I was honored last night to be invited to a small showing of the movie Budrus, a documentary about one town in the West Bank that successfully and non-violently resisted Israeli efforts in 2003 to build the separation barrier in a way that would have encircled the town, cutting the residents off from their land and uprooting precious olive trees.

I went to the screening knowing that I would have to write about it, and when thinking about it after seeing the movie I immediately became uneasy. I thought about broad issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the constant arguing, and the seemingly inescapable cycle of rhetoric and violence, provocation and response, and no longer wanted to write this review.

When I told a friend at the screening about my dread of writing about the movie because I didn't want to write about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, his response was, "well then don't write about the conflict. Write about the land."

And that is the heart of the movie, the land. Budrus mostly follows one man, Ayed Arrar, a Palestinian nationalist and activist who organized the protests over 10-months that lead to Israel's eventual decision to build the wall close to the 1967 border, allowing the town of Budrus to keep 95% of its land. The movie follows others through filmed scenes and extensive interviews, including with Arrar's wife and daughter, a Hamas activist, an Israeli Army spokesman, an Israeli border patrol officer, and Israeli activists who protested with the residents of Budrus.

The movie has a clear purpose, to show the injustice of Israeli construction that would have cut off the town from its fields and livelihood, and even cut the town's cemetery in half. But regardless of the justifications or arguments against the security barrier, the thing that struck me most about the movie was that there seems to have been simply no reason for the decision to draw the fence line around Budrus - instead of simply hewing to or close to the green line, the army chose to pursue a more complicated route, one that involved turning the area around a town into a closed military zone, deploying border police day after day to push back protesters, all for no gain. After all, no Israelis were set to move into the land, no one would make use of Budrus' olive groves, they were simply upended, to be replaced with concrete and concertina wire.

And so I have to ask, what makes more sense for Israel? Two states with defensible borders, or constant haggling over land, incremental change, and soldiers permanently deployed in town after town, forced to fight back a hostile majority for little foreseeable gain.

No matter how you feel about Israelis or Palestinians, Budrus is a beautiful piece of work that tells a stirring story and will make you look at this issue with fresh eyes. In Washington you can see Budrus at the Silverdocs film festival June 24 and 26, for other cities check the film's website for information.

-- Andrew Lebovich

I just received the press announcement from Bruce Stokes and Andrew Kohut at the Pew Research Center on the just released Pew Global Attitudes Survey.

Fascinating stuff -- and disturbing.

49% of Nigerians have a "favorable" view of al Qaeda, and a majority of Pakistanis "favor" an Iran nuclear weapons program.

The report also shows that President Obama is more favorable abroad than in the United States.

From the release:

The new survey by the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, conducted among more than 24,000 people in 22 nations April 7 to May 8, provides an in-depth look at attitudes toward major powers and world leaders; the global economic situation from free trade to financial regulation; Islamic extremism; and international problems such as climate change. Key findings include:

· America's Image - U.S. favorability has improved markedly in Russia, China and Japan. It has fallen in India, but remains high - dipping from 76% in 2009 to 66% in 2010. America's image is highly positive in South Korea (79% favorable), Poland (74%) and Brazil (62%).

· The Arizona Effect: U.S. favorability in Mexico has tumbled in the wake of Arizona's new immigration law - from 62% in polling conducted before the law's enactment to 44% afterward.

· European Leaders: German Chancellor Angela Merkel is well regarded in Britain and Spain, and gets higher ratings for her handling of international affairs in France than in Germany itself. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, similarly, gets better ratings in Germany than in France, but the French leader is less well-regarded in Britain and Spain. Confidence about Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is on the rise, with ratings up in all five EU member nations surveyed.

· China on the Rise: A growing portion of global publics sees China, rather than the U.S, as the world's leading economic power. China itself is the most self-satisfied nation in the survey. Roughly nine-in-ten Chinese are happy with the direction of the country (87%), its economic conditions (91%), and optimistic about its economic future (87%).

· Islamic Extremism: There is no predominantly Muslim nation polled in which a majority of Muslims endorse suicide bombing, al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. But in Nigeria, a significant minority of Muslims express extremist views -- 49% express a favorable view of al Qaeda.

· Isolationism: Americans are no more isolationist than Europeans. When asked whether their country should deal with its own problems and let others take care of themselves, nearly half of Americans (46%), Germans (44%) and British (49%) agree. The French are the most isolationist, with 65% opposing helping other nations cope with their challenges.

· Environment: Substantial majorities in most countries see global climate change as a serious problem, but global opinion is more divided when it comes to paying increased prices to combat climate change. Willingness to pay higher prices is nearly universal in China and majorities express support in India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey and Germany. Views about paying higher prices are mixed in Spain, Britain and Brazil, while majorities express opposition in the U.S., France, Russia and many less affluent nations surveyed.

· Iran and Nuclear Weapons: Majorities in nearly every country surveyed, including predominantly Muslim nations, express opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran. A notable exception is Pakistan, the only nation surveyed in which a majority (58%) favor Iran's nuclear weapons program. Among global publics who oppose a nuclear-armed Iran, substantial support exists for applying tougher international economic sanctions against Iran. Less widespread, but still significant, support exists for considering the use of military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

-- Steve Clemons

One of my couple of north stars in my life is, in part, a pup named "Oakley the Amazing Weimaraner."

Two days from tonight on June 18th, Oakley will be eight years old.

Tonight, he is recovering from surgery -- and hopefully can pull through. Life today hit him hard-- which is a lot like what the fictional dog in "Marley and Me" had.

He's fighting for his life. I'm sure he will be OK. He will. My friends and I need to believe and say that.

But I'm also very frightened for him. He is "our" dog, "our" child, and some very close family and friends and have been on the frailest of edges all day, not for ourselve, but for Oakley.

I'm sure many of you have amazing and wonderful pets who help fulfill who and what you are. Oakley has been that for me, and us.

Say a prayer for him if you feel so inclined. This amazing, wonderful pup needs all of the positive energy he can get tonight.

So many of the readers of TWN have written to me about Oakley -- and his wonderful siblings, Annie and Buddy, that I hope you will embrace them in your thoughts.

Hopefully he will be OK. Please.

-- Steve Clemons

Update: Oakley's "stomach turned" which is a terrible thing for dogs. Through herculean work by the vet, a complicated surgery, and Oak's on passionate desire to keep chasing rabbits, squirrels and deer, he is still with us. He's perking up, but still not out of the woods. But that is better than I thought things would be as of yesterday afternoon. Thanks to everyone for your thoughtful notes.

How many of you knew that Robert Guest writes (but soon won't as he is sadly returning to mother England) Lexington's Notebook for the Economist? And before him, Adrian Wooldridge?

Probably not many of you. These talented, wonderfully snarky political junkies make these iconic columns work, but we don't often know anything other than the symbolic byline.

Now, a friend of mine with whom I once got incredibly drunk in Jerusalem -- apologies to all on whatever lines you may be -- has re-launched on the web the "Johnson" page of the Economist.

Named after essayist and person of letters, Samuel Johnson, the original "Johnson page" was about language.

As its new advocate reports about Johnson, the blog:

In its 21st-century incarnation, Johnson will be about language spoken and written, English and not, good, bad, weird and ugly.

The postings so far already feature the Hebrew commandments, the German insult for "wet behind the ears", half-baked attempts to set up an English Academy, Barack Obama's use of "ass", why the New York Times won't let its correspondents use the verb "tweet", and even our belated realization that our own blog name recalls, in some puerile minds, the American slang for the male member.

Johnson, did you know that while the Washington Post will allow its writers to use the word "Skype" as a noun or a verb, the Post will not allow any of its staff to actually install Skype on firm computers?

Should be fun. The writer behind the scenes on this one is Lane Greene.

Last time I'll tell you though.

