(photo depicts participants in Glenn Beck led march on Washington; November 23, 2009)

I hope that David Frum is right and that the Tea Party movement, which is growing in numbers and ferocity, will hit its limit, experience an Icarus moment, and plunge back into the fringe of American politics where pugnacious, jingoistic, narrow band nationalism has always lurked.

But there is no guarantee of this. A prominent mega-funder of the political left recently told me that he had miscalculated about a number of things in the last election.

One of these was that he thought that electorally smashing the increasingly manic right wing that had hijacked the Republican Party and dislodged the more moderate, straight-talking John McCain in favor of the McCain that empowered and unleashed Sarah Palin would produce a more reasonable GOP.

He told me that "their political loss didn't teach the Republicans anything; they actually got much worse."

And the evidence of what this Democratic Party mega-funder was saying was clear in the truly massive "Restoring Honor" rally at the Lincoln Memorial and on the National Mall this past weekend staged by the political crusader and hugely popular talk show host Glenn Beck.

While I think Frum is probably right that this movement, much like the Obama "movement", will eventually crest -- it's not clear that losing political battles chastens the right, at least not yet.

During the presidential primary battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Obama conjured up a big politically incorrect gaffe, which like many gaffes, had some truth embedded in it.

Obama said:

OBAMA: Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

. . .But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

What Barack Obama described in the campaign is what we are seeing unfold in the country. Guns and religion -- or, in other words, fear and intolerance.

There are surprises and exceptions to this.

Count me as stunned that former GOP chief Ken Mehlman's recent self-outing to Marc Ambinder (though Mike Rogers really did out him before) that he is gay has produced statements from McCain campaign czar that supporting gay marriage is becoming a "conservative issue." Stunning statement.

Mehlman is leading a gay marriage rights fundraiser featuring the landmark lawsuit orchestrated by former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson and Democratic political powerhouse David Boies -- and those supporting include Paul Singer, Mary Cheney, Mark Gerson, Steve Schmidt, John Podesta, Steve Elmendorf, William Weld, Christine Todd Whitman and more.

This is the one bit of news that makes me think that there is potentially a constructive undercurrent pulling away from the reality that Obama aptly described in 2008.

But like Chuck Hagel who tried to stand for a kinder, sensible, bigger tent conservatism, Mehlman and his fellow travelers in the GOP may find themselves soon joining Christine Todd Whitman, Lawrence Wilkerson, Susan Eisenhower, Lincoln Chafee, Colin Powell, Rita Hauser in the camp of the Republicans exiled or pushed to the fringe of the party they worked hard to build.

Let's hope that the Mehlman trend and not the Glenn Beck frenzy define the future of the GOP.

-- Steve Clemons

This is the roster of who is coming to dinner tonight:

President Obama

President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt

King Abdullah of Jordan

Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Quartet Representative Tony Blair

According to a pool report written by Huffington Post's Sam Stein, the White House won't be sharing "many, if any details" from tonight's dinner. All we can expect is an official photo.

OK then! I'm hooked.

Holding back is a good way to keep us me interested.

-- Steve Clemons

Angelina Jolie has traveled to Pakistan in her role as a UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador, donated $100,000 for flood victim relief and issued the public service annoucement above.

I strongly support what she and others like Richard Holbrooke, George Soros, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are doing in trying to raise the profile of this crisis. But even with Clinton and Holbrooke on board, the U.S. government is still not doing as much as it should in terms of contributing at a systemic level to helping the Pakistanis and Indians turn this nightmare into a strategically significant trust-building event.

David Rothkopf has written a compelling call for bolder initiatives related to the Indus River Valley and how to use this as both a way to provide vital relief and to change the toxic political dynamics in the region.

In particular, Rothkopf anticipating President Obama's coming trip to India writes:

The U.S. and the international community have responded generously in the wake of the Pakistan flood crisis. America's $7.5 billion aid effort* is a step in the right direction. But it is only a tiny fraction of the several tens of billions that are needed to better manage and preserve the water resources in this fragile, vital region. Further, it is clear that money alone will not solve the problem. Existing treaty relationships between India and Pakistan on the use of the water from the Indus are being strained to breaking by dam projects and shifting demand.

Perhaps this is one of those moments where it might be possible to harness the awareness raised by the current disaster and the sensitivities heightened by rising tensions to produce a different kind of response, one that if managed properly could also produce much larger benefits.

Few relationships on the planet are as important or as potentially dangerous as that between India and Pakistan. Further, as we have seen in Afghanistan or in the recent Mumbai terror attacks, it is a relationship with growing ramifications and multiplying risks. Seeking to stabilize it -- daunting a prospect as that seems given its history -- must be a top foreign policy priority for all the world's powers.

Further, for the United States, for whom both countries are increasingly important to a host of our international interests, playing an active role in resolving this distant and growing resource crisis is not only in our direct national interest, it could be a model for helping to address a proliferating set of similar challenges that seem likely in the very near future.

*TWN notes that only $50 million of this five year, $7.5 billion total package of US aid has been authorized for flood relief.

The U.S. response needs to be more pivotal and robust. This crisis will be remembered for generations by Pakistanis -- and the long term positives that could emanate from a robust, humanitarian response combined with an international TVA-like commitment to managing this watershed could neutralize the current high-fear, tense regional dynamic.

Recently when I ran into Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, he mentioned the texting "donate option" to Pakistan flood victims through the UNHCR which Angelina Jolie mentions above, but it is:

Text "SWAT" to 50555 to donate $10 to UNHCR for urgent flood relief in Pakistan

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama was right to give his speech punctuating the end of US combat operations in Iraq from the Oval Office as opposed to one of the military academies.

In his speech tonight, the President said:

Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country. This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq's Security Forces and support its government and people. That is what we have done. We have removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We have closed or transferred hundreds of bases to the Iraqis. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

But now the President has said we have to turn our attentions to other matters -- an economy whose wobbliness is increasingly worse. We have been running these wars without paying for them -- and the price tag has been huge.

Obama stated:

Today, our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

But the President needs to realize that the 50,000 residual forces left behind in Iraq will still cost about $50 billion a year -- without even considering the ongoing health and after-field deployment costs for these forces in the long term.

And of course, we are now spending more than $100 billion per year in Afghanistan in a country whose GDP is $14 billion.

The US cannot restore its health with a hemorrhaging of resources and money that large.

-- Steve Clemons

As the first direct Israeli-Palestinian talks in two years approach, it seems that enthusiasm and hope for a deal decrease again and again. Years of violence, failed talks, and now uneasy calm punctuated by continued settlement growth in the West Bank and confrontations spurred by this growth have led to an environment of grim, limited determination; it seems increasingly that both sides come to the table knowing what they must do, but unwilling, or unable, to actually do it.

In some ways, the situation is ripe for talks. Israelis seem to be growing increasingly uneasy with the settlement enterprise, there is at least tepid (albeit, very tepid) pressure from the White House for a resolution, and today the New York Times reports on the economic growth and emerging political and security stability in the West Bank long demanded by Israeli leaders as necessary for a peace deal.

And yet all of the structural and political obstacles to a two-state solution remain; an extension of even the partial settlement freeze currently in place past the end of this month is in doubt, the political will of Israel's current leadership is in doubt, and violence from militant groups, disaffected Palestinians, and Israeli settlers could easily disrupt even a fledgling agreement. As the director of the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program and TWN publisher Steve Clemons, and Middle East Task Force directors Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah argued in a media call this afternoon, the local, regional and international stakes are desperately high, and a solution will require serious leadership in Jerusalem, Ramallah, and Washington.

Undoubtedly, though, the hard sell will be Israel. Daniel Levy has an excellent piece on the upcoming talks over at the Huffington Post describing his pessimism, optimism, and pessimism over the prospects for a political solution:

On balance, however, Netanyahu's actions and statements do not suggest a man standing at the precipice of a bold move to peace and de-occupation. Netanyahu formed an extreme right-wing coalition out of choice not necessity, insisted on those settlement expansion exemption clauses, has refused to enter negotiations with the Palestinians or Syrians on the basis of previously achieved advances, and is insisting on security arrangements, timelines, and unreciprocated and unilateral Palestinian acknowledgement of Israeli claims.

The tantalizing thing that Obama will have to deliver here is an Israeli political yes. A solution cannot be imposed on Israel, clear choices can though be presented. If there is an Israeli yes to real de-occupation gestating somewhere in the Israeli public and body politic, then it is not going to emerge on its own, that much is clear today. If the Israeli yes is there, it is going to take a c-section to bring it out into the world, and the only available surgeon is President Barack Obama.

The U.S. will have to be smart in the content of the plan it is proposing, both sides have rights and need to emerge with dignity, de-occupation will have to be real, and Israel's legitimate security concerns will have to be met--but not more than that. The context in which the plan is proposed is no less important than its content. The administration will need to remove the mist from its eyes on Palestinian political realities and address those shortcomings. The Palestinians can be allowed or even encouraged to rebuild a unified, inclusive, and capacitated national movement. At the same time, the very real asymmetries between representatives of an occupying power and representatives of an occupied people should be built in to the structure of peacemaking--substituting for unreasonable or unreachable demands on Palestinian capacity where this is needed to advance a two-state outcome. And all of this would be helped not hindered by taking a broader, comprehensive approach to peacemaking and advancing a plan that incorporates Israeli-Syrian, Israeli-Lebanese, and overall Israeli-Arab peace.

To deliver that Israeli yes, the right question will need to be asked--one rooted in guaranteeing Israel's future, that does not avoid real clarity, real de-occupation and hard choices, one that is well-marketed, and that crucially re-calibrates the incentives and disincentives for Israel of the status quo versus the peace option. When President Obama is ready with that plan and with that message, he should get on a plane and take it directly to the Israeli people. This week might just prove to be a milestone in that journey.

-- Andrew Lebovich

George Soros is working hard behind the scenes to help the Obama administration realize that a billion dollars spent now, carefully, and in a structure that could create a systemic improvement in Indus River water management helping India and Pakistan would be greatly welcomed by the currently besieged victims in Pakistan of historic-level flooding and help preempt a greater tilt towards instability in South Asia than already exists.

I won't go into the detail of the Soros plan as it would be best if it became the Richard Holbrooke plan, or the Hillary Clinton plan, the Kerry-Lugar plan, or the Singh-Zardari plan, but I am satisfied that in contrast to so many schemes I hear in which people advocate a billion being thrown here or there -- the critical need 'now' combined with a unique opportunity for the United States to constructively improve the lot over the near and long term of people who don't think well of America makes great sense.

Now that we are spending monthly figures in Afghanistan that surpass $100 billion per year, it seems to me that a well-managed $1 billion investment in Pakistan would do much to improve the political environment in Afghanistan and Pakistan -- large portions of the peoples of which respectively mistrust the U.S.

In the latest issue of the New Yorker, South Asia expert and New America Foundation president Steve Coll writes:

Pakistan's floods--like the tsunami that swept across Indonesia's northern provinces in 2004--threaten to set the country's economic growth back by years. For the United States, preventing such an outcome should be recognized as a strategic as well as a humanitarian imperative. So far, the Obama Administration has displayed all the right instincts, by rushing relief to civilians, affirming the primacy of the country's elected leaders, and galvanizing other governments to pitch in. As the waters recede, and the immediate crisis passes, however, the challenge will be to muster international investment to repair Pakistan's infrastructure and catalyze its economic recovery.

The agricultural market towns in the flood zone--Ghotki, Jacobabad, Shahdadkot--are not notable breeding grounds for international terrorism. They are home instead to the marginal lives of another Pakistan, one poised for many years between aspiration and collapse--that of landless laborers, tenant farmers, bus drivers, and shopkeepers. These Pakistanis belong to no war party and live in peaceful indifference to the United States. To help reimagine their future, and that of their country, the place to begin is to come unconditionally to their aid.

Coll is right to identify this crisis as one with significant strategic consequence -- and the U.S. would be smart to pivot quickly on this, which it has not yet done despite credible efforts by Richard Holbrooke to try and generate attention among his colleagues in the administration.

Lt. General John Allen, Deputy CENTCOM Commander, led the effort to provide relief after the December 2004 devastating tsunami in Southeast Asia.

John Allen might be the right Department of Defense point person to work with Holbrooke to help secure something along the lines George Soros is trying to stand up to both help current flood victims and create a preventive system for managing such crises in the future.

An added benefit along the way is that this effort could help build some much needed trust between Pakistan and India.

-- Steve Clemons

Today is Ben Katcher's birthday, and Ben, well known to TWN readers as a contributing editor here, is preparing for a new life in Istanbul.

Today is also the day that Mother Teresa said was her birthday as she was baptized on August 27th, though born on August 26th (100 years ago). Lyndon Baines Johnson was born today. So too one of my best friends in junior high school -- both of us then sopranos in a funeral home boys choir -- Nicholas Scogna, who is now off living a good life in Florida. And another friend in later years, Brian Strom. Brian and I didn't sing. He played the trumpet, and we ran.

Pee Wee Herman (Paul Reubens) was born today as well. Happy birthday Pee Wee!

Former Nebraska Senator and New School President Bob Kerrey was born today. He and his team are interested in possible shifts in US-Cuba policy and Bob will soon head the Motion Picture Association of America. Very cool job. (Samuel Goldwyn was born today, Bob.)

And lastly. . .was just walking on a street in Shanghai and saw that Tom Ford's next store is opening there. Happy Birthday Tom.

So, all best to all of you, particularly Ben Katcher who is off to Turkey soon and should be blogging here before long -- and yes, it's my day too!

-- Steve Clemons

Templo Beth-Shalom in Havana, Cuba (Photo credit: Anya Landau French)

This post originally appeared at The Havana Note. An earlier version, "In Cuba, a Hostage of International Brinksmanship," appeared in today's Jewish Daily Forward, the online home of the weekly Forward. Arturo Lopez-Levy is a lecturer and doctoral candidate at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies of the University of Denver. Mr. Lopez-Levy worked as analyst for the Cuban government between 1993 and 1994 when he resigned from his post. Between 1999 and 2001, Lopez-Levy was secretary of the Bnai Brith in the Cuban Jewish Community.

Alan Gross, a Jew, an American, a U.S. AID contractor, has sat in a Cuban prison for more than eight months. Jews, whose entire history is bound together by stories of exile and return, captivity and freedom, mourn his confinement and long for his release. Cubans who have been weary bystanders for decades in the games of brinkmanship between their government and ours know a political pawn when they see one. Concerned policy makers in Washington have now taken a hostage of their own; some have made their votes on legislation to end America's failed and feckless ban on travel to Cuba contingent on Gross's release. None of this is likely to shorten his hard experience living under the "hospitality" of Cuba's government.

Why is Gross in prison? While the U.S. has intervened in Cuba to control its government or shape its system for more than a century, this story has more recent roots. The Bush administration produced two reports in May 2004 and July 2006 about how to "liberate" Cuba. The reports recommended a package of irresponsible measures to move the moderate and independent activities of Cuban civil society toward the regime change strategy envisioned by Section 109 of the Helms-Burton law. The U.S Congress approved an annual budget of tens of millions to use U.S agency for International Development contracts for this purpose - an approach that has continued under the Obama Administration.

Continue reading this article

-- Andrew Lebovich

Dr. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland has conducted a really fascinating poll of Arab public opinion, showing persistent support for a two-state solution while at the same time rising acceptance of an Iranian nuclear weapon, among other things.

From 12:15 pm - 1:45 pm TODAY, the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force will host Dr. Telhami along with Task Force co-directors Daniel Levy and Amjad Atallah for a discussion of the poll's findings, as well as possible implications for the series of challenges facing the Obama administration in the Middle East and beyond. The event will livestream here at TWN, and those who wish to see the event in person can RSVP here.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Despite the flurry of initial applause from groups ranging from AIPAC to J Street to the Israel Project to the American Task Force for Palestine that direct negotiations were resuming between Israel and Palestine, pessimism has been the order of the day since. As one senior White House official recently told me, this just gets us back to the previously messy status quo.

One has to give credit to President Obama for not ducking this problem -- which he probably could, at least for a while. Obama chose Senator George Mitchell on his second day in office, pushed a showdown which he lost on settlements with Prime Minister Netanyahu, made the lack of progress between Israel and Palestine a key point of focus during his September 2009 UN General Assembly remarks, and is now inviting regional leaders as well as Quartet Representative Tony Blair to give this effort another shove.

By cajoling the Palestinians and Israelis to engage, Barack Obama is again putting himself in the vulnerable position of another potential battle with Israel's Prime Minister -- and this time Obama can't afford to lose.

As with Khrushchev and Kennedy, the Soviet premier took the first couple of rounds -- but Kennedy came out on top.

Beyond what ultimately happens in these peace talks, Obama needs to prevail over any pugnacious obstinacy by Netanyahu.

-- Steve Clemons

Buddy and Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner send their regards.

-- Steve Clemons

(The Overton Window)

This is a guest post by Peter Daou who previously served as Internet Director for Hillary Clinton for President. Daou publishes the Daou Report.

The Glaringly Simple Formula for Rightwing Dominance of our National Debate

There is a simple formula for rightwing dominance of our national debate, even when Democrats are in charge: move the conversation as extreme right as possible, then compromise toward the far right. It's negotiation 101.

And it's completely lost on Democrats.

It's what John Boehner knows that Obama and Democrats can't seem to get a clue about:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) will call Tuesday for the mass firing of the Obama administration's economic team, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House adviser Larry Summers, arguing that November's midterm elections are shaping up as a referendum on sustained unemployment across the nation and saying the "writing is on the wall."

In one fell swoop, this is the starting point of a conversation. For Democrats it would be an end point -- if they ever reached it.

It's no accident that in 21st century America, torture has been mainstreamed, climate denial has taken firm hold, book burning, racial dog whistles and brazen religious intolerance are part of our discourse and par for the course. This is how the right plays the game, using Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Drudge, blogs, chain emails, talk radio, etc. to shamelessly and defiantly drag the conversation as far right as possible.

Forget the thousand explanations pundits have offered for the administration's beef with the left; this is the single biggest reason the left is furious with Obama: that one by one, he has willingly and unnecessarily bargained away the progressive positions that would move the national debate back to the center. After all, the counterweight to the right is not the mushy middle, it's the principled left. Did progressive bloggers really think Obama was going to establish a single payer health care system, bring all Bush warmongers to justice, stop the looting of the poor by the ultra-rich, revitalize the environmental movement, undo Bush-Cheney's executive power excesses, bring about true social justice and stop needless wars? No. They're far more jaded and pragmatic than anyone admits. But at least make those the debate points rather than ditch them unilaterally.

As I've argued, it matters not one iota if Obama is a progressive at heart. What matters is that Democrats run away from the left like it's the plague while Republican run to the right like it's nirvana. The net effect is that the media end up reporting far right positions as though they were mainstream and reporting liberal positions as thought they were heinous aberrations. And you wonder why America is veering off the rails?

-- Peter Daou

This is a friendly public service announcement for young (between 25 and 32 years), policy-minded folks interested in national security affairs. The Center for a New American Security is holding its second annual competition for fellows in its Next General National Security Leaders Program.

John Nagl, one of General David Petraeus' star proteges, and former Senate Foreign Relations Committee (under Jesse Helms) and National Security Council (under G.W. Bush) senior staff member Steve Biegun head up the program -- which despite their collective lack of realist DNA -- is nonetheless an outstanding opportunity for folks.

I highly recommend this fellowship, which will expose the fellowship awardees to a wide swath of thinking on national security strategy -- even my own. Big plus if you subscribe to any notion of cost/benefit calculations in thinking through America's strategic choices. (. . .joking!)

Here is the CNAS announcement:

CNAS Announces Second Annual Next Generation National Security Leaders Program

Washington, D.C., August 23, 2010 - As part of its mission to prepare and foster the next generation of national security and defense leaders, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is pleased to announce the launch of its second annual Next Generation National Security Leaders Program.

Applications for this year's program must be submitted by Friday, September 3, 2010. See more information about the application process below.

For the second successive year, CNAS will gather potential future national security leaders to participate in a series of frank and open discussions on immediate and long-term national security and foreign policy challenges. The Next Generation National Security Leaders Program will consist of a bipartisan group of emerging analysts and practitioners who will participate in a series of events aimed at developing a shared understanding of the nation's security interests and international priorities.

During the year-long program, Next Generation Leaders will engage with influential figures in the national security field in a series of candid dinner discussions on several of the most pressing issues the United States faces, as well as contribute to collaborative writing projects with their fellow Leaders. Next Generation Leaders will also have the opportunity to participate in variety of CNAS-hosted events.

The 2010-2011 program will again be led by CNAS President John Nagl and Steve Biegun, corporate officer and vice president of international governmental affairs for Ford Motor Company, former senior advisor to Senator John McCain, and CNAS advisory board member.

Applications for the program are being accepted now through September 3, 2010. Click here for more information.

-- Steve Clemons

During the battle over John Bolton's US Senate confirmation to serve as US Ambassador to the United Nations which resulted in "no vote" and thus his early resignation from a recess-appointed position, I received a lot of sensitive information from incumbent and former staff members of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which at best, has a checkered reputation as a defender of global religious rights and seems frequently to be more focused on rolling back Islam. The material dealt with the treatment of employed Muslims and alleged discrimination.

Both because the material was incomplete and because those giving me the information were fearful of the repercussions for current employees and put constraints on the use of the material that would have made it more hearsay than definitive, I didn't use it.

But I've been skeptical of the Commission since.

Mother Jones' Nick Baumann and David Corn have more in an important piece profiling the views of some of the Commission Members and their hostility to the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

They write:

President Barack Obama has declared that a group of moderate Muslims have the right to build a community center in lower Manhattan, two blocks from the site once occupied by the World Trade Center towers. Yet representatives of a wholly US government-funded outfit have joined the vociferous opposition to the Park51 or Cordoba House project that critics have dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque." A leader of this group--which receives $4.3 million a year from the government--has even proclaimed that the community center could be a front for Islamic terrorism. That's not all: the same agency, the US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCRIF), has been the subject of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint for allegedly discriminating against Muslim employees.

The commission was created by Congress in 1998 to monitor religious freedom around the world and scold countries that aren't meeting religious freedom obligations outlined by international human rights treaties. Its sole source of funding is the US government; it is empowered to make recommendations to the president about policy decisions related to issues of religious freedom. Recently, the commission has decried Vietnam for its systemic violation of religious freedom and slammed China for its repression of Uighur Muslims. But leading conservative members of the commission have supported the opposition to the Cordoba House, essentially joining those who want to deny New York Muslims the freedom to build their religious and cultural center at this particular site.

In a recent piece for National Review Online, Nina Shea, one of USCIRF's nine commissioners (who are selected by the president and congressional leaders), wrote that instead of "a cultural center for all New Yorkers," the "mosque" project could be "a potential tool for Islamists"--suggesting it would be a hotbed of jihadism that, among other things, spreads the literature and ideas of Islamic extremism. She compared the leaders of the Cordoba House project to convicted terrorist Omar Abdel Rahman (the "blind Sheikh") and accused Fort Hood and Christmas Day bombing coordinator Anwar al-Awlaki. (Shea's piece, as of Monday, was no longer showing up on the NRO site.)

When National Review reconsiders, well, it's clear lines were perceived to be crossed.

The term "McCarthyism" has been overused, but this mosque controversy seems to me to be contributing to a new variant of McCarthyism in which those defending the rights of religious freedom, moderation and tolerance in the US -- rights embedded in the founding documents of the country -- are labeled as appeasers or as flacks of Islamic interests, or weak, or anti-Semites; the list of labels is extensive.

Islam is going to be here for a long time -- and it's important for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and secularists like me to figure out a way to embrace Muslims and their faith just as other faiths are embraced in this society.

But on the subject of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, it has not done its job in a long time.

Either Congress needs to review its roster of Commissioners and, ironically, purge the religiously intolerant.

Or it is time for both houses of Congress to zero this account.

-- Steve Clemons

The big news today is of course the announcement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been invited to Washington at the beginning of September to engage in the first direct talks between the two sides in two years.

The stakes are high on a regional and international level, but Clinton's announcement left many things up in the air, by refusing to endorse the pre-1967 boundary as the starting point for negotiations on borders, and leaving so-called "final status" issues, like the fate of Jerusalem, land swaps, and settlements, to be brought up when Netanyahu and Abbas decide to do so.

Still, the onus is on the United States to bring the two sides together, as President Obama will have to deal with the backlash if talks fail. As Daniel Levy, the co-director of the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force said today:

[Clinton's] announcement covered very familiar ground, following a playbook that has been tried many times and found wanting. Instead of terms of reference to guide negotiations we received today a guest list for a September 1 White House dinner - even the chaperons for that dinner have a decidedly retro ring to them - Jordanian King Abdullah and Egyptian President Mubarak. Today's announcement could have been an opportunity to introduce some clarity to proceedings and to jumpstart real decision-making (by for instance, defining border talks as being based on '67 lines with one-to-one land swaps). Rather we were served ambiguity, and not it seems of the constructive variety...

...What today's announcement has done is to raise expectations given the one-year deadline placed on the resumed talks. Yes, deadlines have been missed before, but this time the US national interest in resolving the conflict has been placed front and center and there is now broad consensus that the two-state option is passing its sell-by date. It was the Obama administration that insisted on the direct talks format as the way forward, and the ball will now be in their court to produce results.

TWN Publisher Steve Clemons will writing quite a bit about the upcoming talks as August rolls on, and he will be on Al Jazeera English at 7:00 pm tonight to discuss the prospects for Middle East peace and more.

-- Andrew Lebovich

Nicholas Maliska is a research intern with the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative.

Rumors that the Obama Administration is preparing to announce measures that will ease travel restrictions to Cuba have been circulating for several weeks, but the news now seems to be official with multiple knowledgeable sources indicating that the announcement will come within the next week or two.

The scope of the changes is still unknown and could range from a limited loosening of restrictions on specific licenses back to where it was during the Clinton years to permitting general licenses in all twelve categories of travel, which would facilitate the greatest amount of non-tourist visits to Cuba. The changes will certainly be the biggest development in U.S. policy towards Cuba since President Obama announced the easing of restrictions on Cuban American travel and remittances to the island in April 2009 and will send a long overdue signal that the Obama Administration takes Cuba policy seriously.

In the context of U.S.-Cuban relations more broadly, some analysts have been framing this development in the context of a tit-for-tat diplomatic maneuvering with the Cuban government. Earlier this summer after negotiations with the Catholic Church in Cuba, Raul Castro announced that 52 political prisoners would be released (26 of which have been freed and sent to Spain thus far). The easing of travel restrictions, they say, is Washington's response to the release of the political prisoners.

However, these changes have likely been in the works for some time as Julia Sweig, director of the Latin America program at the Council on Foreign Relations indicated in a recent Washington Post article: "It's a little easier to do it, given the political prisoners' release. But I think they were going to do it anyway."

Those looking at the Obama Administration's announcement as a move in a tit-for-tat framework will expect another gesture from the Cuban government in turn (such as the release of Alan Gross, the USAID contractor imprisoned since last December) before the U.S. makes any further changes. Yet, prompt actions and reform have not been characteristic of the Castros, who have already outlasted ten American Presidents.

The U.S. should not wait on the Cuban government to make further changes that benefit the Cuban people and are in our national interest. The U.S. should continue to readjust its policies to utilize our best asset, the American people, to engage with the Cubans and help in turn to develop a more open Cuban society.

-- Nicholas Maliska

(President George W. Bush speaking at the 50th anniversary re-dedication of the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C.)

Slate's Dave Weigel has a nice clip quoting former Bush administration Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and current Director of the George W. Bush Institute James K. Glassman.

Weigel writes:

[James K.} Glassman, who served as undersecretary for public diplomacy under George W. Bush, also believes that the controversy over the planned Islamic community center will hurt the U.S. image among Muslims abroad.

And he believes that Obama's task, like his predecessor's, is to replace the conspiratorial narrative about a United States as an enemy of Islam with one in which a tolerant, freedom-loving country does right by Muslims.

Reading between the lines with Glassman as a proxy for the former President of the United States -- the man who despite launching wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, who regularly met with and coordinated policies with Arab and Muslim leaders, and who did not allow the pugnacious, bomb-them-now wing of his White House prevail in the latter years of his presidency -- would have offered no less support for the Cordoba Mosque near Ground Zero than New York Michael Bloomberg or President Obama at the White House Iftar dinner.

In my view, James Glassman is right on target, and I applaud his willingness to speak out on this from his perch at George W. Bush Central.

And now, speaking out as Arab American and Muslim American Republicans, a group of Washington notables has sent an open letter to their colleagues and friends in the Republican Party:

Dear Republican Colleague:

We are writing to you today as loyal Americans who are active members of the Republican Party. We also happen to be proud of our Arab American and Muslim American contributions to the Republican Party.

We are deeply concerned by the rhetoric of some leading members of our party surrounding the construction of the Muslim Community Center in downtown Manhattan. These comments are not only constitutionally unsound, they are also alienating millions of Arab American and Muslim American voters who believe, as we do, in the principles of our party - individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law.

As you know, our party has had a long history of inclusion - beginning with our great President Abraham Lincoln, whose leadership on the slavery issue was monumental, and continuing through President George W. Bush whose public statements and actions on the differentiation between Islam and the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 were critically important. We are particularly proud to note that President Bush appointed more Arab Americans and Muslim Americans to his administration than any other president in U.S. history.

That being said, it perplexes us as to why some vocal members of our party have chosen to oppose the construction of a cultural and religious center on private grounds. Not only does the First Amendment to our Constitution protect the right of these private citizens to worship freely, it also prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Our party and the leaders in our party should not be engaged in judgment issues of the location of a cultural center and a house of worship in direct contravention of the First Amendment.

While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: "Just because they have the right to do so - does not make it the right thing to do" they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 - by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now - especially at a time when it is greatly needed.

While we share the desire of all in our party to be successful in the November elections, we cannot support victory at the expense of the U.S. Constitution or the Arab and Muslim community in America. As President Lincoln so eloquently stated in his famous speech: "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

As proud and patriotic Americans, we are grateful for all the rights our U.S. citizenship allows us, and we will always do our best to not only protect our rights but the rights of all others as well. May God Bless our nation, our freedoms, and our party.

David Ramadan
Vice Chair, Ethnic Coalitions, Republican Party of Virginia

Sherine El-Abd
President, New Jersey Federation of Republican Women

Randa Fahmy Hudome
Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy, Bush Administration

George Salem
Solicitor of Labor, Reagan Administration

Suhail Khan
Chairman, Conservative Inclusion Coalition

Samah A Norquist
Senior Advisor to Arab and Muslim Outreach, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Bush Administration

My late professor, mentor, and friend, Hans Baerwald, taught me that one never really knows the "norms" of a political system unless that system is observed under stress.

Today, we are seeing behaviors emerge in American political life that violate the basic social contract of what this country is about and seeing too much of a tilt towards the possibility of mob rule.

When George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Michael Bloomberg are all essentially on the same side of an issue and the mob out there is trying to lynch American values -- it's time for us to wake up and defend what is right in this country and speak out against what is wrong.

I hope this minority group of Republicans -- including James Glassman as well as the Arab American Republicans and Muslim American Republicans listed above -- eventually work back to hijack their party from those doing such harm to it today.

And Senator Harry Reid would be wise to also read this letter -- as he no doubt will soon be hearing from Arab and Muslim Americans in his own constituency.

-- Steve Clemons

This morning I received an email from former Israel Labor Party Deputy Leader and former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. It started "To my Muslim friends - Ramadan Karim".

Sneh maintains a friends mailing list for his thoughts and articles, and I'm honored to be included -- and appreciate very much that in a time that the United States is twisting itself in moral knots over the false debate about a mosque near the World Trade Center site in New York that Sneh -- a leading Jewish Israeli statesman -- is reaching out to his Muslim friends.

He sets a better example of intellectual and cultural openness than many US political leaders (with a blind spot or two).

Although some of Sneh's views are divergent from my own, particularly on Iran -- which he thinks is an irrational nation to its core bent on the annihilation of Israel, I always read him and take him seriously. He was one of those whose comments recently appeared in Jeffrey Goldberg's important Atlantic Monthly article "The Point of No Return." (My response to Goldberg appears here.)

But it is not about Iran that Sneh writes today; it is about "Israel and Jordan." (unfortunately the link to the article is not yet up on the Haaretz website. I will post as soon as available.)

After remarking about how Israeli concerns about a dangerous "Eastern Front" buffering Jordan and Israel had been transformed to one of quite and stability, Sneh writes:

In the sixteen years that have passed since that ceremony in the Arava valley, Jordan has carefully ensured that its border with Israel remains quiet and safe. The efforts of the Jordanian army and Jordanian intelligence have prevented terrorist penetrations from the eastern side of the border. The effort is impressive and so are its results. We have never publicly expressed our thanks to the Kingdom of Jordan; I hope that by other channels we did so.

Of late, official spokesmen are again mentioning the "Eastern Front". It's not as though we are short of security worries; on the other hand, this is not an entirely groundless concern. The military vacuum that will be formed after the exit of most of the US forces from Iraq, and the growing Iranian hold and influence on Iraq, give a certain justification for these fears, though the threat is neither tangible nor immediate.

Yet those who are truly worried--and the statements I have mentioned come from sources inside the government--have work to do. The thing most needed now, even without summoning up the "Eastern Front" from our strategic memories, is to strengthen Jordan, militarily and politically.

This is enlightened thinking from a former senior Israeli politician. Sneh calls for Israel to remove its opposition to Jordan developing its uranium resources for civilian use and also suggests that Israel support Jordan's efforts to refurbish an oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa, moving Iraqi oil through Jordan to the Mediterranean. In what was news to me, the US is also allegedly helping to finance and construct a security wall between Jordan and Syria -- which Sneh thinks should be extended to the border between Jordan and Iraq.

And Sneh concludes:

And finally a point of morality. It would be best if for once we did not act ungratefully toward one of our few allies in the Middle East.

I want to commend Ephraim Sneh for his tone -- and to tell those who have given up thinking and listening in the US for bluster and screaming -- that there is something important when an Israeli leader can reach out and Americans, particularly Republican leaders at the moment -- but I'll add Senator Harry Reid to the mix -- can't manage a similarly enlightened posture.

The one missing hole in Sneh's article is that while he recognizes that Israel can do a lot to change the temperature in Jordan, the biggest help would come in doing more to resolve the Israel-Palestine standoff and to pull the plug on the ongoing expansion, military protection, and tax subsidization of illegal settlements in occupied territories.

I know that Sneh is actually a strong proponent of a two state outcome resulting in a secure Israel and viable, contiguous Palestinian state. But this is not something to leave out of the equation when it comes to helping Jordan achieve greater security and normalcy.

Until the toxic Palestinian situation is resolved, Jordan and Israel may be better than half-way friends but can't ever be full friends.

-- Steve Clemons

Slate's Dave Weigel has posted on a very interesting interview that he did with Republican icon and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist.

In an argument that I had not seen anywhere, Norquist argues that Republicans fought hard to win enhanced legal rights for faith-based organizations when engaged in disputes with local and regional government authorities. And now, he argues, they are undermining one of their most notable accomplishments.

Weigel writes:

In an interview just now, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform made a point about the "ground zero mosque" controversy that I hadn't heard before. One reason that opponents are going to have trouble legally preventing Park51 from building its Muslim cultural center is that, in 2000, a Republican Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

It's not that this was a partisan effort. It passed by voice vote in the House and Senate, and was helped through the higher body by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). The goal of the legislation, supported by a coalition of religious groups, was to respond to the Supreme Court's ruling in Employment Division Department of Human Resources v. Smith and give churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship more power in disputes with local and municipal authorities.

"This was one of the great victories of the religious right," said Norquist. "And now some people want to scrap it to make this point?"

In another good posting by Weigel at Slate, Norquist continues:

"Republicans will lose Jewish votes by focusing on a mosque in New York."

"You're not just going to lose Muslim votes," said Norquist, who has long argued that Republicans should win those voters. "You're going to lose Jewish votes, Indian votes, Buddhist votes. Every member of a minority group looks at a situation like this and says, oh, the people hitting this minority will eventually start hitting me."

I wonder if anyone shared Weigel's interview with Harry Reid before he began pointing the wrong direction.

-- Steve Clemons

Al-Khan Al-Ahmar school was built using recycled car tires.

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, Executive Director of The Palestine Note, the website where this post originally appeared.

Can you imagine defending your land and resisting occupation with windmills, solar panels, and recycled car tires? If you live in Palestine, this is not an eco-Utopian dream - it is the reality of a few West Bank communities squeezed by settlements and occupation.

The Israeli occupation uses force and unjust policies to intimidate and drive out Palestinians from their land. The land is then taken and annexed to nearby Israeli illegal settlements or outposts. To drive out the local Palestinian populations in the West Bank, the occupation denies Palestinians water and electricity, and destroys any effort to build schools, clinics or homes.

So, if you can't use traditional materials to build and are denied electricity and water, which nearby illegal Israeli settlers use day and night, what do you do? You do as the Palestinians do - go green and eco-friendly. You get your electricity from windmills and solar panels, you build your schools from recycled car tires, and you refuse to give up your land.

"This school was built from wood and concrete and destroyed twice by the Israeli occupation. It is now built from car tires and gets its electricity from solar panels on the roof," Dr. Sabri Saidam, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' technology adviser said describing Al-Khan Al-Ahmar primary mixed school.

The primary school serves 54 boy and girls up to the 4th grade in the Al-Khan Al-Ahmar area outside Jerusalem. Once the students reach 4th grade, they have to go to Jericho for the rest of their schooling. Parents who can't afford to pay for their children to commute to Jericho prefer their kids repeat the 4th grade several times rather than go to Jericho for the 5th grade.
Israel aggressively denies this community and many others permission to build houses, schools, or any structure that could help them stay on the land. "My father was arrested, and his bulldozer was confiscated by the Israelis, and we were fined five thousand dollars for trying to level the ground because we want to build a school for our kids," Al-Khan Al-Ahmar resident Mohamad Jahaleen told us.

What is encouraging is that the Palestinian government is paying very close attention to these communities. Dr. Sabri Saidam, accompanied by Palestine Note, Minister of Local Governance Dr. Khaled Alqawasmi, and adviser to the prime minister Dr. Jihad Najjar visited several endangered communities in the West Bank and promised to assist them with solar panels and windmills to help them stay on their land.

I believe it is important to make this effort successful on a larger scale throughout Palestine by creating a "green fund." Such a fund help not only endangered communities but all Palestinians throughout the territories benefit from green technologies.

There are already green businesses in Palestine that could serve as the foundation for such an initiative - MENA Geothermal is one such example. According to experts in green technology in Palestine, a fund of less than 10 million dollars would go a long way toward encouraging Palestinians to lower their energy consumption and dependence on Israel. So the question remains, where is Palestine's green fund?

-- Fadi Elsalameen

My home in Cuba.

This is a guest post by Anya Landau French, who directs the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative. This post originally appeared at The Havana Note.

Remember this gem from then-Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fisk in 2004?

"An individual can decide when they want to travel once every three years and the decision is up to them . . . So if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out when they want to travel."

Naturally, we all applauded a year ago when President Obama finally implemented new rules that meant that U.S. policy would help reunite, instead of further divide, thousands of Cuban families, whether for beach vacations or deathbed visits.

But there was still, of course, a catch. If you have loved ones on the island but you aren't related by blood or by marriage, you're out of luck. That's the position I find myself in today. For years, I've traveled to Cuba to conduct research and to help translate the Cuban reality, warts and all, back to the U.S., where so few of us have the opportunity to get to know the largest island in the Caribbean, or the wonderful people who live there. And in that time, I've made friends so close they have essentially become family to me and I to them. And so it was with deep sadness that I learned this weekend that one of them has passed away.

I find myself not only sad, but angry. Angry that a man who was like a father to me never got the chance to actually meet my father, or my husband (whom he was so happy to learn of when we found each other), or my adorable nephews back in the U.S., whose photos we all pored over together, year after year, when my work would bring me back again to the island. I'm angry, too, that my government allows me travel to to the island for work I plan months in advance, but when it most counts, I'm powerless to be with my loved ones right now during this difficult time.

Never more than now have I personally felt the damage our travel ban can do. In spite of the foibles of our two governments, in spite of all of the water under the bridge between our two nations, there must be so many people just like me, who first traveled to Cuba as part of an exchange and ended up making lasting bonds with the warm and open people we encountered there.

I often wonder if Dan Fisk regretted those infamously callous words of his, in justifying the separation of Cuban families across the straits of Florida. That policy is gone, but there's much more the Obama Administration and Congress could do to bring our two peoples closer. To say that the time has come to end the inhumanity would be an understatement. That time came years ago. One can only hope that U.S. policymakers are finally as ashamed of our idiotic, hurtful policy as I feel today.

-- Anya Landau French