* Barak approves purchase of F-35s Israel to receive first 20 fighters in 2015, cost estimated at $2.75b.

* Israel to reject preconditions Abbas to hold PLO C’tee meeting before deciding on direct talks.

* Arab League Lobbies to End Israel’s Nuclear Ambiguity Arab League nations are lobbying the United States and other Western powers to end Israel’s nuclear ambiguity.

* China passes Japan as No. 2 economy Beijing’s $5 trillion GDP still far behind US’s $15 trillion.

* Petraeus hedges on US exit date from Afghanistan The new commander of foreign forces in Afghanistan, Gen David Petraeus, says he will not be bound by a 2011 target date to start withdrawing US troops.

* N.Korea warns of severest punishment over war games North Korea’s military threatened Sunday to launch the “severest punishment” against South Korea for staging massive joint war games with the United States this week.

* Attacks in Iraq Rise During Ramadan Another violent day following insurgents’ threats to escalate their attacks during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

* Muslims Set Aside $30 Million for Keeping Jerusalem Muslim The Holy Al Quds Fund announced that it will invest $30 million in projects for “safeguarding the Arabic and Islamic nature” of the Old City of Jerusalem.

* US warns Turkey that strained Israel ties could hinder arms deal Obama tells Turkish prime minister that Ankara’s position on Israel and Iran could lower its chances of obtaining US weapons, the Financial Times reports.

* Ground Zero mosque must be built Hamas official: Muslims have right to build just like Jews.

“After I visited Israel and wrote “The Shadow Over Israel” for Haaretz, many people asked me what “my position” was. “Position” is a military term and spatial metaphor, and space and time and functions of each other: positions alter as events unfold — but “my position” is that I wish the best outcome for all. But what is that outcome, and what are the alternatives?

Picture a minor prophet. Perhaps he’d be working today as an astrologer. He’s looking towards Israel and Palestine, consulting his charts and stars, getting a handle on the future. But the future is never single — there are too many variables – so what he sees is a number of futures.

In the first one, there’s no Israel: it’s been destroyed in war and all the Israelis have been killed. (Unlikely, but not impossible.) In the second, there’s no Palestine: it’s been merged with Israel, and the Palestinians either slaughtered or driven beyond its borders. Israel has become completely isolated: international opinion has been outraged, boycott measures have been successful, financial aid from the U.S. — both public and private – has evaporated, and the United States government, weakened by the huge debt caused by its Iraqi and Afghani wars and lured by the promise of mineral wealth and oil, has cooled towards Israel and swung towards entente with the Muslim world. Israel has become like North Korea or Burma – an embattled military state – and civilian rights have suffered accordingly. The moderate Israelis have emigrated, and live as exiles, in a state of bitterness over wasted opportunities and blighted dreams.

In the third future there’s one state, but a civil war has resulted, since the enlarged population couldn’t agree on a common flag, a common history, a common set of laws, or a common set of commemoration days — “victory” for some being “catastrophe” for others. In the fourth, the one-state solution has had better results: it’s a true one-person, one-vote secular democracy, with equal rights for all. (Again, unlikely in the immediate future, but not impossible in the long run.)

In the fifth future, neither Israel nor Palestine exist: several atomic bombs have cleared the land of human beings, though wildlife is flourishing, as at Chernobyl. In the sixth, climate change has turned the area into a waterless desert.

But there’s another future: the seventh future. In this future there are two states, “Israel” and “Palestine.” Both are flourishing, and both are members of a regional council that deals with matters affecting the whole area. Trade flows harmoniously between the two viable states, joint development enterprises have been established, know-how is being shared, and, as in Northern Ireland, peace is paying dividends.

That, surely, is a desirable outcome, thinks the stargazer; but how was it achieved? Since he has the gift of virtual time travel, he leaps into the seventh future and looks back at the steps taken to get there.

The impetus came from within Israel. The Israeli leaders saw that the wind had shifted: it was now blowing against the earlier policy of crushing force and the appropriation of occupied lands. What had caused this change? Was it the international reaction to the destructive Cast Lead invasion of Gaza? The misjudged killing of flotilla activists? The gathering boycott activities in the United States and Europe? The lobbying of organizations such as J-Street? The 2010 World Zionist Congress vote to support a settlement freeze and endorse a two-state solution?

For whatever reasons, Israel had lost control of its own story. It was no longer Jack confronting a big bad Giant: the narrative of the small country struggling bravely against overwhelming odds had moved over to the Palestinians. The mantra, “Plant a tree in Israel,” was no longer respectable, as it evoked images of bulldozers knocking down Palestinian olive groves. Israel could not continue along its current path without altering its own self-image beyond recognition. The leadership read the signs correctly and decided to act before a peaceful resolution slipped forever beyond reach. Leaders are supposed to guide their people towards a better and more secure future, they thought: not over the edge of a cliff.

First, the Golan Heights was returned to Syria under a pact that created a demilitarized zone with international supervision. The few Israeli inhabitants were allowed to remain if they wished, though they then paid taxes to Syria.

Then, with the help of a now-friendly Syria, Hamas was invited to the peace negotiations. The enlightened leaders – with an eye to Northern Ireland — realized that they couldn’t set as a precondition something that remained to be negotiated, so they didn’t demand the pre-recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Hamas, to the surprise of many, accepted the invitation, as it had nothing to lose by doing so. Peace was made between Fatah and Hamas, and Palestine was thus able to present a single negotiating team.

The negotiations were complex, but people worked hard not to lose their tempers. Several North American First Nations negotiators were invited as coaches, as they had much long-term experience and patience, and –remembering South Africa – they knew that yelling and denouncing would not accomplish anything. As soon as they stepped off the plane, they smudged with sage to cleanse the region of its buildup of fear, anger, and hatred, and despair, and with sweetgrass to attract positive emotions.

The agreement took less time than expected, as happens when people are serious. Then the Occupation – disastrous for those in both countries, both physically and morally — was over, and Palestinian independence was declared. A mutual defense pact was signed, along with a trade and development pact. As Israel had realized that it could not rest its foundation on international law while also violating that law, the borders reverted to those of 1967, with a few land swaps along the edges. Jerusalem was declared an international city, with both an Israeli parliament building and a Palestinian one, and access to the various holy sites for believers.

Gaza was joined to the West Bank by corridors, as in the East/West Germany of old; the ports were opened, and the fishing boats could sail once more. Development money poured in, creating full employment. The water situation was rectified, with fair-access agreements signed, pollution cleaned up, and more fresh water created through a new cheap solar-driven desalination process.

What about the difficult matter of the Settlements? The First Nations advisors cited some of their own precedents: settlers could stay in Palestine if they wished, under lease agreements. The leases and taxes paid by the settlers were a source of income to the Palestinian state, and as their products were no longer boycotted, the Settlements did better. On the whole, peace and security reigned. There was even a shared Memorial Day, in which all those fallen in past wars were honoured.

The seventh future is within reach — the stars favour it — but the stargazer knows that many prefer the status quo: there can be advantage as well as profit in conflict. However, change often comes abruptly, like the fall of the Berlin Wall, the storming of the Bastille, or the end of Apartheid. The amount of blood shed during such transitions – from none to a great deal — depends on the wisdom of the leadership.

How to promote such wisdom? It’s a prophet’s traditional duty to lay out the alternatives – the good futures, and also the bad ones. Prophets – unlike yes-men — tell the powerful not what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. “How can I put this?” thinks the stargazer. “Something beginning with the handwriting on the wall…?”

Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar on Thursday expressed concern that Reform Jews are taking over Israel, in comments he wrote to mark the Jewish month of Elul.

“Those who call themselves liberals and reformers and their friends and supporters” brought us to “our spiritual low point,” in which violence is rampant immodesty is acceptable, and assimilation is at a high even in Israel, he wrote.

“They now have their claws in the nation of Zion, and are trying to impose the lifestyle of other nations on us. They established legions of warriors in the Land of Israel, whose purpose is to remove Torah from Israel.”

The chief rabbi added that every Jew must try to influence Knesset members and ministers, and pray for these “lost sons to return to the right path,” because they are “our brothers, our flesh and blood, even if they are our rivals.”

Yizhar Hess, Director of the Masorti (Conservative) Movement, said: “Rabbi Amar is correct. Non-Orthodox Judaism – conservative and reform – have a real place in Israeli society. Hundreds of communities throughout Israel are learning that the Orthodox monopoly will crash…because it became irrelevant for a growing public.”

In search of  freedom to worship and equal opportunities, Jacob Barsimson set sail from Holland to American on July 8, 1654, to become the first Jew to set foot in New York. The Pear Tree  docked in New Amsterdam on August 22 that same year, and 23 Jews from Dutch Brazil followed Barsimson’s example and went on to establish the first Jewish settlement in the United States.

However, Barsimson and the others found that New Amsterdam was no different from whence they came. Governor Peter Stuyvesant treated them as separate citizens; they couldn’t engage in retail trade, practice handicrafts, hold public position, serve in the militia or practice their religion in a synagogue or in gatherings.

Along with the other Jews, Barsimson, presented a petition to Gov. Stuyvesant for the right to buy a burial plot, which was denied because there was no immediate need for it. However later, under pressure from Holland’s Amsterdam Jews, Stuyvesant granted them this right.

On September 22, 1654, Stuyvesant wrote to the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce to complain about the presence of Jewish refugees from Brazil who had recently arrived in New Amsterdam. He felt that they were blasphemers of the name Christ and that they would infect the colony with trouble.

In the meantime, Barsimson and other New Amsterdam Jews kept putting pressure on Stuyvesant for full citizenship rights. They insisted on the right to serve in the militia and guard the walls of the city to protect the settlers and cattle, which were kept inside the walls at night, from the raids and attacks of the Indians and the New England settlers. Thanks to several influential Jews in Dutch West India Company who pressured the Governor, Jews received these rights in April, 1655.

In 1664, When the British conquered New Amsterdam and changed its name to New York, the Jewish settlers continued to enjoy their previous rights. However, it was only in 1697 that a Simon Valentine became the first documented Jewish landowner, which entitled him to vote.

Thanks to the actions of these brave settlers, today’s New York Jewish population is some two million, second only to Israel.

“Anti-Semitism is continually morphing all the time, which is its strength,” he explained. “There’s no sign of diminution and it will probably get worse. We see it in every indicator possible showing a clear and steady rise in the number of attacks recorded on Jews.”

Why are things as bad as he believes they are? Wistrich says the last decade has seen a several strands of hatred towards Jews intertwine forming an unholy alliance between the extreme left and right together with fundamental Islam.

“What I think that really struck me about the last decade that I don’t think was new but has become more intense is that we’ve seen the coming together of classical anti-Semitism with a number of other strands like anti-Americanism, Islamic fundamentalism and international delegitimization of Israel. Their convergence has become much starker.”

But not everyone agrees with Wistrich’s opinion. As one reviewer of his tome pointed out, as prevalent and intolerable as anti-Semitism may be nowadays it couldn’t possibly be any worse than it was, say, back in 1910, could it?

However, according to Wistrich, it is.

“The year 1910 in comparison with what we’ve been living through in the past decade is a paradise,” he said unhesitatingly. “There was a nasty and ugly potential for anti-Semitism in 1910 but relatively speaking Jews lived in a stable environment and as one Jewish writer Stefan Zweig wrote it was an age of golden security.”

The one big exception to that rule is Czarist Russia, that great bastion of anti-Semitism where Jews were confined to live under institutional discrimination within the confines of the Pale of Settlement and were victims of periodic pogroms. Anti-Semitism in Russia in 1910 was worse than it is today, he admits – but not the West.

“Today, even in the most advanced and democratic societies, Jews are uncomfortable,” he claims. “The real difference between 1910 and today is not that anti-Semitism is less common but that Israel provides a powerful shield and deterrent. Not a perfect deterrent and also a cause of anti-Semitism in itself.”

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wistrich no one can doubt the depth of his knowledge or his commitment to research.

Wistrich’s book includes 150 pages of footnotes. In conducting his research he read sources in 12 different languages: English and Hebrew, as you’d expect from an academic who was raised in Britain and teaches in Israel; his mother’s native Polish and its cousins Russian and Ukrainian; tongues of Germanic origin including German, Dutch and Yiddish; the Latin lingos of Western Europe, French, Italian and Spanish, and, finally, even Arabic.

In one important language of particular importance to the study of anti-Semitism in our time, however, he said he had to rely on translations: Farsi. Iran and the fundamental Islam it espouses are a key component in the surge of hatred towards Jews around the world.

“There’s a common resentment of Israel and American often linked with anti-Semitic thinking. Clearly, this has been round 70-80 years but it picked up steam with the Islamic Revolution. What we see is an assault on the West in which Israel and the Jews have become a surrogate for an attack.”

Wistrich’s prose has won praise by reviewers but his thick brick of a book isn’t light reading. In case you’ve ever wondered what kind of a person walks into a bookstore and picks up a 1,000 page history of anti-Semitism Wistrich’s answer might surprise you –it’s not just Jews, he says.

“By far the most insightful comments have been from non-Jews,” he says. “In the US I appear on nationwide radio shows.”

As one might expect those readers are mostly Mormons, Catholics and evangelicals, who tend to be supportive of Israel and Jews in general. But he said he has many secular non-Jewish readers in the US In any case, he commended his non-Jewish readership’s “genuine horror of reading and grasping the scale of the phenomenon.”

Nearing the end of the interview one might be tempted to label Wistrich a pessimist. But he denies that he is one.

Instead, he says he is a “guarded optimist.” Ironically, the elites are the great hope in the struggle against anti-Semitism. Once, they despised and feared uppity Jews. Now, they realize the error of their ways.

“This is a sign of belated awakening of some of the political elites to anti-Semitism,” he said. “There are some minority voices in the Arab world, they are inconsequential now but will not be forever. Doesn’t mean we’re going to turn things round. That would require a long and concerted effort. But it has to begin somewhere.”

To Wistrich’s mind the Jews in 2010 –as in 1910- have no one but themselves to rely on, and he ends the interview paraphrasing Rabbi Hillel’s famous saying.

“If Jews don’t mobilize,” he asks, “then why should we expect others?”