-- Steve Clemons

Above, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage lays out his views about the Futenma US Marine Air Corps Station fiasco at a CSIS Pacific Forum conference earlier this year.

Armitage accepts blame on behalf of the elites who basically run US-Japan relations for "not explaining" deterrence well enough to Japanese citizens to help them understand how important Futenma is. But his comments are essentially a defensive ongoing articulation -- offered on 19 January 2010 -- of why Futenma was important to the U.S.

Armitage, who then thought that the Democratic Party of Japan leadership would not yield to the US, called for a "Plan B" regarding Futenma.

Well, Hatoyama did cave -- and then resigned.

But my hunch is that the drama over Okinawa and Futenma is not over.

So, first question to Rich Armitage at the CNAS-sponsored conference on US-Japan security relations is what was the "Plan B" that he and his team developed after calling for it last January?

-- Steve Clemons

George Soros said this week in Vienna, "We have just entered Act Two of the drama... when the financial markets started losing confidence in the credibility of sovereign debt."

Soros once told a meeting organized at the New America Foundation in Washington, DC that there was a test of sorts underway challenging his own economic views and principles.

Soros said that what had burst in September 2008 was a "super bubble" -- not just an ordinary asset bubble. This one had different characteristics and thus had to be approached in a different way, according to the billionaire investor.

He told me during discussion that White House National Economic Adviser Lawrence Summers was using normal tools as if the U.S. and global economies had experienced a sizeable, but normal, recession. Soros said, "If I am right, their approach will fail."

And given jittery markets worried about sovereign debt defaults and new asset bubbles as well as credit-deleveraging consumers and other potential economic shocks, Soros looks more "right" than the Obama team.

As reported by CNBC's Barbara Stcherbatcheff, Soros also stated:

We find ourselves in a situation eerily reminiscent of the 1930s. Keynes has taught us budget deficits are essential for counter-cyclical policies, yet many governments have to reduce them under pressure from financial markets. This is liable to push the global economy into a double-dip.

-- Steve Clemons

(Congressman Ike Skelton pays his respects at Iwo Jima's Mount Suribachi Memorial, 18 February 2009.)

Maybe in this comparison I'm being way too unkind to Helen Thomas whose racially charged comments that Israel's Israelis should go back to Germany, Poland and the United States were indefensible -- but House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton's bigotry as the decade younger, much more incumbent Democratic Party lawmaker in the House of Representatives deserve the spotlight today.

I'm sure that there is a great deal of distinguished leadership in Ike Skelton's record of political accomplishments, but that doesn't excuse the crassness of his latest comments about gays serving honorably and open in the U.S. military. They are there now Congressman -- and you are asking them, indeed compelling them to lie.

While Skelton has shown great respect to the military services as in the photo above, paying tribute to those who fell at Iwo Jima, I would only add that a quick read of Gore Vidal's Palimpsest: A Memoir will give Skelton a glimpse into the personal, searing pain of loss of a gay soldier dying there, one of probably many -- in this case, Vidal's first love.

As reported by The Cable's Josh Rogin, Skelton said about opposing the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell:

"What do mommas and daddies say to a seven-year-old child about this issue? I don't know," Skelton said. "I think it would be a family issue that would concern me the most ... What they might see in their discussions among the kids."

Read Rogin's entire piece, but Skelton seems to be leaving the door ajar in case Obama wants to possibly trade F-35 figher engine development for Sklelton giving Don't Ask Don't Tell a pass.

That's something that the kids -- and their parents -- ought to be a lot more disgusted by.

One would hope that politicians representing the American South might find it possible -- eventually -- to get ahead on some civil rights issue. Given the unacceptable, behavior this week of Representative Bob Etheridge, another Democratic Party opponent of Don't Ask Don't Repeal, in which Etheridge accosts a student on the street, I don't have much hope of that.

Democrats need to realize that they have lurking in their own party disturbing tendencies that need to be rebuffed and checked -- not respected.

-- Steve Clemons

(Photo Credit: The U.S. Army's Photostream)

Blake Hounshell has a must-read piece in Foreign Policy that raises some serious questions about the timing and accuracy of today's article by James Risen in the New York Times, which claims that the United States has discovered $1 trillion worth of precious metals in Afghanistan.

From his piece:

Wow! Talk about a game changer. The story goes on to outline Afghanistan's apparently vast underground resources, which include large copper and iron reserves as well as hitherto undiscovered reserves lithium and other rare minerals.

Read a little more carefully, though, and you realize that there's less to this scoop than meets the eye. For one thing, the findings on which the story was based are online and have been since 2007, courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. More information is available on the Afghan mining ministry's website, including a report by the British Geological Survey (and there's more here). You can also take a look at the USGS's documentation of the airborne part of the survey here, including the full set of aerial photographs.

Nowhere have I found that $1 trillion figure mentioned, which Risen suggests was generated by a Pentagon task force seeking to help the Afghan government develop its resources (looking at the chart accompanying the article, though, it appears to be a straightforward tabulation of the total reserve figures for each mineral times current the current market price). According to Risen, that task force has begun prepping the mining ministry to start soliciting bids for mineral rights in the fall.

Don't get me wrong. This could be a great thing for Afghanistan, which certainly deserves a lucky break after the hell it's been through over the last three decades.

But I'm (a) skeptical of that $1 trillion figure; (b) skeptical of the timing of this story, given the bad news cycle, and (c) skeptical that Afghanistan can really figure out a way to develop these resources in a useful way. It's also worth noting, as Risen does, that it will take years to get any of this stuff out of the ground, not to mention enormous capital investment.

In light of Hounshell's analysis, this follow-up story published in the Times this afternoon suggests that the U.S. government estimate may have the unintended effect of dramatically raising expectations in Afghanistan.

-- Ben Katcher

There are some very high powered US-Japan events taking place this next week in Washington, the most prominent of which is titled "150 Years of Amity and 50 Years of Alliance: Adopting an Enhanced Agenda for US-Japan Partnership" co-sponsored by the Center for New American Security, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation, and the Ocean Policy Research Foundation.

The assembled great and good of US-Japan relations will be spending a lot of time talking about Futenma US Marine Air Corps Station, which may have brought down Japan's Obamaesque Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Most of the voices will state that Hatoyama and his No. 2, Ichiro Ozawa, were flawed leaders and that the US and Japan have an opportunity to push reset with Naoto Kan and the new leadership of the Democratic Party of Japan.

I will be attending this conference as well -- but it's clear that the voices of a "status quo" US-Japan security relationship will get the most air time at this meeting.

People there will try to convince themselves that the U.S. did not push too hard for Futenma, did not help collapse a government, and that there is nothing too serious lurking beneath the political surface among regular Japanese about the Futenma incident. All will be well. All will be well.

After having spent some time in Tokyo and Okinawa this past week with journalist James Fallows and other leading political writers and thinkers in Japan, I don't believe that this confidence in the "status quo" is very wise. Many Japanese feel throttled by their American ally and feel that they have less and less choice in the security relationship -- constrained both by regional realities and an American overlord that doesn't understand how serious the strain of Futenma is on those Japanese who live near it -- and how serious a psychological issue Futenma remains to many Japanese on other islands who used to never give a moment's thought to the downside costs of the US-Japan security relationship and are now vividly aware given the palace intrigue of late in US-Japan relations.

The chart to the left depicts responses from all of Okinawa's mayors to the decision by Prime Minister Hatoyama on 23 May 2010 to relocate the primary functions of Futenma Air Station to Henoko. The Ryukyu Shimpo newspaper conducted the survey.

The first column indicates whether they accept or reject Hatoyama's stated plan. The second column asks whether they support or not if special conditions (unspecified) are met. The third column asks their views about the Hatoyama agreement with the U.S. in light of the American claim that Futenma helps provide an anchor of "deterrence" against North Korean aggression against Japan. Here is a larger version of the chart as a pdf.

