All because we can! Long Hot Summer!

Victor Davis Hanson writes: "What if Iraq Works?" (See 1 below.)

It could come too late to do McCain any good because most Americans have been brainwashed by nay-Sayers, the media and press that GW is incapable of doing anything right, the war was in the wrong place and the basis for going to war was false, ie no WMD were found.

Though GW quickly lost the media battle, the Iraq War stool always rested on far more than a single leg ,ie. ridding a nation of a tyrant named Sadaam who, by attacking his neighbors,and gassing his own people, had caused instability in a region already drowning in discord and hate. Furthermore, Sadaam consistently disregarded 16 U.N. Resolutions, continued to shoot missiles at our aircraft and was actively pursuing the development of WMD. Finally, Sadaam was engaged in financing terrorism and permitted terrorists to train on his soil though not the ones engaged in 9/11.

Going to war against Iraq was not a mindless act unsupported by false provocations. The aftermath of our military defeat of those Iraqi forces who stood and fought did not go as planned. That it revealed woeful gaps in our post war preparation cannot be denied. Four years later, however, GW seems to have the train on track, the surge and our training efforts of Iraq's military seems to be paying off. Consequently, the Iraq government is slowly but steadily finding its sea legs and our ability to consider a troop draw down becomes a clearer and justifiable reality.

Obama went to New Orleans to accuse McCain of being a racist and to remind his constituents of Katrina. The dollar is low enough but with Obama's face on it, it could sink even further.(See 2 below.)

Since Obama has returned from his whirlwind tour of Europe his ratings seem to have ebbed and are now tilted downward. Could it be because of some of the comments he has made or others have made on his behalf? Today Obama told us to inflate our tires and tune our car engines as two ways to solve our energy problem. Shades of Carter, who said we should fiddle with our thermostats. Seems to me, had Clinton permitted drilling in Anwar and offshore and reduced red tape with respect to nuclear power, when he was president, that would have been a sounder approach. Bush also tried and got stiffed by a Congress beholden to various Green and Union antagonists. Obama opposes drilling and also seems to have reservations about nuclear power.

Obama and his defender-protectors now assert McCain has gone negative by associating Obama with two popular blonde airheads. The ad is obviously effective because it got under Obama's thin skin, received a lot of coverage and most importantly, of all, reminded voters Obama has a thin resume as well.

Finally, now that the hoopla over Obama's trip to Europe and the coverage it received has begun to fade, I venture to say it has done more to hurt than help. Being an old "fogy," Obama's appearance in Berlin reminded me of Woodstock and everything questionable Woodstock represented - free spirited straggly-unkempt youth, listening to brainless music loud enough to burst one's ear drums, engaging in narcotics, nudity and anti-establishment behaviour. Fun for the participants but for "fogy" straight guys, like myself, Woodstock came across as a bit over the hill and abberant.

Obama can rant and rage about McCain having nothing of substance to offer except negative attacks and, in some respects, he is right. Alas, political campaigns often go negative. In Obama's case there is a good bit of fodder that begs exploration and if that means going a bit negative Obama's whining will not earn him much sympathy as long as McCain's "attacks" remain generally in bound, are clever and hit home.

On the other hand, when Obama brings up his own race and color and tries to off load and project his own sensitivity and/or insecurity on McCain, I daresay, it will backfire on Obama. After all, Obama is the wunderkind who proposes sitting down with the likes of thuggish terrorists and negotiating peace, tranquility and non-nuclear calm and he goes ballistic over an ad! Get real man!

Obama's true plight began with Rev. Wright, then proceeded with Michelle's comments, was followed quickly by Obama's indicted Chicago developer friend, association with a Chicago terrorist and more recently a gutter lyricist rapper. On substantive issues we have the debate over Iraq and the surge, his paper thin voting record, a host of proposed legislation which would raise taxes, increase spending, grow government all with the intent of achieving government dispensed fairness - whatever the hell that means. Obama parades this under the rubric of "change" and all because "we can."

I just caught a snippet of Obama attacking Exxon for making the largest profit in its history. I thought that was what corporations were supposed to do - make money, employ people, produce goods and services people want to buy. That is called Capitalism. The government's oversight role is to assure the public corporations are doing so in a responsible and legal manner. Am I missing something or under a microscope is Obama looking more like a socialist and petulant populist ant?

Get prepared for a long hot summer of charge and counter charge with some inanities thrown in for good measure.

Were I an Israeli, Mofaz and Netanyahu would be my choices to lead Israel. (See 3 and 3a below.)

We have sinned so a vote for me will assuage you of your sins -sayeth the messiah? (See 4 below.)

I have always maintained if you want dis-unity bring Arabs together for a unity meeting. My friend Toameh discusses Fatah and Hamas. (See 5 below.)

Crolin Glick reviews Kadima's legacy and has little to say that is positive. Why should she. Olmert was a disaster and what is worse, the way he resigned will simply drag Israel through more uncertainty. (See 6 below.)

Have a great weekend and remember to inflate your tires.

Dick




1) What If Iraq Works?
By Victor Davis Hanson

There is a growing confidence among officers, diplomats and politicians that a constitutional Iraq is going to make it. We don't hear much anymore of trisecting the country, much less pulling all American troops out in defeat.

Critics of the war now argue that a victory in Iraq was not worth the costs, not that victory was always impossible. The worst terrorist leaders, like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Muqtada al-Sadr, are either dead or in hiding.

The 2007 surge, the Anbar Awakening of tribal sheiks against al-Qaida, the change to counterinsurgency tactics, the vast increase in the size and competence of the Iraqi Security Forces, the sheer number of enemy jihadists killed between 2003-8, the unexpected political savvy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the magnetic leadership of Gen. David Petraeus have all contributed to a radically improved Iraq.

Pundits and politicians -- especially presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama -- are readjusting their positions to reflect the new undeniable realities on the ground in Iraq:

The additional five combat brigades of the surge sent to Iraq in 2007 are already redeployed out of the country. American soldiers are incrementally turning province after province over to the Iraqi Security Forces, and planning careful but steady withdrawals for 2009.

Violence is way down. American military fatalities in Iraq for July, as of Tuesday, were the lowest monthly losses since May 2003. The Iraq theater may soon mirror other deployments in the Balkans, Europe and Asia, in which casualties are largely non-combat-related.

Since overseas troops have to be billeted, fed and equipped somewhere -- whether in Germany, Okinawa or Iraq -- the material costs of deployment in Iraq may soon likewise approximate those of other theaters. Anger over the costs of the "war" could soon be simply part of a wider debate over the need for, and expense of, maintaining a large number of American troops anywhere abroad.

For over four years, war critics insisted that we took our eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran, allowed other rogue nations to run amuck and soured our allies while we were mired in an unnecessary war. But how true is all that?

The continuing violence in Afghanistan can be largely attributed to Pakistan, whose tribal wild lands serve as a safe haven for Taliban operations across the border. To the extent the war in Iraq has affected Afghanistan, it may well prove to have been positive for the U.S.: Many Afghan and Pakistani jihadists have been killed in Iraq, the war has discredited al-Qaida, and the U.S. military has gained crucial expertise on tribal counterinsurgency.

Iran in the short-term may have been strengthened by a weakened Iraq, U.S. losses and acrimony over the war. Yet a constitutional Iraq of free Sunnis and Shiites may soon prove as destabilizing to Iran as Iranian subversion once was to Iraq. Nearby American troops, freed from daily fighting in Iraq, should appear to Iran as seasoned rather than exhausted. If Iraq is deemed successful rather than a quagmire, it is also likely that our allies in Europe and the surrounding region will be more likely to pressure Iran.

These shifting realities may explain both the shrill pronouncements emanating from a worried Iran and its desire for diplomatic talks with American representatives.

Other rogue nations -- North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba (not to mention al-Qaida itself) -- also do not, for all their bluster, think that or act like an impotent U.S military is mired in defeat in Iraq.

Meanwhile, surrounding Arab countries may soon strengthen ties with Iraq. After all, military success creates friends as much as defeat loses them. In the past, Iraq's neighbors worried either about Saddam Hussein's aggression or subsequent Shiite/Sunni sectarianism. Now a constitutional Iraq offers them some reassurance that neither Iraqi conventional nor terrorist forces will attack.

None of this means that a secure future for Iraq is certain. After all, there are no constitutional oil-producing states in the Middle East. Instead, we usually see two pathologies: either a state like Iran where petrodollars are recycled to fund terrorist groups and centrifuges, or the Gulf autocracies where vast profits result in artificial islands, indoor ski runs and radical Islamic propaganda.

Iraq could still degenerate into one of those models. But for now, Iraq -- with an elected government and free press -- is not investing its wealth in subsidizing terrorists outside its borders, spreading abroad fundamentalist madrassas, building centrifuges or allowing a few thousand royal first cousins to squander its oil profits.

Iraq for the last 20 years was the worst place in the Middle East. The irony is that it may now have the most promising future in the entire region.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War."

2) BARACK LOWERS HIS WORTH WITH CHEAP 'DOLLAR' SHOT
By CHARLES HURT



WASHINGTON - Barack Obama committed the worst blunder of his campaign by wrongly accusing President Bush, John McCain and other Republicans of trying to make voters fear him because he's not "like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

This racial calumny is completely unfair, diminishes his own campaign, and certainly is the worst possible way to win over those blue-collar white Democrats in Ohio and Pennsylvania who picked Hillary Rodham Clinton over him in the primary.

And it's certainly not how he's gotten this far.

Whether Obama wins the White House in November or not, he will have enthralled the world, revolutionized modern American politics, and secured his place in history.

Defying every smug prediction, Obama raised more money, inspired more volunteers and executed a near-flawless campaign to become his party's nominee.

His base is broad, fervent and generous.

Throughout the campaign, race has never been the central, driving issue. If it were, Obama would still be just an inexperienced freshman senator from Illinois with a strange name and a wildly liberal voting record.

Obama emerged victorious from the snowy-white fields of Iowa not simply because he is Black, or even in spite of being black. He emerged victorious because he refused to allow his race to be the issue that defined him.

The only race card he has played up to now is the one that totally neutralizes the issue - the one that makes his race nearly invisible.

In his speech on race in Philadelphia earlier this year, he talked of the goodness he sees in people - even in whites who are routinely browbeaten by knee-jerk liberals and race hustlers in search of a quick political buck.

Barack Obama should return to these soaring ideals and quit this whining and fantasizing about Republicans making fun of him because he doesn't look like


3) Mofaz on Iran: We won't let a second Holocaust happen

"Israel will not let a second Holocaust happen," Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said Friday in regard to Iran's nuclear weapons program, which he said poses an existential threat to the state of Israel.

Mofaz's statements came during a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Friday, in which he also called for further diplomatic efforts including sanctions, saying "we believe that the main direction must be diplomacy," before adding that "all options are on the table" for bringing an end to the program.

Mofaz was quick to point out that Israel's problem is not with the Iranian people, and told listeners of his childhood in Iran.

"I was born in Iran and I came to Israel at the age of 9. The Iranians are a very kind people, but they live under an extremist regime...This does not come from the Iranian people, but from the Iranian leadership."

Mofaz also told listeners about Israel Radio's Farsi-language show which is broadcast in Iran. Mofaz offered an anecdote from one of the times he was on the program and spoke to Iranian callers.

"I had an opportunity to speak with an Iranian taxi driver and one of the questions he asked me was 'why dont you [Israel] come rescue us from this regime?' So now you understand the difference between the Iranian people and the regime."

He added that the extremism of Iran's regime poses a threat not only to Israel, but also to "the United States, Europe, and the world as a whole."

"My opinion and my goal will be to continue to speak to the Syrians without preconditions," Mofaz said in a speech Friday.

"The way is - peace for peace."

Mofaz's speech came a day after a meeting Thursday with senior U.S. officials in Washington, in which he raised "strong concerns" over the administration's recent diplomatic overtures to Iran, which are occuring as the country pursues its nuclear weapons program.

According to his spokeswoman, Mofaz told U.S. leaders to be "firm" with Iran over its contentious nuclear program.

In a shift of policy, U.S. diplomat Nicholas Burns joined envoys from other world powers for a July 19 meeting with an Iranian delegate at which his country was given two weeks to answer calls to curb uranium enrichment or face more sanctions.

The turnaround raised eyebrows in Israel, which has long looked to its U.S. ally to lead efforts to isolate Iran.

Since the multi-party talks in Geneva, Iran has said it would press ahead with its nuclear plans. Israel has increased the stakes in the diplomatic standoff by hinting it could resort to military strikes against its arch-foe's nuclear sites.

Mofaz was hosted by Burns on Thursday for routine bilateral consultations known as the "strategic dialogue."

Mofaz's spokeswoman, Talia Somech, said he used the forum, as well as separate meetings with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to raise Israel's objections to the direct U.S.-Iranian talks.

"It wasn't a matter of leveling outrage, but of voicing Israel's strong concerns," she said.

"He (Mofaz) urged the Americans to set firm conditions, such as a refusal to allow the Iranians to enrich uranium on their turf, and to be clear that the deadline must be preserved. The Iranians are simply looking for cracks to exploit."

The West accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian program. Iran denies it, and has stirred regional war jitters by vowing to retaliate for any attack by targeting Israel and U.S. assets in the Gulf.

The State Department issued a statement after the Mofaz-Burns meeting that said nothing about the possibility of using force against Iran.

"The United States and Israel share deep concern about Iran's nuclear program, and the two delegations discussed steps to strengthen diplomatic efforts and financial measures to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability," the statement said.

It gave no details of the measures discussed.

"We also reaffirmed our strong mutual determination to counter Iran's support for terrorism," said the statement, which the State Department said was being issued by both the United States and Israel.

Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, says a nuclear-armed Iran could threaten its existence.

Mofaz, a former defense minister, is considered a possible successor to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who plans to quit after his party chooses a new leader in September.

Elaborating on a now standard Israeli call, Mofaz said during his Washington talks that "all options against Iran should not only be on table, but prepared," Somech said.

3a) With hawks flying high in Israel, Iran builds bombs at its peril
By Con Coughlin

Has Israel just taken a step closer to bombing Iran? That will certainly be the main subject of discussion in Jerusalem this weekend as Israelis digest the surprise announcement by their prime minister, Ehud Olmert, that he is to stand down in September.
# Read more from Con Coughlin

I got to know Mr Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem in the 1990s, and he struck me as the last person who would ever fall on his sword. A determined, self-confident man then entrenched firmly in the Right-wing, rejectionist faction of the Likud party, Mr Olmert relished a political fight with his rivals - Israeli or Palestinian - and invariably came out on top.
advertisement

The sprawling, concrete Israeli conurbations that now surround the world's holiest city bear testimony to Mr Olmert's undeniable skill in opposing the wishes not just of Israeli peaceniks and Palestinian nationalists, but of the entire international community that sought to prevent further Jewish expansion in Jerusalem until a final peace settlement could be agreed between the warring parties.

It was an irony, then, that Mr Olmert was elected Israeli prime minister - his lifelong ambition - in early 2006 to complete the tortuous peace process that began when Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn in 1993.

The arch-hawk had transformed himself into a man of peace, as had his political mentor Ariel Sharon, Israel's famous warrior politician, who stunned his detractors by initiating the country's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005.

But almost from the moment he entered the prime minister's office in Jerusalem, Mr Olmert has been dogged by controversy.

Fighting your way to the top of Israeli politics is a dirty business, and Mr Olmert is not the first - and will not be the last - senior politician to find himself caught up in a corruption scandal. But where Mr Olmert differs from the others is in the magnitude of the allegations levelled against him.

The most recent of the scandals has been the most damaging, not least because the evidence appears to be so incriminating. Morris Talansky, an American businessman, has told Israeli prosecutors that he gave Mr Olmert cash-stuffed envelopes amounting to $150,000 over 15 years to fund his lavish lifestyle.

Mr Talansky's testimony before the Jerusalem district court has been as entertaining as it has been unedifying for the prime minister: "He loved expensive cigars. I know he loved pens, watches."

Since Mr Talansky gave his testimony in May, Mr Olmert's popularity has plummeted to such a level that his survival in office seemed untenable, and his fate would most likely have been sealed at the special Kadima convention scheduled for September. By indicating his decision to stand down now, Mr Olmert is merely accepting the inevitable.

His decision will be greeted with relief in Israel's political establishment, not least because all the litigation pouring into the prime minister's office meant the government machine was in effect working in a power vacuum.

"Olmert got to the position where he was so weak it was impossible for him to approve anything," said a senior Israeli government official. "Now that he is gone, the decision-making process will start functioning again."

One of the main victims of Mr Olmert's difficulties has been the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, which have stalled and now seem unlikely to achieve US President George W Bush's ambitious target of securing a settlement by the end of the year.

But the issue which demands top priority, and which is of deepest concern to Israel's political establishment, is Iran's uranium-enrichment programme.

Only this week, Tehran announced that it had successfully installed double the number of centrifuges operating at its controversial Natanz enrichment facility, and most Western intelligence agencies now believe Iran has the capability to produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

Tzipi Livni, Israel's foreign minister, is the most likely candidate to replace Mr Olmert. She recently lamented to her senior aides that, should it became necessary for Israel to launch military action against Iran to prevent it developing nuclear weapons, there would be no one in Jerusalem to authorise it.

Besides Mrs Livni, the only other probable contender is Shaul Mofaz, the former defence minister. If anything, Mr Mofaz is more hawkish than Mrs Livni, and has frequently called for Israel to launch pre-emptive air strikes against Iran's nuclear programme to prevent what he calls a "second holocaust" against the Jewish people.

His extreme standpoint is, however, likely to preclude his bid for the premiership, and so Mrs Livni remains the hot favourite.

As foreign minister, she has followed closely the tortuous negotiation process led by the Europeans to persuade Iran to halt its uranium-enrichment programme, and has concluded that the Iranians are only interested in stringing out the process for as long as possible so that they can carry on with developing their nuclear programme.

She recently told an Israeli cabinet meeting: "The Iranians have no intention of halting their nuclear programme." That will certainly not be the case if Mrs Livni, who is said to have previously worked for Israel's Mossad intelligence service, becomes prime minister.

And if the Iranians have any sense, they should take note of the important changes taking place in Jerusalem.



4) Barack Obama and Defining Anti-Americanism Downwards
By Selwyn Duke

If Barack Obama sought to win the votes of Germans, he need seek no more. Of course, his new image was all the rage in the Old World long before he gave his July 24 speech in Berlin. Senator Sweetness and Light is the man the Europeans want as our leader.

Although Obama certainly has a stateside cult following as well, one reason Americans' enthusiasm pales in comparison may be that we - at least some of us, anyway - can decipher his words better than foreign-language speakers. As to this, there is a certain segment of the Berlin speech I'd call your attention to:

"I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."


It might be pointed out to Senator Obama that if he finds a perfect country, he should be sure not to go there.

For then it will cease to be so.

But allow me to lend further perspective. Imagine that you gave a speech in which you "honored" your mother and said:

"I know my mother has not perfected herself. At times, she has struggled to keep the promise of fairness for all of her children. She has made her share of mistakes, and there are times when her actions around the town have not lived up to her best intentions."

Wouldn't this strike you as odd? My first thought would be, wow, you really must not think very highly of your mother. After all, since we're all sinners, it goes without saying that no one is perfect. So why would you feel compelled to state the obvious about her?

It could only be because you consider her unusually flawed, so much so that she falls outside the boundaries of normal human frailty; thus, a disclaimer is necessary before homage can be paid. It's the kind of thing you do when you're embarrassed by someone - or something - you're obligated to praise, when you feel the object of the compliments is, relative to others, unworthy of unqualified laudation and that rendering such would tarnish you. It's kind of like if you needed to defend a brother on death row or who had been convicted of rape; since he was guilty of heinous acts, you'd feel compelled to issue an "I know he has fallen from grace, but . . ." statement. It is the most a good person can muster when talking about a bad one.

And Obama's "but" came right after his disclaimer, as he said:

"But I also know how much I love America."


Note that he didn't actually reveal how much.

Lest I be thought a hypocrite, I agree with G.K. Chesterton's sentiment, "‘My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, ‘My mother, drunk or sober.'" I've often lamented America's intoxication with sin, issuing indictments of various aspects of our declining culture. Yet the difference is context.

It's one thing to point out what our country could do to become superior to its former self, but quite another to preface such counsel with the implication that it's inferior to every other nation. In the first instance you're talking about making a relatively good thing better; in the second you're talking about why a relatively bad thing might at least deserve some scraps from the table of man.

Of course, honesty is a virtue. So if Obama really believes America is that bad, shouldn't his words reflect that? Yes, without a doubt, but being honestly wrong is not a virtue. Remember that Obama was speaking in the nation that birthed the Holocaust, a Maginot-line away from that which spawned the Napoleonic Wars, not too far from the land of the Stalinist purges, and just across the North Sea from an empire that colonized much of the Earth. In this drunk-on-power world, Senator Obama, do you really believe your motherland is an embarrassment?

Getting back to mothers, mine often instructed, "Don't wash your dirty laundry in public." I mention this because Obama also rendered more explicit criticism of his beloved nation, asking:

"Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law?"


This is, of course, an allusion to our military's use of waterboarding during coerced interrogation. And, to be fair, I don't say good people cannot oppose it. Journalist Christopher Hitchens actually volunteered to undergo the procedure and emerged firm in the conviction that it is, in fact, torture. This warrants consideration as Hitchens, for all his militant-atheist zealotry and faults, has been nothing but honest regarding the war against Islamism.

Yet, as per my mother's injunction, there is a time and a place for criticizing family - this includes national family. Obama can argue against waterboarding, but it should be done in-house, not overseas in front of a throng of screaming, anti-American foreigners.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Obama's implication that America is uniquely damnable is that he was oblivious to it. Sure, you may say that few would connect those dots, but that is what makes the remark so telling. It's one of those unthinking comments that give you deeper insight into a person's heart and mind.

To fully grasp this, understand where Obama is coming from. This is an individual who sat in pews for 20 years and imbibed the preaching of a man who disgorges sentiments such as "G*****n America!" and calls her the "US of KKKA!" Wouldn't it strain credulity to say that such a politician doesn't have a negative view of his country? Even Oprah Winfrey, not a woman known to wrap herself in the flag and belt out "The Star-Spangled Banner," left Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ after being assailed with such vitriol.

They say that how a son treats his mother speaks volumes about his character. We should bear this in mind when evaluating Barack Obama, this son of America who is lauded by Europeans. There are people who just wouldn't issue the "my country has not perfected itself" disclaimer, and then there are those who would. In the cases of those who utter it instinctively - the son of America and his brethren - it's an example of a very common phenomenon: Defining anti-Americanism downwards.

To the left, America is the black sheep of the world, that brother who raped the Earth and only escapes death row because he is also the law. To leftists, a statement like Obama's is patriotic - thoughtful, honest, introspective patriotism. Self-flagellation is a sign of enlightenment (although, leftists never actually whip themselves, only the "country," which is the bane of humanity because of regrettably-live conservatives and thankfully-dead white males). It is the "Of course, we're not perfect" meme. It has become Bolshevik boilerplate.

In other words, leftists have lowered the bar for patriotism and raised it for anti-Americanism. The bile of a Reverend Wright, well, it is anti-American (but understandable and excusable); it is a bridge too far. But their confession-of-sin disclaimers are no-brainers because the United States really is a bad country, and they're positively charitable when they follow-up with mention of her few redeeming qualities. It's the most a good person can muster when talking about a bad homeland.

The question is whether any of this will hurt a candidate who racks up style points like Yves Saint Laurent. Many citizens don't even care what Obama actually says, never mind what must be inferred. Even pollster Frank Luntz asserted that we have to give him credit for capturing the imaginations of 250,000 people in Berlin. Perhaps, but it occurs to me that he isn't the first ambitious orator to capture the imaginations of a quarter-million Berliners.

Style can be blinding, but I suspect that Americans who actually pay attention to substance won't be quite as taken with Obama's rhetoric as Otto the Old Worlder.



5) Palestinian Affairs: Where there's smoke...
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH

The latest standoff between Hamas and Fatah is yet another reminder of the severe power struggle that has been raging in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for more than two years.

The recent crisis, which erupted after a mysterious explosion of a vehicle killed five Hamas men who were picnicking on the beach in Gaza City last Friday, shows that the two parties are far from ending their bloody dispute.

Hamas leaders continue to insist that Fatah was behind the explosion. And though they have yet to provide concrete evidence to back up the charges, Hamas leaders were quick to order an unprecedented clampdown on Fatah, arresting more than 160 of its members and closing dozens of institutions run by Fatah supporters and members in four days.

The only "evidence" that Hamas has been able to provide thus far is a clip from the Fatah-controlled Palestine TV, in which "revolutionary" music accompanies the pictures of the explosion in Gaza City. The clip, which also includes songs in praise of Fatah, is reminiscent of Fatah broadcasts that were intended to celebrate armed attacks on Israel.

Hamas leaders in Gaza say they have no doubt that top Fatah officials ordered the attack on the Hamas vehicle. They claim that in the past, their security forces managed to thwart similar attacks that were masterminded by a group of Fatah officials in the West Bank.

One of these Fatah officials, according to the Hamas leaders, is Tayeb Abdel Rahim, a top aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who allegedly dispatched a young Fatah activist to kill Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh last year.

Another Fatah operative whose name has been frequently mentioned as a suspect is Muhammed Dahlan, the former Fatah security commander who currently spends most of his time in Cairo.

"There is a group of traitors in Fatah who work for the Zionists and Americans," said a senior Hamas official. "These are the same figures who fled the Gaza Strip last year. They want to destroy Hamas at any cost."

This tension on the ground has been accompanied by a war of words that is continuing to poison the atmosphere between Hamas and Fatah. For the first time, Hamas this week began referring to Fatah's leaders as "sons of pigs and monkeys," a label that had thus far been reserved for Jews. This is in addition to other terms, such as "Zionist agents," "prostitutes" and "mentally retarded."

Fatah, for its part, has also pulled up some of the words it used once against Israel. Fatah spokesmen are now referring to Hamas as an "occupation force" in the Gaza Strip. Hamas leaders are being depicted as "terrorists," "oppressors," "scum of the earth" and "sex perverts."

Fatah responded to the Hamas crackdown by arresting about 100 Hamas supporters and members in the West Bank. These measures coincided with an IDF crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, a factor that played into the hands of Hamas.

Hamas spokesmen rushed to accuse Abbas and his prime minister, Salaam Fayad, of collaboration with Israel to close down charities, schools, kindergartens and other Hamas-affiliated institutions in the West Bank. The spokesmen claimed that, in some cases, IDF troops and Abbas's security forces carried out joint raids on villages in the West Bank in search of Hamas members.

Hamas is now calling on the Palestinians in the West Bank to launch an intifada against Abbas and the PA. The threats have prompted several top PA officials to take precautionary measures, while others have moved their families to Amman or Cairo.

Despite the crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank, there are still no signs that Abbas and his Fatah party are in full control. True, Hamas does not have a military presence in the West Bank, but there's no ignoring the movement's political power there. Ironically, the IDF and Fatah measures against Hamas figures and institutions have served as a boomerang, earning the Islamic movement more sympathy among West Bank Palestinians.

ABBAS'S REPUTATION among his people suffered a severe setback this week, when Haaretz reported that he was threatening to dismantle the PA if Israel freed jailed Hamas ministers and legislators. The report, which has been strongly denied by Abbas, is now being used by Abbas's rivals as further proof that the man is a "traitor."

Abbas's standing may soon suffer another blow as he finds it difficult to pay salaries to more than 150,000 public servants in the PA. The PA, according to its own spokesmen, is on the verge of bankruptcy, due to the failure of donor countries to live up their promises. As a result, the PA's deficit has grown over the past seven months from $1.6b. to $2b.

The confrontation with Hamas and the financial crisis do not bode well for Abbas, who is also facing increasing challenges from within Fatah. Abbas's term in office will expire in January 2009, and, according to his aides, he has no intention of stepping down. In fact, Abbas claims that the PA constitution, which was ostensibly amended a few years ago, allows him to remain in power for another year.

But Hamas has already declared that it won't recognize Abbas as president of the PA beyond January 2009. Hamas officials have even made it clear that they will remove Abbas's pictures from all government institutions in the Gaza Strip after that date.

In any case, it would be impossible to hold presidential elections in the wake of the increased tensions between Hamas and Fatah, and the continued split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

So what's going to happen in January? Hamas says that, according to the PA constitution, the acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council - who is a Hamas official - will take over as president for a transitional period until new elections are held. Fatah, on the other hand, says that it would support Abbas if he decides to stay in power for another year.

However, not all Fatah members are willing to accept such a scenario. Representatives of the "young guard" in Fatah have made it known that they would revolt against any attempt to block the emergence of a new leadership. Jailed Fatah operative Marwan Barghouti, who has recently been very critical of the way Abbas and the veteran Fatah leadership are handling the affairs of the Palestinians, has expressed his desire to run in the next presidential election.

Whatever path Hamas and Fatah choose, it's clear that the two parties are headed toward further schism and conflict.

Hamas's actions in Gaza demonstrate that the movement has decided to eliminate any Fatah presence there. Similarly, Abbas's forces are now waging a battle to "cleanse" the West Bank of Hamas.

The separation between the West Bank and Gaza is likely to grow, as the two sides continue to trade accusations and target each other. Yet, whereas there are no signs that the Hamas grip on Gaza has been weakened as a result of the power struggle, there are many indications that Abbas and Fatah are losing their credibility and power on the streets of the West Bank.

6) Column One: Kadima's legacy of nothingness
By CAROLINE GLICK

After the dust settled on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's surprise announcement Wednesday evening that he will resign from office after Kadima's leadership primary on September 17, the main question is, What possessed him to act as he did?

Olmert did not actually resign from office in the normal sense of the term. That is, he's not planning to leave office any time soon. What Olmert did was force Israel into a long period of governmental instability.

According to the elections law, when a prime minister announces his resignation, his government is immediately transformed into a transition government that will remain in power until either Olmert's successor forms a governing coalition or until the winner of the next general election forms a governing coalition. If Olmert's successor forms a new governing coalition after the September 17 primary, Israelis won't go to the polls until March 2010. But if Olmert's replacement as Kadima head is unable to form a coalition, Israel will have a general election by March 2009 at the latest. In the latter scenario, Olmert's transition government will remain in power until the winners of that election form a governing coalition. And that could take up to three more months.

So far from leaving office anytime soon, Olmert will remain in power at least three more months, and perhaps for as long as 10 months.

Olmert's non-resignation resignation speech was filled with protestations of patriotism. But it is hard to see how his announcement served the national interest. If Olmert had wanted to do what is best for the country, then he would have announced that his resignation was effective immediately. This would have set the course for a general election in November.

In the interim, and in light of the intensifying security crisis with Iran, a caretaker government could have been formed that would have encompassed all willing Zionist parties represented in the Knesset. If such a government were formed, Israel could have attacked Iran's nuclear installations with the full backing of the Knesset and the people. The political cost of such a vital operation would have been borne equally by all of Israel's political leaders and so, in a sense, it would have been borne by no one. Under such circumstances, Israel's political leaders would have been able to concern themselves only with Israel's survival as they made their best decisions on how to prevent the ayatollahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

But rather than enable Israel to unite in the face of a threat to its existence, Olmert opted for continued instability, continued uncertainly and a continuation of the polarized status quo that leaves him in office and leaves Israel strategically hamstrung at the hands of a governing coalition that the nation does not want and does not trust. And this situation could easily last for nearly a year.

There are two possible explanations for Olmert's behavior. First, it is possible, as some commentators have noted, that by announcing his decision not to seek reelection in Kadima's leadership primary - and lose overwhelmingly by all accounts - Olmert may be trying to convince the police investigators to allow him to leave office in his own car and not in the back of a paddy wagon.

There is a precedent for such a move. The late president Ezer Weizman resigned from office in 2000 in exchange for an end to the criminal probe against him. And the probe against Weizman - which centered on cash transfers in excess of $540,000 that he received over an extended period from Edward Sarousi, a French businessman - was similar to the sixth of seven ongoing probes against Olmert, where he is being investigated for cash transfers he received from US businessman Morris Talansky.

The other possibility is that Olmert is playing his familiar game of buying time. Buying time has been the enduring theme of his tenure in office.

After Olmert led Israel to defeat in the Second Lebanon War two years ago, he staved off calls for his resignation by appointing the Winograd Committee to study his failures. Eight months later, the Winograd Committee issued its interim report where it concluded that Olmert had failed in his stewardship of the country during the war. In the face of the public outcry that followed, Olmert bought himself another eight months by insisting on waiting until the committee issued its final report.

As the criminal probes against him rose to the top of the national agenda in late April with the revelation that Olmert had accepted cash-stuffed envelops from Talansky for a decade, Olmert bought himself another four months by pledging to resign if indicted. And now, of course, he has bought himself at least three more months, and perhaps up to 11 months more in power. And who knows what unanticipated crisis or windfall may intervene in the meantime and add another few months to his lifespan as prime minister?

In his handling of all of these crises, the good of the country has not been Olmert's primary concern. Indeed, it is far from clear that he ever considered the impact his actions would have on Israel at all. Rather, from crisis to crisis, from one stalling tactic to the next, Olmert has been guided by his single-minded desire to remain in office. And this is not surprising.

OLMERT'S PATENT lack of shame is not the only reason that Israel's best interests haven't factored into Olmert's calculations. By placing his personal interests above the national interest, Olmert was loyally reflecting the character of his party. Winning and maintaining power for power's sake, irrespective of the national interest and ideological principles, were the purposes for which Kadima was founded by Ariel Sharon.

Sharon founded Kadima as a self-consciously post-ideological party. And as Kadima's first elected prime minister, Olmert is Israel's first post-ideological premier.

Olmert and Kadima are the direct consequences of Sharon's decision to turn his back on his party, and on the ideology that brought him into office in 2003 in favor of clinging to power for power's sake. To remain in office amidst two serious criminal probes, Sharon betrayed his ideological camp and Israel's national security interests. This he did by implementing the discredited radical leftist policy championed by Israel's media and legal fraternity of withdrawing all Israeli military personnel and civilians from the Gaza Strip and transferring control of the area to Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror control.

Sharon, Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and their political consultants presented Kadima's rejection of ideology as its chief selling point. By not being committed to either left-wing or right-wing ideals, they assured us that Kadima would always do the right thing for the country.

But the opposite occurred. Without the benefit of ideology to guide them, Kadima's leaders have been led by nothing more than their personal interests. And their primary interest is not to do what is best for the country irrespective of ideology. Their primary interest is to maintain and expand their power for as long as possible.

To maintain and expand their power, Kadima's leaders from Olmert to the party's last backbencher have sought to align their policies with the nation's shifting moods. The nation's mood swings from left to right are always followed by sharp changes in Kadima's policies.

With the nation in a left leaning mood in the run-up to the last election, Kadima announced its plan to give Judea and Samaria to terrorists from Fatah and Hamas. Distinguishing their party from the radical left, which shares their plan, Kadima's leaders explained that they sought to place Israel's major urban centers in Palestinian rocket range not in the interest of peace - as the leftist ideologues would have it - but in the interest of the hardnosed "demographic" aim of putting all the country's Jews in one concentrated area.

Before the nation had an opportunity to fully understand what Kadima's "convergence" plan entailed, Israel's body politic shifted to the right in June 2006 after the Palestinians attacked an IDF post near Gaza and kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Schalit. Two weeks later it shifted further to the right when Hizbullah carried out a nearly identical attack along the border with Lebanon and supposedly abducted reservists Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

Noticing the public's rightward shift, Olmert and his colleagues followed immediately. When Olmert launched the Second Lebanon War, he sounded downright Churchillian as he promised the nation nothing less than the total defeat of Hizbullah and the return of our hostage servicemen.

But then, when Olmert's bombast was confronted with the hard reality of war, he lost interest in being a right-winger. And so he fought the war like a radical leftist and accepted humiliating defeat. Ever since then, Kadima has tacked to the right and then to the left with no guiding rationale other than the morning's headlines, the weekend's opinion polls, and the threats of its right-wing and left-wing coalition partners.

In the meantime, the actual threats arrayed against Israel as a whole have become more acute and more fateful. But Olmert and his colleagues can't be bothered to deal with them. They are too busy. Deciding who you are each day anew on the basis of the morning radio broadcasts is a time-consuming venture. And their solitary aim remains constant throughout. They just want to stay in power for another day, another week or with a little luck, for a few more months.

THIS IS the sad and desperate face of post-ideological politics. While as prime ministers, left-wing leaders such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres could only make mistakes in one direction, post-ideological leaders like Olmert and his colleagues in Kadima can and do make mistakes in all directions.

From 1977 when Likud first rose to power until 2006 when Kadima formed the government, all of Israel's elections revolved around contrasting ideologies. For 29 years, voters were required to choose which side of the ideological divide they preferred. And making choices isn't easy. Both sides seem to have something to offer.

Then Kadima entered the political stage dead on center and offered voters a way to avoid making a decision. It professed to be all things to all people.

But of course, no one and no political party can be all things to all people. And since Kadima's leaders won't choose whose side they are on for longer than opinion polls stay constant, their party has been nothing to all people.

Here it bears noting that Olmert's slow, meandering exit from office against the backdrop of growing dangers is a fitting end to this sad chapter in Israel's history. For when a government of nothings is running the show, nothing takes precedent over all things - even the most important things.

It can only be hoped that when the next election takes place, voters will have learned the lesson of Kadima. Whether we choose the right ideological camp or the wrong one to lead us, we cannot evade our responsibility to make a choice.