Israel runs into its own fist - what a bunch of idiots

Yes, the big news here and in the region is the incredibly stupid decision of Israel to attack the Turkish based Gaza Aid Flotilla in international waters, in the process killing a significant number (reportedly 16) of essentially unarmed civilians, mostly Turks.

Here is a good analysis by STRATFOR that puts the decision in context, and draws a nice historic analogue to the post war 'Exodus' story that the Zionists used to play the same trick on Britain that the Palestinians have just successfully played on Israel.

I can't wait to see Essa's editorial next week... I wonder what it will be about?

Flotillas and the Wars of Public OpinionBy George Friedman
May 31st 2010

On Sunday, Israeli naval forces intercepted the ships of a Turkish nongovernmental organization (NGO) delivering humanitarian supplies to Gaza. Israel had demanded that the vessels not go directly to Gaza but instead dock in Israeli ports, where the supplies would be offloaded and delivered to Gaza. The Turkish NGO refused, insisting on going directly to Gaza. Gunfire ensued when Israeli naval personnel boarded one of the vessels, and a significant number of the passengers and crew on the ship were killed or wounded.

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon charged that the mission was simply an attempt to provoke the Israelis. That was certainly the case. The mission was designed to demonstrate that the Israelis were unreasonable and brutal. The hope was that Israel would be provoked to extreme action, further alienating Israel from the global community and possibly driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The operation’s planners also hoped this would trigger a political crisis in Israel.

A logical Israeli response would have been avoiding falling into the provocation trap and suffering the political repercussions the Turkish NGO was trying to trigger. Instead, the Israelis decided to make a show of force. The Israelis appear to have reasoned that backing down would demonstrate weakness and encourage further flotillas to Gaza, unraveling the Israeli position vis-à-vis Hamas. In this thinking, a violent interception was a superior strategy to accommodation regardless of political consequences. Thus, the Israelis accepted the bait and were provoked.

The ‘Exodus’ Scenario
In the 1950s, an author named Leon Uris published a book called “Exodus.” Later made into a major motion picture, Exodus told the story of a Zionist provocation against the British. In the wake of World War II, the British — who controlled Palestine, as it was then known — maintained limits on Jewish immigration there. Would-be immigrants captured trying to run the blockade were detained in camps in Cyprus. In the book and movie, Zionists planned a propaganda exercise involving a breakout of Jews — mostly children — from the camp, who would then board a ship renamed the Exodus. When the Royal Navy intercepted the ship, the passengers would mount a hunger strike. The goal was to portray the British as brutes finishing the work of the Nazis. The image of children potentially dying of hunger would force the British to permit the ship to go to Palestine, to reconsider British policy on immigration, and ultimately to decide to abandon Palestine and turn the matter over to the United Nations.

There was in fact a ship called Exodus, but the affair did not play out precisely as portrayed by Uris, who used an amalgam of incidents to display the propaganda war waged by the Jews. Those carrying out this war had two goals. The first was to create sympathy in Britain and throughout the world for Jews who, just a couple of years after German concentration camps, were now being held in British camps. Second, they sought to portray their struggle as being against the British. The British were portrayed as continuing Nazi policies toward the Jews in order to maintain their empire. The Jews were portrayed as anti-imperialists, fighting the British much as the Americans had.

It was a brilliant strategy. By focusing on Jewish victimhood and on the British, the Zionists defined the battle as being against the British, with the Arabs playing the role of people trying to create the second phase of the Holocaust. The British were portrayed as pro-Arab for economic and imperial reasons, indifferent at best to the survivors of the Holocaust. Rather than restraining the Arabs, the British were arming them. The goal was not to vilify the Arabs but to villify the British, and to position the Jews with other nationalist groups whether in India or Egypt rising against the British.

The precise truth or falsehood of this portrayal didn’t particularly matter. For most of the world, the Palestine issue was poorly understood and not a matter of immediate concern. The Zionists intended to shape the perceptions of a global public with limited interest in or understanding of the issues, filling in the blanks with their own narrative. And they succeeded.

The success was rooted in a political reality. Where knowledge is limited, and the desire to learn the complex reality doesn’t exist, public opinion can be shaped by whoever generates the most powerful symbols. And on a matter of only tangential interest, governments tend to follow their publics’ wishes, however they originate. There is little to be gained for governments in resisting public opinion and much to be gained by giving in. By shaping the battlefield of public perception, it is thus possible to get governments to change positions.

In this way, the Zionists’ ability to shape global public perceptions of what was happening in Palestine — to demonize the British and turn the question of Palestine into a Jewish-British issue — shaped the political decisions of a range of governments. It was not the truth or falsehood of the narrative that mattered. What mattered was the ability to identify the victim and victimizer such that global opinion caused both London and governments not directly involved in the issue to adopt political stances advantageous to the Zionists. It is in this context that we need to view the Turkish flotilla.

The Turkish Flotilla to Gaza
The Palestinians have long argued that they are the victims of Israel, an invention of British and American imperialism. Since 1967, they have focused not so much on the existence of the state of Israel (at least in messages geared toward the West) as on the oppression of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Since the split between Hamas and Fatah and the Gaza War, the focus has been on the plight of the citizens of Gaza, who have been portrayed as the dispossessed victims of Israeli violence.

The bid to shape global perceptions by portraying the Palestinians as victims of Israel was the first prong of a longtime two-part campaign. The second part of this campaign involved armed resistance against the Israelis. The way this resistance was carried out, from airplane hijackings to stone-throwing children to suicide bombers, interfered with the first part of the campaign, however. The Israelis could point to suicide bombings or the use of children against soldiers as symbols of Palestinian inhumanity. This in turn was used to justify conditions in Gaza. While the Palestinians had made significant inroads in placing Israel on the defensive in global public opinion, they thus consistently gave the Israelis the opportunity to turn the tables. And this is where the flotilla comes in.

The Turkish flotilla aimed to replicate the Exodus story or, more precisely, to define the global image of Israel in the same way the Zionists defined the image that they wanted to project. As with the Zionist portrayal of the situation in 1947, the Gaza situation is far more complicated than as portrayed by the Palestinians. The moral question is also far more ambiguous. But as in 1947, when the Zionist portrayal was not intended to be a scholarly analysis of the situation but a political weapon designed to define perceptions, the Turkish flotilla was not designed to carry out a moral inquest.

Instead, the flotilla was designed to achieve two ends. The first is to divide Israel and Western governments by shifting public opinion against Israel. The second is to create a political crisis inside Israel between those who feel that Israel’s increasing isolation over the Gaza issue is dangerous versus those who think any weakening of resolve is dangerous.

The Geopolitical Fallout for Israel
It is vital that the Israelis succeed in portraying the flotilla as an extremist plot. Whether extremist or not, the plot has generated an image of Israel quite damaging to Israeli political interests. Israel is increasingly isolated internationally, with heavy pressure on its relationship with Europe and the United States.

In all of these countries, politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. It is difficult to imagine circumstances under which public opinion will see Israel as the victim. The general response in the Western public is likely to be that the Israelis probably should have allowed the ships to go to Gaza and offload rather than to precipitate bloodshed. Israel’s enemies will fan these flames by arguing that the Israelis prefer bloodshed to reasonable accommodation. And as Western public opinion shifts against Israel, Western political leaders will track with this shift.

The incident also wrecks Israeli relations with Turkey, historically an Israeli ally in the Muslim world with longstanding military cooperation with Israel. The Turkish government undoubtedly has wanted to move away from this relationship, but it faced resistance within the Turkish military and among secularists. The new Israeli action makes a break with Israel easy, and indeed almost necessary for Ankara.

With roughly the population of Houston, Texas, Israel is just not large enough to withstand extended isolation, meaning this event has profound geopolitical implications.

Public opinion matters where issues are not of fundamental interest to a nation. Israel is not a fundamental interest to other nations. The ability to generate public antipathy to Israel can therefore reshape Israeli relations with countries critical to Israel. For example, a redefinition of U.S.-Israeli relations will have much less effect on the United States than on Israel. The Obama administration, already irritated by the Israelis, might now see a shift in U.S. public opinion that will open the way to a new U.S.-Israeli relationship disadvantageous to Israel.

The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard? As with a tank battle or an airstrike, this sort of warfare has nothing to do with fairness. It has to do with controlling public perception and using that public perception to shape foreign policy around the world. In this case, the issue will be whether the deaths were necessary. The Israeli argument of provocation will have limited traction.

Internationally, there is little doubt that the incident will generate a firestorm. Certainly, Turkey will break cooperation with Israel. Opinion in Europe will likely harden. And public opinion in the United States — by far the most important in the equation — might shift to a “plague-on-both-your-houses” position.

While the international reaction is predictable, the interesting question is whether this evolution will cause a political crisis in Israel. Those in Israel who feel that international isolation is preferable to accommodation with the Palestinians are in control now. Many in the opposition see Israel’s isolation as a strategic threat. Economically and militarily, they argue, Israel cannot survive in isolation. The current regime will respond that there will be no isolation. The flotilla aimed to generate what the government has said would not happen.

The tougher Israel is, the more the flotilla’s narrative takes hold. As the Zionists knew in 1947 and the Palestinians are learning, controlling public opinion requires subtlety, a selective narrative and cynicism. As they also knew, losing the battle can be catastrophic. It cost Britain the Mandate and allowed Israel to survive. Israel’s enemies are now turning the tables. This maneuver was far more effective than suicide bombings or the Intifada in challenging Israel’s public perception and therefore its geopolitical position (though if the Palestinians return to some of their more distasteful tactics like suicide bombing, the Turkish strategy of portraying Israel as the instigator of violence will be undermined).

Israel is now in uncharted waters. It does not know how to respond. It is not clear that the Palestinians know how to take full advantage of the situation, either. But even so, this places the battle on a new field, far more fluid and uncontrollable than what went before. The next steps will involve calls for sanctions against Israel. The Israeli threats against Iran will be seen in a different context, and Israeli portrayal of Iran will hold less sway over the world.

And this will cause a political crisis in Israel. If this government survives, then Israel is locked into a course that gives it freedom of action but international isolation. If the government falls, then Israel enters a period of domestic uncertainty. In either case, the flotilla achieved its strategic mission. It got Israel to take violent action against it. In doing so, Israel ran into its own fist.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

Times of Oman editor Essa Al Zedjali says Hitler justified in his actions against the Jews

I figured Essa Al Zedjali, Editor in Chief of Times of Oman, would launch an opinion piece raging against Israel today, but this time he's really out-done himself.

He basically says the actions of the Nazi Party and Hitler against the Jews were justified, excusing the mass murder of millions of civilians. This gem is proceeded by a summary that could be Cliff notes for the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

In fact, it's so 'out there' that it may well be illegal under Oman's famously pro-free press laws...

I would say its covered under several clear injunctions:
1/ that newspapers not publish anything that is politically, culturally, or sexually offensive;
2/ not to publish anything that ... creates hatred toward ... any ethnicity or religion;
3/ not to publish anything that ... promotes religious extremism;
4/ not to publish anything that ... insults other states.

It's perhaps the most disgusting, bigoted, conspiracy theory crap ever to grace the front page of an Omani newspaper (no, really, these days he modestly puts his weekly opinion piece on the front page, above the fold). Its quite unbelievable.

It would seem Mr Al Zedjali is now acting as a defacto-national spokesman for the wacko Iranian President's point of view of such things. Great!

Viewpoint this week

How Israel became a terrorist state
Essa bin Mohammed Al Zedjali
Sunday, January 04, 2009 12:37:52 AM Oman Time

...
It is illustrative to browse through the relevant pages of history to know the real history of the Jews in Germany. You would then come to know why Hitler had taken harsh measures against them. The entire economy of Germany, including banks, publishing houses, jewellery stores, light and heavy industries and almost all economic organisations of consequence, was under the total control of the Jews.

They muddied every aspect of the economy by perpetrating fraud after fraud on common people. This unprepossessing situation annoyed the German citizens no end and impelled Hitler to punish the Jews for their bad deeds.

He then goes on to say how the press in the USA are totally controlled by 'The Jews'...

Viewpoint (cont.)

...The United States today finds itself in the same predicament as Germany back then. Now in the US, the Jews wield enormous control over all important decisions, whether they relate to politics, economy or media. No American citizen is free today to utter a single word about international or even national issues. This is the reason the American views on various issues being relayed to the world through the media are in fact the views of the Jews.
...

Perhaps his reading hasn't covered such US publications as the controversial book published in 2007 by two US academics, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard University,'The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy'. See the wiki link for an extensive example of freedom of debate in action in the USA, even over a topic as supposedly controlled as the role of the Jewish lobby in the USA.

In fact, in my opinion the best place to get top flight intellectual criticism of the USA is ... from within the USA.

It's ironic that Essa, editor of a newspaper in a country where the publication of almost anything - from photos of traffic accidents to any criticism of a Government Minister - is illegal, has the gall to accuse the USA of not having a free press.

A great Omani intellectual? LMAOFOFL.

Oman, you deserve so much better than this drivel. By publishing such idiocy, he helps make real and deserved criticism of the bombing of Gaza by Israel seem synonymous with antisemitism. This is of great assistance to those who do accuse any critique of Israel as being racist.

Meanwhile, Israel has commenced its invasion of Gaza using tanks and troops. Its going to get pretty messy.

Happy New Year, and GCC Conference tells off Israel

OK – it’s a new year. People are generally back at work today, and life in the Sultanate proceeds to return to normal now the AGCC conference is over and we have our roads, coast, and hotels (and their associated bars and restaurants!!) back. The weather is, if anything, a little on the cool side, and that bloody red tide is still stopping decent swimming in the sea. If this period of red tide (must be 2 months now?) is going to be the norm, Oman can forget about coastal resort tourism as a growth business!

And I’m back to the blog after a short break, much enjoyed.

The big issue of late – dominating the GCC publicity machine, and in the country at large – is the continued and rapidly escalating war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza strip.

Hamas keeps sending rockets into Israel, Israel responds with aerial bombardment and border closures, Hamas sends more rockets, … (repeat endlessly). All the signs now are that Israel is bombing the crap out of north Gaza in preparation for a ground attack with troops and tanks. Meanwhile, Hamas are hunkered down in their bunkers, relatively safe from most of the bombing, and busy trying to beef up their stockpiles of ammunition and heavy armaments ahead of the anticipated ground invasion, with materiel smuggled through their tunnels connecting Gaza and Egypt, tunnels which Israel keeps trying to bomb too.

So, the GCC naturally discussed the Israel/Gaza issue and issued their totally weak communiqué, packed full of 'deep concern', lofty ‘calls’ and ‘urges’, while lacking any actual unilateral action. Expect more of the same from the Arab League.


Photo: GCC Leaders agreeing to give Israel a very big telling off, and to ask it to please stand in the naughty corner (but only if that wouldn't be too much trouble).


Wow, the Israelis must be quaking in their boots after this missive…

Gulf leaders ask Israel to end Gaza massacre
By Sunil K. Vaidya, Bureau Chief
Published: December 30, 2008, 23:46

Muscat: Leader of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) strongly condemned the barbaric Israeli aggression on the Palestinian people in Gaza and held Israel responsible for taking the situation to a dangerous level.

In the final communique of the 29th GCC Summit concluded in Muscat yesterday, the council voiced deep concern over the flagrant Israeli offensive, which led to a large number of deaths and injuries, destruction of properties and terrorising civilians with no consideration for ethics, humanity or international legitimacy resolutions.

The council called on Israel to stop its brutal aggression against the unarmed Palestinian people and end the unfair siege imposed on all Palestinian territories, including Gaza.

It urged the international community to take immediate action to stop massacres and tyrannical practices by the Israeli military machinery. The council also called on the international community to provide the necessary protection for the Palestinian people who endure all forms of atrocities and oppression due to Israel's stubborn policies and inhuman practices.

The council called on all Palestinian factions to unite their ranks, as national unity is the shield and the sole means to protect the Palestinian people and regain their legitimate rights, including the establishment of an independent state with (occupied) Jerusalem as its capital.

The GCC leaders held Israel responsible for the deterioration of the peace process due to its tight siege on the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, confiscation of lands and construction of colonies, the building of apartheid wall and its ongoing excavations under the Al Aqsa mosque.

The GCC also called on the international community to provide necessary protection for the Palestinian people.

What a joke.

The problem is that the GCC States only ever give lip-service to their declared total support for the Palestinians. Are they providing significant funding to Fatah or Hamas or the Palestinian authority? No, and certainly not Hamas. Perhaps they could provide easy access to the safe GCC countries so that lots of ordinary Palestinians could live here and work? Er, No.

Are they providing military support to the Palestinians? Or sending their Airforces and Navies to provide humanitarian aid? No, of course not!

Do they back these statements up with boycotts, sanctions, or other actual actions with teeth, rather than just talk and posturing? No. Are they perhaps taking action to pressure Egypt to provide support for Gaza? No. Are they pressuring the USA to act more strongly? No.

Just a telling-off (aka ‘strong condemnation’) to Israel and more whining to the UN Security Council. Sure, they allow their tightly controlled press to bitch about Israel/USA, and also allow (limited) street protests in support of Gaza. Oh, and the King of Bahrain cancelled his country’s New Year celebrations in support of the Palestinians. Wow, that’ll really make them feel better in Gaza with the bombs falling.

Why such hypocrisy?

Because it is in the best interests of the Gulf States that chaos reigns in Israel/Palestine. It keeps the GCC populace focused on the issue of Israel/Palestine, instead of having the time and energy to address more difficult and uncomfortable domestic issues (such as unemployment, how to meld increased democratic representation and secularism with Islam, improving the distribution of wealth and opportunity, women’s rights, unionisation, expatriate labour, etc etc etc).

While everyone hates to see bombings with civilians being killed and injured, to be frank the last thing the GCC leaders would like to see is a strong Hamas and/or Hezbollah. Hamas and Hezbollah are Islamofascists, dominated by theological ideologues rather than pragmatists. Hamas actively opposes the legitimacy of the GCC’s set of monarchs to rule their countries, and both Hamas and Hezbollah are effectively supported by Iran with money, arms and training. And remember that the brotherly state of Iran is the real enemy of the GCC - with their continued support for Shia extremists, counter claims on islands claimed by the UAE, counter-productive sabre rattling with the Americans and Israelis, periodic threats to blockade the strait of Hormuz, a regime representative of a successful Islamic revolution over a ruling Monarch, etc etc.

This general revulsion of most Arab countries to Hamas and what it stands for is why Egypt are so willing to provide the anvil against which Israel pounds Hamas in Gaza. Hamas are effectively an offshoot of the hated and illegal Muslim Brotherhood, and the last thing the rulers of Egypt (or the GCC) would do is support such an outfit. Thus, if you read the communique from the GCC you'll find lots of condemnation of Israel, but no support for Hamas. In fact, Hamas are not refered to at all except as a 'faction' who are urged to get back in line with Fatah and Abbas. LOL.

One should note that all GCC members continue to host numerous and significant American military bases:
Oman: US Airforce use RAFO bases in Thumrait, Masna’ah and Masirah, have radar and intelligence gathering stations in Musandam, plus a large strategic War Reserve Materiel (WRM) storage facility in Seeb,
Qatar:Home of the regional US Central Command base, plus a big US Airforce base at Al Udeid,
Bahrain: US 5th Fleet HQ, plus Shaikh Isa Airbase,
Kuwait: Ali Al Salem and Ahmed Al Jaber Airbases, plus 2 big US Army bases,
and of course,
Saudi: Eskan Village Airbase and several other bases.

Oh, and Jan 1st 2009 finally marks the start of the Oman/USA Free Trade agreement. And Oman certainly is not going to do anything to either impact that agreement, nor to get off on the wrong foot with the new US Administration.

Hence, a very strongly worded telling off for the Zionist Fascists, and otherwise carry on with business as usual chaps!

I expect an especially incisive Times of Oman 'Viewpoint' opinion piece from Essa tomorrow that will say how totally and unbelievably fantastic the GCC Conference was, how much great stuff was achieved (more from me on that issue tomorrow), and how evil the Israeli/US actions in Gaza are. I'll be amazed if he mentions Hamas or their rockets though...

Happy New Year everyone. Nothing's changed.

So, that’s alright then.

More on Iran, US And Israel: The Pentagon keep their common sense

In a sort of good news/bad news story, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday that America was strongly against supporting an Israeli strike on Iran, denying them military assistance, Iraq overflight rights, and acting to downplay the effectiveness of such a strike. (The report was also republished in The Oman Tribune.)

However, readers should note that these efforts are mainly coming from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs - American Institutions that seems refreshingly removed from the idiotic machinations of the theo-cons and the likes of VP Cheney.

So the good news is the Pentagon and the US Military are firmly against attacking Iran, and against enabling Israel to perform such a strike, and sensibly pointing out that such an attack would do little to actually halt the nuclear programme (see Haaretz Report), and blocking Israeli efforts through leaks. Similar leaks of the CIA intelligence assessment also helped cool down GW Bush's sabre rattling earlier this year. It would seem the guys in the Pentagon have got our backs on this one, thankfully.

The bad news is that Israel is clearly both asking for permission to overfly Iraq and trying to obtain US advanced weapons and intelligence to carry out such a strike, and were it seems very close to executing such a strike. US Administration hawks are also intent on keeping, as they like to say, all options on the table.

The danger would be that the fall back strategy of such hawks and the theo-cons could be to pressure Iran into making the first move, by for example, a partial naval blockade, or placing elements of the 5th Fleet in close proximity to trigger happy Iranian militias in the straights of Hormuz... Hmmm.

U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.

The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.

As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.

Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.

Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.

Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.

Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.

The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.

Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.

The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.

These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.

Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.

Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.

Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.

In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.

Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.

Israeli and Omani Foreign Ministers meet in Qatar

Something you certainly won't be reading in Oman's local papers it seems is the meeting yesterday between Oman's Foreign Affairs Minister Yousef bin Alawi and the Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. They met at her hotel in Doha, Qatar.

These are the first official talks since 2000, although it was reported they met at a secret meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in September 2006.

Although the meeting has been widely reported across the world, including other Gulf papers, the item is conspicuous by its total absence in the all local Omani press, both English and Arabic.

It looks to me like the meeting was indeed no big deal. The Yahoo article indicates the Omani Minister played it down and described it as an opportunity for them to both listen to each other, but that Oman still disagreed with the Israelis on, well, probably about everything, and there were no plans to reopen the Israeli 'trade office' (ie an effective Israeli Embassy) in Oman. Thank goodness, given the Israeli's on-going fascist behaviour.

Article links: Yahoo news , BBC , Khaleej Times .

In the Israeli press too, Israel National News ,

In the context of the forum, Foreign Minister Livni met with her counterpart from the Gulf Emirate of Oman in what was hailed as a first-of-its-kind public encounter. Omani government officials, however, played down the meeting. An aide to Oman's Foreign Minister Yousef bin Abdullah said it was "not meant to have a result," but merely to allow Foreign Minister Livni and her counterpart to exchange views, according to the French news agency AFP.

Oman and Israel have maintained low-level diplomatic and trade relations, although the oil-rich state backs Hamas. The Omani Foreign Minister ruled out the possibility of re-opening Israeli trade office in his country, closed after the beginning of the Oslo War in 2000, until the PA is constituted as a state.

Another nice pic being printed everywhere but in Oman: