN OVERNIGHT RAID) This is the portion of them that spoil us,(ISRAEL) and the lot of them that rob us.

AMOS 1:5
5  I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden:(IRAQ) and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir,(JORDAN) saith the LORD.

JEREMEIAH 49:23-27
23  Concerning Damascus.(SYRIA) Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea;(WAR SHIPS WITH NUKES COMING ON SYRIA) it cannot be quiet.
24  Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
25  How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy!
26  Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
27  And I will kindle a fire (NUKES OR BOMBS) in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.(ASSADS PALACES POSSIBLY IN DAMASCUS)

PSALMS 83:3-7
3 They (ARABS,MUSLIMS) have taken crafty counsel against thy people,(ISRAEL) and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
5 For they (MUSLIMS) have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:(TREATIES)
6 The tabernacles of Edom,(JORDAN) and the Ishmaelites;(ARABS) of Moab, PALESTINIANS,JORDAN) and the Hagarenes;(EGYPT)
7 Gebal,(HEZZBALLOH,LEBANON) and Ammon,(JORDAN) and Amalek;(SYRIA,ARABS,SINAI) the Philistines (PALESTINIANS) with the inhabitants of Tyre;(LEBANON)

JEREMIAH 47:1-7
1 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN/ARABS) before that Pharaoh smote Gaza.
2  Thus saith the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north,(NORTHERN TSUNAMI POSSIBLY) and shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land, and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell therein: then the men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl.
3  At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his strong horses,(ISRAELS ARMY) at the rushing of his chariots, and at the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers shall not look back to their children for feebleness of hands;(ISRAEL POSSIBLY NUKES GAZA)
4  Because of the day that cometh to spoil all the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN FAKE ARABS) and to cut off from Tyrus and Zidon every helper that remaineth: for the LORD will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the country of Caphtor.
5  Baldness is come upon Gaza;(NUKED POSSIBLY) Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley: how long wilt thou cut thyself?
6  O thou sword of the LORD, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself into thy scabbard, rest, and be still.
7  How can it be quiet, seeing the LORD hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea shore? (MEDITTERANEAN SEA) there hath he appointed it.

UN: More than 140,000 Iraqis flee Anbar province as clashes with al-Qaida militants intensify

By Sameer N. Yacoub, The Associated Press -JAN 24,14-yahoonews

BAGHDAD - A United Nations official says more than 140,000 Iraqis have fled parts of Anbar province over clashes between security forces and al-Qaida militants.The spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, Peter Kessler, described it as "the largest" displacement witnessed in the country since the sectarian violence of 2006-2008.He added that more than 65,000 people fled the conflict in the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah just in the past week alone.Since late December, members of Iraq's al-Qaida branch — known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — have taken over parts of Ramadi, the capital of the largely Sunni province of Anbar. They also control the centre of the nearby city of Fallujah.

Syrian govt threatens to walk out of peace talks if 'serious' discussions don't start soon

By Zeina Karam And Lori Hinnant, The Associated Press -JAN 24,14-yahoonews

GENEVA - Syria's government handed an ultimatum to a U.N. mediator hoping to broker peace in the country's civil war, vowing to leave if "serious talks" do not begin by Saturday.The delegation chosen by President Bashar Assad met for less than 90 minutes Friday with U.N. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi as part of a peace conference with the Western-backed opposition. The meeting has been on the verge of falling apart ever since it was conceived.In Geneva, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told Brahimi that if "serious talks don't begin Saturday, the official Syrian delegation will have to leave because the other party is not serious or ready," according to Syrian state television.Direct talks planned for Friday between the Syrian government and the Syrian National Coalition were scrapped, and the opposition was to meet separately with Brahimi later at the U.N. European headquarters.The Syrian government blamed the coalition for the lack of direct negotiations, which were seen as the best hope for an eventual end to the three-year civil war that has killed at least 130,000 people.The bloodshed has destabilized the entire region and turned Syria into a magnet for al-Qaida-inspired militants. The two sides blame each other for the descent into chaos.
"Transition to a free Syria is the key to fighting terror," said Oubai Shahbandar, a senior adviser to the Syrian opposition, which has demanded Assad's departure.As the peace conference faltered, fighting raged throughout parts of Syria, including near Damascus. Government forces bombed rebel-held areas in the northern city of Aleppo, according to the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and local activists.Underscoring the extent of foreign involvement in the conflict, Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah fighters fought alongside forces loyal to Assad around the area of eastern Ghuta, the British-based Syrian Observatory said. The rebels clashing against them included extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a hardline group dominated by foreign jihadis, the Observatory reported.In Switzerland, Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Assad who travelled to Geneva for the talks, questioned whether the opposition coalition — made up largely of exiles based in Turkey — was prepared to negotiate an end to the violence.
"We came here with Syria and the Syrian people on our mind, only while they came here with positions and posts on their mind," she said.The coalition's head, Ahmad al-Jarba, said late Thursday that he was committed to the talks and would give his negotiators full authority on their pace and scope. But on Friday, his chief of staff said the negotiations were never expected to be easy or quick, insisting that the coalition was simply not yet prepared to meet directly with the government."Everyone knows that these are proximity negotiations," said the aide, Monzer Akbik. "And for the time being, that's the way it is going to be."Both sides have spent their time so far in Switzerland affirming positions hardened after nearly three years of fighting. They blamed each other for turning a once-thriving country into ruin and called each other terrorists.
But their willingness to meet with Brahimi — even separately — gave the first sense that the negotiations might bear some fruit. Brahimi himself has said both sides had shown willingness to bend on humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges and local cease-fires — even if the terms were still murky.A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks are sensitive, said the peace conference had not collapsed and that Brahimi "still plans to meet with the regime and the opposition together."Haitham al-Maleh, a senior member of the opposition, told The Associated Press there was not enough common ground for direct talks on Friday.The Syrian National Coalition, which is made up largely of exiles, lacks influence with an increasingly radicalized rebellion, which has been pulled apart by an influx of militants. Infighting among rebels has left 1,400 people dead in the past 20 days, according to activists, who have counted more than 130,000 deaths since the rebellion began in 2011.___Associated Press reporters Desmond Butler in Istanbul, Turkey; Bassem Mroue in Beirut, Lebanon; and Matthew Lee in Davos, Switzerland, contributed.___Follow Zeina Karam at: https://twitter.com/zkaram -Follow Lori Hinnant at: https://twitter.com/lhinnant