There is overwhelming resistance on Okinawa to the bases there. "N+" means an emphatic no.

While Okinawa is only populated by 1.5 million people compared to Japan's entire population of 128 million, the level of empathy between Japanese residents on the main islands with those on Okinawa is very high.

I think that for the conference coming up in Washington, it's important that someone reference the views and frustration of Okinawans -- as they are part of the equation -- if not a part of the conference.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by Fadi Elsalameen, Executive Director of The Palestine Note. This piece originally appeared in Haaretz.

Israel's deadly attack on the "Freedom Flotilla" is proof of how Gaza continues to give Israel a taste of its own medicine. Intended to help solve Israel's problems with Hamas, the three-year-old siege of Gaza is developing into a siege of Israel, while it causes tremendous damage to the country's image around the world.

It should be clear to both Israel and the United States by now that the siege of Gaza has failed to accomplish its goals. Israel has failed to weaken Hamas, free Gilad Shalit or even put an end to arms smuggling.

To Israel's dismay, Hamas has succeeded in putting the spotlight on Gaza and directing world attention to the country's irrational policies toward not only the Palestinians, but also its own citizens.

From outside, the situation in Gaza may appear unsustainable for Hamas, but in fact the Islamic movement and its supporters are content to wait it out, calling Israel's bluff on the blockade. Indeed some cynics believe the current status quo is the best situation the Palestinians have enjoyed in a long time.

Late last month, at the fifth annual Al Jazeera forum in Doha, Osama Hamdan of Hamas and Ibrahim el-Moussaoui of Hezbollah applauded and shook hands with Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi, a widely circulated pan-Arabist newspaper, when he said: "I have good news: There is a Palestinian split. Things have never been better before. One camp is with the Americans, the Israelis and seculars, and the other camp is with Iran and Islamists. So, if one side loses, the other is bound to win, and this has been the best and safest situation for the Palestinians in a long time."

Atwan is known to favor the latter camp, and from his "good news," one can surmise that he is betting it is on its way to winning - clearly with tremendous help from the siege of Gaza.
What is even more unsettling from the point of view of peace-loving Palestinians is the fact that Israel's top politicians are aware of the implications of their damaging policies, even as they refuse to change them.

After meeting with Defense Minister Ehud Barak two months ago at his office in Tel Aviv, I walked away believing he understood that unless Israel changes its policies vis-a-vis my people, sooner or later the world will see those policies for what they are: apartheid. I believe the deadly attack on the flotilla, and the worldwide reactions that followed, are confirming Barak's fears - and sooner, rather than later. Israel's policies are no longer acceptable to the world community, and a change in policy is crucial.

The day after the Mavi Marmara incident, the head of the Mossad, Meir Dagan, bluntly told the Knesset: "Israel is becoming more of a liability and less of an asset for the United States."

The siege of Gaza has been going on for nearly three years, and strategically speaking, so far, Israel and its allies have been the biggest losers. The reaction from both the world's governments and its peoples to last week's attack shows not only the growing intolerance of Israel's policies, but an urgent need for Israel to rethink its long-term goals. Is it to exist as a democracy, and in peace with its neighbors, or will it continue to be the Palestinians' landlords?

If Israel's goal is to be a permanent landlord, then its future in the region is clear: More and more disgruntled Arab and Muslim youth will continue to join the lines of resistance against the apartheid in the territories and will continue to threaten the stability of the already weak neighboring Arab regimes. It is important to note that a large number of the people on the ships bound for Gaza were young Arabs from almost every country in the region. Today they may come on ships with peace activists, tomorrow they will storm the borders with jihadist movements. Then, it will not only be Israel facing them. Their own regimes and the United States will also have to face the consequences.

The fact that Turkey and Iran are sending aid to the Palestinians and criticizing Israel's policies will not only undermine the legitimacy of the nearby Arab regimes, which are already seen as helpless and ineffective, but will also lead their populations to draw inspiration from those two countries.

Egypt, realizing that its regime is weak and unstable, has already felt the heat and immediately opened the Rafah crossing with Gaza, which it intends to leave open.

So, is Israel ready to think seriously about long-term solutions, or does it intend to simply continue to impose a siege on itself?

Israel's leaders - with the help of the United States and the international community - must redefine their country's long-term vision and goals, and allow a Palestinian state to exist by its side. If Israel's goal is to live in a democracy and in peace with the Palestinians, then its path should be clear: Lift the siege on Gaza, encourage a unity government, and let the Palestinians build their own democracy.

-- Fadi Elsalameen

While conflicts in the Middle East tend to breed polemics and shallow analysis, reactions to Israel's deadly boarding of the Mavi Marmara may have set a record for polarization. While some offered balanced analysis and thorough coverage of the incident, it seems that a stark divide emerged swiftly, with some going as far as to suggest that the incident might break NATO, while others went to furious (and spurious) lengths to justify Israel's conduct.

Amidst the back and forth, it was refreshing this past Wednesday to see a beautifully-written, clear and thoughtful piece from the tirelessly prolific Tony Judt in the New York Times trying to put to rest some of the cliches so often used when talking about Israeli-Palestinian issues. Judt has run into controversy for his views on Israel before, but this article is admirable for its honesty, and is a must-read regardless of political orientation.

While the entire piece is valuable, I find his most compelling thoughts emerge while debunking his final cliche, "Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism." Judt writes:

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet Union and its satellites) when "anti-Zionism" was a convenient surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its "founding fathers" -- today it presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political extremism. One can acknowledge Israel's right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist (or "post-Zionist"). Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a "normal state" for themselves, today's insistence on Israel's right to act in "abnormal" ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed.

We should beware the excessive invocation of "anti-Semitism." A younger generation in the United States, not to mention worldwide, is growing skeptical. "If criticism of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is potentially 'anti-Semitic,' why take seriously other instances of the prejudice?" they ask, and "What if the Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad behavior?" The risks that Jews run by encouraging this conflation should not be dismissed...The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a "normal" state and sever the umbilical cord.

-- Andrew Lebovich

This post, which originally appeared at The Havana Note, is a guest note by Tom Garofalo, a consultant for the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative.

Seventy four of Cuba's best known advocates of democracy released a letter today to "the Honorable Members of the United States Congress" expressing their full and unequivocal support for the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645).

The signatories, including Guillermo Fariñas, Oscar Espinosa Chepe, Yoani Sánchez, Dagoberto Valdés and other leading advocates for democracy in Cuba, wrote:

We believe...that if the citizens of the United States, like those of the rest of the world, increased their presence on our streets, visited the families of the political prisoners and other members of the nascent Cuban civil society they could: first, serve as witnesses to the suffering of the Cuban people; second, be even more sensitized to the need for changes in Cuba; and third, offer solidarity and a bridge to facilitate the transition we Cubans so greatly desire.

The supportive presence of American citizens, their direct help, and the many opportunities for exchange, used effectively and in the desired direction, would not be an abandonment of Cuban civil society but rather a force to strengthen it. Similarly, to further facilitate the sale of agricultural products would help alleviate the food shortages we now suffer.

See below for the entire text of the letter including signers:

Letter from Members of Cuba's Civil Society to the U.S. Congress

June 9th, 2010 - Honorable Representatives:

We the members of Cuban civil society, who are signing this letter as individuals, have learned that you are currently considering the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act (H.R. 4645), to end travel restrictions on all Americans to Cuba and to remove obstacles to legal sales of United States agricultural commodities to Cuba.

We understand that this bill has the support of Republicans and Democrats in the Congress of the United States. We also know that for this bill to be considered by the full House of Representatives, it must first be passed through the House Committee on Agriculture.

We know that major non-governmental organizations support this bill, including, to name only a few: The United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Cuba Study Group and many other human rights organizations.

We share the opinion that the isolation of the people of Cuba benefits the most inflexible interests of its government, while any opening serves to inform and empower the Cuban people and helps to further strengthen our civil society.

We value the experience of all the western countries, including the United States, who favored opening and trade with all the countries of the former Eastern Europe. We are sure that isolation does not foster relationships of respect and support for people and groups around the world who are in favor of democratic changes in Cuba.

We would like to recall the memorable words of Pope John Paul II who, in his own life, had experienced a totalitarian and closed system: "Let Cuba open itself to the world and the world will open itself to Cuba."

Over time we have seen that the Cuban regime does not open itself fully to the world, nor to its own citizens, because what it fears most is an opening, of free trade and of free enterprise, and the direct flow of information and communication between peoples.

Those who oppose H.R. 4645 argue that lifting these restrictions would be a concession to the Cuban regime and a source of foreign income that could be used to repress the Cuban people. They also argue that given the ongoing violations of human rights and the repeated acts of repression, lifting these prohibitions would be an abandonment of Cuban civil society.

It is true that repression and systematic violations of Human Rights have recently increased in a cruel and public way. It is true that these funds could also be used to support and even worsen repression.

We believe, however, that if the citizens of the United States, like those of the rest of the world, increased their presence on our streets, visited the families of the political prisoners and other members of the nascent Cuban civil society they could: first, serve as witnesses to the suffering of the Cuban people; second, be even more sensitized to the need for changes in Cuba; and third, offer solidarity and a bridge to facilitate the transition we Cubans so greatly desire.

The supportive presence of American citizens, their direct help, and the many opportunities for exchange, used effectively and in the desired direction, would not be an abandonment of Cuban civil society but rather a force to strengthen it. Similarly, to further facilitate the sale of agricultural products would help alleviate the food shortages we now suffer.

Above all, we believe that defending each and every Human Right for all people must be an absolute priority, ahead of any political or economic consideration, and that no restriction of these rights can be justified on economic, political or social grounds. We believe that rights are protected with rights.

Because the ability to travel freely is the right of every human being, we support this bill. The current Cuban government has always violated this right and in recent years has justified its actions with the fact that the government of the United States also restricts its citizens' freedom to travel. The passage of this bill would remove this spurious justification.

Finally, Honorable Representatives, we strongly believe that the problems of Cuba and its path to freedom and democracy are a responsibility and a labor that belongs to all Cubans, those of us who live on the Island as well as those who suffer in exile in the Diaspora, who also love this nation we all share.

In the world today, all peoples of the earth are interconnected, even when their decisions are their sovereign right. These principles - of responsibility for our beloved country and of universal fraternity - encourage us to respectfully communicate our views to you with regards to this bill, because although it is the responsibility of Americans, it affects the Cuban people.

Thank you for your attention and respect.

1. Juan Juan Almeida García 2. José Alberto Álvarez Bravo 3. Silvio Benítez Márquez 4. Juan Carmelo Bermúdez Rosabal 5. Servando Blanco Martínez 6. Félix Bonne Carcassés 7. Luis Cáceres Piñero 8. Claudia Cadelo de Nevis 9. Leonardo Calvo Cárdenas 10. Eleanor Calvo Martínez 11. Marcelo Cano Rodríguez 12. Cecilio Dimas Castellanos Martí 13. Miriam Celaya González 14. Francisco Chaviano González 15. Hortensia Cires Díaz 16. Martha Cortizas Jiménez 17. Manuel Cuesta Morúa 18. Roberto De Miranda Hernández 19. Gisela Delgado Sablón 20. Reinaldo Escobar Casas 21. Oscar Espinosa Chepe 22. Guillermo Fariñas Hernández 23. Guedy Carlos Fernández Morejón 24. Juan Carlos Fernández Hernández 25. Karina Gálvez Chiu 26. Livia Gálvez Chiu 27. