The filming of the incident and the extreme two-year police ban removed the ruling from directly impacting on the much more narrow but important issue of whether an individual Jew can pray on the Temple Mount. As the court stated, there are powerful competing constitutional principles in play here. Jews wanting to pray there want to exercise their freedom of speech and religion at Judaism’s holiest site. The police and the state want to prevent actions and reactions that could cause public disorder not only on the Mount itself, but across the country and even the region.

The courts have also recognized that actions on the Temple Mount can impact foreign policy interests of the state and that this variety of interests can limit an individual’s right to pray, if authorities are concerned about a specific and concrete danger. Technically, the Supreme Court’s principles and the police policy that Jews can pray on the Temple Mount as long as they do not do so openly or “offensively” (not in groups) to Muslims on the Mount, were merely upheld by the lower court.

What the court essentially said was that the police could limit Glick’s or other’s right to openly pray on the Mount, but that Glick had done his prayer in a quiet and unassuming manner, neither violating the general policy nor violating a specific statement of obligations which the police made him sign in order to be permitted to ascend the Mount. Rather, the court blamed Channel 10 for breaking its commitment to the police not to film or air any of Glick’s time on the Mount, and questioned why the police had not gone after Channel 10.

In that sense, the ruling did not make any broad policy change. But that is not the end of the story. The new ruling was much more explicit and unequivocal in confirming the right of Jews to pray (even if not openly) on the Temple Mount than many previous court decisions. Also, the court questioned the police’s own estimation of what could constitute a threat to security or public order – an area that courts usually avoid so as not to second-guess security officials’ expertise.

Next, the court slammed the police policy of having Glick and other select activists signing special commitments in order to ascend the Mount, a rebuke which activists could try to use to challenge the policy going forward. Further, the court went so far as to slam a confidential police report about police concerns about Glick as inadequate and essentially useless. It is rare that courts rebuke or reject a secret police report and the court even implied that censured portions of the report might have been censured to cover-up how much of a black eye the police has on the issue.

The degree to which the ruling could be used to change the playing field is further emphasized by hints from the state that it will appeal the ruling, even though it has not created a broad precedent. So both before and after the ruling, Jews can pray modestly on the Temple Mount, but not openly, and the court decision in and of itself did not change the playing field. But the court did open the door for activists to challenge the status quo on a range of issues. The likely next round on appeal and future spinoff disputes promise to prolong the battle over Temple Mount prayer.

On Sunday, Judge Malka Aviv said the police ban on far-right extremist Yehudah Glick visiting the compound was issued “without appropriate consideration, was arbitrary, and only out of concern for the consequences of the broadcast.” As Israeli media reported, the Supreme Court upholds Jews’ “theoretical” right to pray at the compound, but gives the security services the green light to ban Jews from performing rituals should such action result in potential unrest.

The Islamic Waqf and Heritage reported that it is the right time to stipulate clear administrative rules regarding Jewish prayer in the compound. It explained that the rise in such provocative incursions into the compound coincides with an Israeli trend to take control over the Islamic site in order to permanently allow Jews to pray in al-Aqsa Compound and turn it into Jewish site.

Netanyahu knows his identity and his nation's. He believes Israel is not merely a Jewish state, but, a giver and guardian of profound civilizing values. As Winston Churchill wrote long ago, "The Hebrew tribes wandering in the wilderness, though indistinguishable from numberless nomadic communities, grasped and proclaimed an idea of which all the genius of Greece and all the power of Rome were incapable." It's no wonder Cal Thomas called Netanyahu's speech "Churchillian". Whether one agrees with Churchill's assessment or not, Netanyahu, as he spoke, pointing at Moses' visage displayed in the congressional chamber, certainly does. He no doubt sees such a legacy as integral to his leadership of Israel. Because he has such a grasp of his country's historic identity he has piercingly clear understanding of its interests.

Netanyahu's speech March 3 showed that he doesn't only know his history, but is passionate about it. It made one yearn to watch an American President at that august podium speaking with such conviction of his nation's historic richness and core identity. Which brings us to the search for Obama. In recent times it has been literal. During the "I Am Charley" marches in Paris – where Netanyahu, by the way, was helping lead the pack whether people wanted him there or not – the world asked, "Where is Obama?" And yet there is a deeper, more urgent question: "Who is Obama?"

I do not mean this in a "birther" sense, but as it relates to presuppositions, worldview, and the philosophies that guide his policies. Captain Queeg was terribly confused about those fundamentals personally, and sailed the good ship Caine toward the shoals and shipwreck. While Netanyahu seeks to steer his ship of state out of harm's way, Obama seems to be guiding America into a collision with the rocky beach. Why does he do this? The question can only be answered against the backdrop of the other, again: Who is Barack Obama?

Here's the harsh reality of the contemporary complicated world: Israel knows who it is and what its interests are. Iran knows who it is and what its interests are. ISIS knows who it is and what its interests are. North Korea knows who it is and what its interests are. In such a world a foreign policy of ambiguity and uncertainty about national interests and identity is irrelevant to the situation – deadly so. As many Americans – and others, Netanyahu, maybe – are searching for Obama, there's a sense in which Obama is searching for America. Let us hope he finds it soon.

March represents a crucial four weeks for Syriza. Greece is due to make a €1.5 billion repayment of its loans to the International Monetary fund this month. Its first €300 million payment is due on Friday, in addition to more than $4.5 billion in short-term bond redemptions that will also mature later this month. Given that the country will not receive its bail-out cash until April at the earliest, the new Leftist government has already hinted that it may have to delay fulfilling its obligations to the IMF.

Should it fail to make its loan repayments, Greece would join an ignominious list of international pariahs and war-torn failed states, and become the only developed economy to renege on its commitments to the Fund in 70 years. But the squeeze on the country's public finances shows no sign of abating. Capital flight accelerated to €64 million last week, according to JP Morgan. Greek bank deposits have reached their lowest level in more than a decade and tax revenues have collapsed since January.

Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis has sought to calm the tensions by vowing to "squeeze blood out of stone" in order to pay back the IMF. "We shall do it," he told the Associated Press earlier this week. But the Greeks are running out of options fast. "Even if Greece can avoid a default over the coming months, they will not be able to honour bonds worth a total of €6.7 billion between July and August without further official funds," said Diego Iscaro at IHS Global.

Taxpayers have had enough of paying for the country’s increasingly crisis-ridden banking sector, and have determined to bail in private creditors to the remnants of this financial road crash instead - to the tune of $8.5 billion in the specific case of Hypo Alpe-Adria. Finally, creditors are being made to pay for the consequences of their own folly.

You might have thought that a financial crisis as serious as that of the past seven years would have ended the world economy’s addiction to debt once and for all. It has not. If anything, the position has grown even worse since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Where the West left off, Asia has taken up the pace, with a credit-induced real estate bubble that makes its pre-crisis Western counterpart look tame by comparison, much of it fuelled, as in Western economies, by growth in the shadow banking sector.

China’s total indebtedness has quadrupled since 2007 to $28 trillion, according to estimates by McKinsey. At 282 percent of GDP, the debt burden is now bigger, relative to output, than the US. The world is sinking under a sea of debt, private as well as public, and it is increasingly hard to see how this might end, except in some form of mass default. How might the present explosion in debt end? The only thing that can be said with certainty is “badly”.

Genealogists at the number 1 family history website revealed that President Obama's German ancestor was born Johann Conrad Wolflin on January 29, 1729. He immigrated in 1750, sailing to America on the ship Patience. Johann Conrad changed his last name to Wolfley once he settled among other German immigrants in Pennsylvania. His son, Ludwig Wolfley, President Obama's 5th great-grandfather, was born in 1766 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. This research confirms that President Obama is one of the 17 percent of Americans with German ancestry.

Obama responded in the Oval Office, declaring in a frustrated tone that Netanyahu offered "nothing new." In its response, the Iranian government denounced Netanyahu's 39-minute speech as "boring and repetitive," the state news agency IRNA said.

"If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons, lots of them," the Israeli leader said, offering a point-by-point critique of Obama's strategy.

In an appearance boycotted by dozens of Obama's fellow Democrats, Netanyahu said Iran's leadership was "as radical as ever," could not be trusted and the deal being worked out with world powers would not block Iran's way to a bomb "but paves its way to a bomb." "This deal won't be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control ... a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare," Netanyahu told lawmakers and visitors in the House of Representatives. His speech drew 26 standing ovations.

Netanyahu said he was grateful to Obama for his public and private support of Israel, including US military assistance and contributions to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system. "I regret that some see my appearance here as political," he said. "I know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit on, you stand with Israel." Although given the cold shoulder by the US administration, Netanyahu on Monday offered an olive branch, saying he meant no disrespect to Obama by accepting an invitation orchestrated by the Republicans.

“I can guarantee you this: The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over,” he told lawmakers. “We are no longer scattered among the nations powerless to defend ourselves, we restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend ourselves have boundless courage. For the first time in a hundred generations, we the Jewish people can defend ourselves. Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

Netanyahu believes the deal could lead to a “potential nuclear nightmare.” “If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare,” he said.

The tensions between US and Israeli leaders will be welcome. Nothing Mr Netanyahu can say will derail a nuclear deal if one is really possible. And if there is no deal, why then Nr Netanyahu may well have to share some of the blame rather than just Tehran. In the short term, it is a win-win for Iran.

This though is a strategic moment for the Iranians and they would do well to disregard the "noises off" from the ebullient Mr Netanyahu. The obituaries for the Israel-US relationship may also be premature. For many years, Iran has been seen in the West as the prime author of instability in the region, given its support for Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its meddling in a variety of other conflicts.

No matter that it was US policy in destroying Saddam Hussein's Iraq that vaulted Tehran into this position of regional ambition. Iran had suddenly become a player to be reckoned with. And now even more so given the chaos in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. And these same strategic concerns are playing into the debate over its nuclear programme as well. To be clear, a nuclear deal between Iran and the West is still no certainty.

But there is also a downside. What if we rapidly reach a point where one must be connected to the Internet in order to function in society? Will there come a day when we can’t even do basic things such as buy, sell, get a job or open a bank account without it?

And what about the potential for government abuse? Could an “Internet of Things” create a dystopian nightmare where everyone and everything will be constantly monitored and tracked by the government? That is something to think about. Today, the Internet has become such an integral part of our lives that it is hard to remember how we ever survived without it. And with each passing year, the number of devices connected to the Internet continues to grow at an exponential rate.

But there is also a dark side to the Internet of Things. Security is a huge issue, and when that security is compromised the consequences can be absolutely horrifying. The Internet allows us to reach into the outside world from inside our homes, but it also allows the reverse to take place as well. Do we really want to make ourselves that vulnerable? Sadly, we live at a time when people don’t really stop to consider the downside to our exploding technological capabilities.

The Guardian notes that global debt is now more than twice the size of the entire global economy: Total debt as a share of GDP stood at 286% in the second quarter of 2014 compared with 269% in the fourth quarter of 2007. (That’s more than 2.8 times the size of the world economy.)

And it will only keep getting worse: Government debt-to-GDP ratios will continue to rise over the next five years in a number of countries including Japan, the US and most European countries…

As Reuters reports, Athens is running out of options to fund itself despite striking a deal with the euro zone in February to extend its bailout by four months. Faced with a steep fall in revenues, it is expected to run out of cash by the end of March, possibly sooner.

Of course, this public pension fund 'cash' will all be repaid when Greece returns to growth and pays down its debt... We are sure the Greek people will be enthused when they find out what the 'radical left' has in store for their funds...

According to German newspaper reports citing government and intelligence officials in Berlin, the Bundestag’s inquiry into the NSA controversy is being jeopardised by Britain’s refusal to cooperate and its threats to break off all intelligence-sharing with Berlin should the committee reveal any UK secrets.

The weekly magazine Focus reported last month that a national security aide to David Cameron had written to Peter Altmaier, Angela Merkel’s chief of staff, refusing all requests for help in the inquiry and warning that Britain would cease supplying terrorism-related intelligence to the Germans unless Berlin yielded.

It emerged during the NSA revelations that the Americans had hacked into Merkel’s mobile phone, generating outrage in Germany and feeding growing anti-American sentiment.