VINCE BUCCI/AFP/Getty Images

Nobody ever could have predicted that easy listening would fail to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict:

A West Bank radio station that sought to bring Israelis and Palestinians together to the tune of pop music has gone of the air because of a lack of funding.

RAM-FM had been broadcasting English-language talk shows and artists like Michael Bolton and Air Supply from a studio in the town of Ramallah since last year.

I guess songs like "How Can We Be Lovers" and "Can I Touch You...There?" don't excite the same emotions in the Middle East as they do in... wherever it is one can find Michael Bolton fans these days.

UPDATE: Chris Blattman chimes in from Liberia:

As I read the post, none other than Michael himself was crooning over the speaker of the Cape Hotel in Monrovia.

He's also a favorite in northern Uganda, although Bolton is easily eclipsed by Dolly Parton and Bette Midler. "Wind beneath my wings" still conjures images of dusty displacement camp canteens in my mind.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Michael Bolton caused the wars in northern Uganda and Liberia to end, but it is the power of love...

I'm only mildly insulted that Chris filed his post under the "drivel" category. 

Somehow, I don't think this comment from Iran's Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashai is going to help anyone sleep easier in Tel Aviv:

Iranian media are quoting the country's vice president as saying Iranians are "friends of all people in the world — even Israelis."

As Haaretz observes, this isn't the first time Mashai has sounded a conciliatory note about Israel:

In late July, Mashai made similar comments, saying: "Iran wants no war with any country, and today Iran is friend of the United States and even Israel.... Our achievements belong to the whole world and should be used for expanding love and peace." 

Abid Katib/Getty Images

I see that the good folks at Little Green Footballs are outraged about Thursday's photo essay on a Hamas-affiliate's graduation ceremony in Gaza. The LGF author writes of FP, "They're currently running a light-hearted slice-of-life photo essay on a Hamas terror training camp."

At issue is this bit of text:

Photo Essay: Are You Tough Enough for Hamas Boot Camp?

Think you have what it takes to join the Islamic resistance? Here’s how Hamas militants in Gaza have been spending their summer.

Commenter Tazzerman writes,

This is beyond the pale. I'm sorry but it sounds like a Hamas training brochure. Do these people at FP understand or realize what they're doing here? This is an out and out BLATANT advertisement for Hamas recruiting.

"It makes me sick to my stomach that someone actually is trying to glorify these cowards," says FldDoc.

"[W]hy is a reputable magazine giving positive propaganda to these ersatz stormtroopers?" Outrider asks.

Mosse wonders, "Is this postmodern drollery or something more sinister?"

Let's all take a deep breath, people. As the person who put this thing together for ForeignPolicy.com, let me make one thing clear: Nobody here is trying to glorify Hamas, which is duly listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department and others. It's pretty newsworthy, though, that the Hamas-affiliated Popular Resistance Committees (PRCs), also widely considered a terrorist organization (though not explicitly listed by State), are training in this way and so openly, and the captions tell a broader story of the rising tensions that threaten to destroy the fragile Gaza cease-fire. As for the photographs themselves, I think we can all agree that they make for compelling viewing.

It's clear, however, that LGF commenters are furious that this photo essay doesn't take a strong, anti-Hamas line. Do they really fear that somehow, FP readers will be motivated by these photographs to join the "Islamic resistance"? I'm not worried.

One final note: Analytically speaking, I'm not so sure about using the term "terror training camp" to describe what is going on at this facility. I don't think the PRCs aren't terrorists, mind you -- of course they are -- but from these photographs it doesn't look like they are learning terrorist methods such as firing rockets at civilians or blowing up buses (and the PRCs have certainly done such things in the past) but rather learning how to fight like an irregular army. Other Palestinians are probably just as much a target as Israel. If anyone has any information to the contrary, please send it my way. But the real terrorist training happens far away from the cameras, I'd wager. This stuff is all just for show.

MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images

With Ehud Olmert's resignation announcement today, the floodgates have opened for speculation on who will emerge as the Kadima Party's choice in the September 17 primary. As I noted earlier, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz are the two likeliest candidates. The two candidates lead in the polls at 38 percent and 33 perfect, respectively.

Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation and a one-time advisor to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, stressed to me in an interview this afternoon that the differences between the two candidates are incredible. Livni is a narrow frontrunner, he says, as numbers show her ahead of the hawkish Mofaz, who made headlines in June by saying that an Israeli strike on Iran was "unavoidable" if Iran did not abandon its nuclear program.

Levy figures that Livni has a better chance to defeat the likely Likud Party candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu, in a general election. "She's way more popular, and would be way more competitive [than Mofaz]," he says.

Livni is also a much better fit for the centrist reputation that Kadima has tried to build for itself. Mofaz? Not so much, according to Levy:

He looks and sounds a lot more like a Likud politician. He began his campaign by saying he might move to live in the Golan Heights. He has been a skeptic of the peace process. He's got quite a lot of baggage to carry... He is not considered to have been an effective chief of staff or defense minister. Many people look at the army that fought the Lebanon War [in 2006] and say, 'Well that was your army, Mofaz; you're the one who led to a lot of the cuts in training, the focus on the West Bank rather than being prepared for more significant missions.'"

But lest we rule him out, Levy says, there are quite a few things working in Mofaz's favor, including a more effective political machine inside Kadima and a potential endorsement from Olmert -- both of which are extremely important in a small, Kadima-only voting electorate.

It should be an interesting summer.

Photo pool/Getty Images

In a (somewhat) surprising move, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announced that he will resign after his ruling Kadima Party chooses a new leader on September 17.

And who might be replace Olmert, both from party ranks and in the next nationwide election? Check out FP's list -- which we compiled more than a year ago. Our friend Ehud was able to hang on longer than we thought.

Updated for today, we might add Shaul Mofaz, the transportation minister, to the mix. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is still the most likely to succeed Olmert -- at least within Kadima -- but the hawkish Mofaz could use the Iranian threat to his advantage. Beyond that, there's no telling whether other parties will be able to push for a general election that could unseat Kadima.

Some weeks back, I blogged on an Israeli human rights group's campaign to distribute video cameras to Palestinians, who could then capture incidents involving Israeli settlers, soliders, and the abuses that often take place as Israel continues to build new settlements in the West Bank. Recent attacks by Israeli settlers have included an assault on elderly Palestinian shepherds using sticks, as well as an attack last week on a Palestinian village by 20 Jewish settlers.

The human rights group, B'Tselem, says it has succeeded in educating not only Western readers and viewers, but also Israeli citizens, who do not always have a clear picture of what transpires in the disputed areas and settlements.

Diala Shamas, the coordinator for B'Tselem's "Shooting Back" project, explains:

It started bridging the gap between what is happening in the occupied territories and what the Israeli public can see. There is a silence surrounding not only settler violence, but abuses by the IDF as well. This footage is mostly shocking to Israelis."

The project seems to be doing some good. After footage supplied to B'Tselem by a 17-year old Palestinian girl showed a bound and blindfolded Palestinian prisoner being threatened and then shot in the foot by Israel Defense Forces troops, the IDF opened an investigation that led to the suspension of an Israeli colonel after it was discovered that he ordered a subordinate to shoot the unarmed prisoner. The Guardian has published sample footage online, which includes the shooting mentioned above.

In an ongoing struggle where neither side is innocent, the videos have the potential to help. At the very least, they can keep those on both sides, as well as international observers, more aware of what is actually going on. Who knows? They could help tilt the balance of Israeli politics away from the settler movement, and show Palestinians that nonviolence can get results. And just maybe, cameras can succeed where stones and bombs have failed.

Sure, Barack Obama is quite popular in Europe and has received his fair share of endorsements from unusual areas, but the Arab media has had some other things to say.

Courtesy of the Anti-Defamation League, a sampling of political cartoons from Middle Eastern media sources:

Although the ADL lists the collection under the banner of "Anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim World," you might want to take this with a grain of salt. Some of these cartoons are undoubtedly offensive (including some toward Obama's race), but others simply echo familiar claims and criticisms regarding the close U.S.-Israel relationship. Personally, I've seen similar cartoons in the Western media as well.

If anything, these cartoons just reinforce the Walt-Mearsheimer argument about the wellspring of anti-Americanism in many parts of the Arab world: "It's Israel, Stupid!"

Here's what Barack Obama wrote in the guestbook at Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial. You have to admit, the man has a way with words:

GALI TIBBON/AFP/Getty Images

State.gov

I noted yesterday that Haaretz columnist Shmuel Rosner believes that Israel will attack Iran to force the international community to act. Now, maverick Israeli historian Benny Morris weighs in on the New York Times op-ed page, declaring flatly that "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months... an Israeli nuclear strike to prevent the Iranians from taking the final steps toward getting the bomb is probable." Say what? Earlier, this week, I questioned a story in The Times of London saying that Washington had given Tel Aviv an "amber light" to proceed with attack plans.

What's going on? I have a guess: Israel is playing bad cop to America's good cop. The Times story provides one clue: "[T]he Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use U.S. military bases in Iraq for logistical support." It's hard to imagine the Israelis could or would pull off a strike without U.S. help, so this is probably disinformation intended to send the message that Israel could act alone (which is doubtful for geographic, technical, and diplomatic reasons).

So, when Undersecretary of State William Burns meets with Iranian officials this weekend, he can thus implicitly present himself as their protector from the big, bad Israelis. Look here, Mr. Jalili: The United States is the reasonable one, willing to negotiate and compromise -- and only George W. Bush can talk the Israelis out of launching Osirak II. All you need to do is freeze your uranium enrichment and we can start talking for real. I'm sure Iranian leaders are aware of what is going on, but there may be just enough doubt in their minds to make this an effective gambit.

ANWAR AMRO/AFP/Getty Images

In the modern Middle East, victory in war is often in the eye of the beholder. Yesterday's prisoner swap between Hezbollah and Israel is no exception. Some critics say that Israel gave up too much, while others argue that the deal will only encourage future hostage-taking by the militant Lebanese Shiite group.

As Ari Shavit from Haaretz put it, "Hezbollah is bringing home a living murderer, and Israel is bringing home two dead soldiers - over whose capture it sacrificed 160 other soldiers and civilians."

Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Co. seem to agree with the Israeli critics, as they threw a huge party for their freed prisoners in Beirut, styling themselves as the victors in this fight.

Not so fast. One leading Arab newspaper, the London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat, noted that, in the final analysis, the deal "cost Hezbollah over $7 billion, more than 1,200 dead and 4,500 wounded Lebanese citizens."

Ouch. That's one way to rain on a homecoming parade.

Haaretz correspondent Shmuel Rosner, writing in the The New Republic, argues that Israel might attack Iran not to destroy its nuclear program -- which it probably can't do -- but to force the international community to act:

The main goal of a hit would not be to destroy the program completely, but rather to awaken the international community from its slumber and force it to finally engineer a solution to the crisis. As one former Israeli official put it, any attack on Iran's reactors--as long as it is not perceived as a military failure--can serve as a means of "stirring the pot" of international geopolitics. Israel, in other words, wouldn't be resorting to military action because it is convinced that diplomacy by the international community cannot stop Iran; it would be resorting to military action because only diplomacy by the international community can stop Iran.

I don't believe this is Israel's first option. More likely, Israel's threats are intended to ratchet up the pressure on Iran to compromise. But as Rosner notes, "The more Israel pledges to stop Iran, the more it becomes necessary to deliver." If you keep crying "wolf!" and nobody listens, the best way to get people's attention is to shoot the wolf.

J.DAVID AKE/AFP/Getty Images

Fareed Zakaria sat down with Barack Obama Sunday, and this is how the candidate styled himself on foreign policy:

One of the things that I want to do, if I have the honor of being president, is to try to bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan.

OK, that doesn't tell us anything so far. George W. Bush also sees himself as Truman's heir. All sides of the U.S. political spectrum have tried to appropriate different aspects of the Truman legacy. But then Obama went on:

But also characterized to a large degree -- the first President Bush -- with people like Scowcroft and Powell and Baker, who I think had a fairly clear-eyed view of how the world works, and recognized that it is always in our interests to engage, to listen, to build alliances -- to understand what our interests are, and to be fierce in protecting those interests, but to make sure that we understand it's very difficult for us to, as powerful as we are, to deal all these issues by ourselves.

It'll be interesting to watch how people react to this, especially as Obama heads to Israel later this week next week.

I, for one, admire the pragmatism of Brent Scowcroft and James Baker. But these are curious role models to cite for a man prone to such soaring rhetoric. Moreover, some folks on the right-hand side of Israeli politics find the two realists par excellence, who under the first President Bush advised meaningful pressure on the Israeli government to stop its settlement activity, not to their liking. Liberal hawks, meanwhile, see them as too bloodless, their realism too narrow.

Readers, what do you think?

(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Over the weekend, Drudge and a good chunk of the blogosphere linked credulously to this story in The Times of London, written by one Uzi Mahnaimi. The story alleges that U.S. President George W. Bush has given Israel an "amber light" to attack Iran, according to a "senior Pentagon official."

Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you're ready," the official said.

If you read the entire piece, you'll see that it doesn't quite live up to its dramatic headline: "President George W Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran." (The official is later quoted as saying, "If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green," he said.)

The alarmism isn't entirely Mahnaimi's fault, since editors usually choose headlines. But our friend Uzi has a track record of breathless stories about alleged Israeli preparations to attack Iran. Here's one from January 2007 (using tactical nukes!), and another from December 2005. Or we could go back to July 2004. And remember that attack on Gaza? Mahnaimi is also notorious for reporting in 1998 that Israel was developing a biological weapon -- an "ethnic bomb" -- that would only kill Arabs.

The real story here is that the Israelis have developed plans to hit Iran's nuclear facilities -- did anyone think they hadn't? -- but the United States (correctly) thinks it's a bad idea. Read Jim Hoagland. He gets this story right.

After lampooning America as "Borat," it appears the world's most notorious British comic may be setting his sights on the Middle East. His next film, featuring the character "Bruno," a flamboyant German Austrian homosexual, is set for release in May 2009. And, if this encounter with two über-serious advocates of Israeli-Palestinian peace is any indication, it's going to be hilarious:

We exchanged astonished glances. "Hamas," we explained, "is a Palestinian Islamist political movement. Hummus is a food."

"Ya, but vy hummus? Yesterday I had to throw away my pita bread because it vas dripping hummus. Unt it's too high in carbohydrates."

The Hamas-hummus confusion went on for several minutes. Then, the interviewer declared: "Your conflict is not so bad. Jennifer-Angelina is worse."

Abid Katib/Getty Images

RAFAH - EGYPT CROSSING, GAZA STRIP - JULY 01: Palestinians try to pass a child over the gate of the Rafah border crossing to Egypt on July 1, 2008 in the southern Gaza Strip. Egypt opened the border crossing with Rafah on Tuesday for three days for the limited passage of people such as Palestinians stranded in Egypt and Gazans seeking medical treatment abroad.

MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Images

For all of its past rhetoric on Hamas, Israel may be bending just a bit. The BBC reports today that a truce has been reached between Israeli officials and representatives of Hamas in Egypt. While Israel appears to be treading lightly, reaching a ceasefire agreement with Hamas -- the militant group that controls the Gaza strip and is believed to be responsible for rocket attacks against Israeli citizens -- is a big step.

This deal, set to take effect on Thursday, is not exactly an anomaly in Israel's recent relations with traditional enemies. A prisoner-exchange agreement with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militant group, has apparently been brokered and may occur as early as next week. Israel and Syria agreed today to hold additional talks in July, mediated by Turkey.

The most interesting question now is how Washington will react. Bush is unlikely to change his tune at this late stage on a group he considers a terrorist threat, though he tacitly agreed to let Egypt broker this new agreement. But a President McCain or a President Obama might make a different calculation. It's hard to see how a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be reached without Hamas, as the group has held a majority in the democratically elected Palestinian parliament for two years. Can the United States really facilitate a peace deal between the people of Israel and Palestine without inviting the officials that the latter have voted into office?

And of course, how can Hamas negotiate with an entity that it doesn't even recognize? It seems like a lot of players must change their views for peace to have a chance.

This is what it's like to be the envoy of a lame duck. Time's Tim McGirk reports from Israel on U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's latest trip:

On Sunday, Rice just passed through Jerusalem again. Ghosted through might be a better description since this time there was no fanfare, no motorcades snarling up the city’s traffic, and the lady couldn't even book a room in her usual hotel, the David Citadel. She had to settle for a less grand hotel, though admittedly it wasn't one of those pilgrim fleapits in the Old City. But for me, that's a sign of how far how far her superpower status has fallen in the dwindling days of Bushdom.

McGirk also notes that Condi's name is now being used as a verb on Israeli television, "meaning to go endlessly around in circles, accomplishing nothing."

The authors of the controversial book on the influence of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy have made their first trip to Israel since the book was published. A few hundred students and faculty at Hebrew University turned out to see Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer argue their case. The result? A lively and largely cordial debate. Their visit had its fair share of detractors, but a threatened boycott failed to materialize. In fact, this is about as heated as it got:

International relations student Liad Gilhar, 25, accused the professors of distorting facts and providing fodder for anti-Semites.

"You need to choose your words carefully," Gilhar said.

Walt shot back: "With all due respect, I don't think it is my words that harm Israel, but rather Israel's actions."

A professor criticized the authors for failing to condemn Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. "I don't think he is inciting to genocide," Walt responded.

BBC News

Footage obtained by the BBC shows four masked Jewish settlers assaulting an elderly Palestinian goat herder and his wife with baseball bats last week. Thamam al-Nawaja, a 58 year-old shepherd, had her arm and cheekbone broken and spent three days in a hospital. The attack was caught on a camera distributed to Palestinians as part of an Israeli human rights group's campaign to allow Palestinians -- many of whom are being pushed off their land by Jewish settlers -- to have video and photographic evidence of such assaults.

Just 10 days ago, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon condemned expanding Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem as a violation of international law. Israel has defended its settlements, arguing that they are not violating any laws or preexisting agreements. But with this disturbing video, the pressure on Israel to change its settlement policies will only increase.

The incident comes as many are wondering if a two-state solution is even possible anymore. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, frustrated by a lack of progress in negotiating with the Israelis, seems to be hedging his bets and has begun discussions with Hamas, a big no-no for Israel and the United States.

On top of this, Bush's time is rapidly running out. We can only hope that the next president will follow the advice of Arab moderates and address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in his first term.

Salah Malkawi/ Getty Images

Muammar el-Qaddafi has been staying out of the news lately, but the Libyan strongman has apparently become nostalgic for the days when his delusional comments constantly filled the airwaves and newspapers.

Speaking today in Tripoli, Qaddafi slammed U.S. presidential hopeful Obama on his recent remarks supporting Israel and his insistence that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state. Qaddafi said that Obama's statements were motivated by a fear that he would befall a similar fate as a man to whom he has drawn numerous comparisons:

We suspect he may fear being killed by Israeli agents and meet the same fate as Kennedy when he promised to look into Israel's nuclear program," Gadhafi said.

In addition to claiming that the Mossad assassinated JFK, Qaddafi also said that as a black candidate, Obama suffers from an inferiority complex that could make him act "more white than white people."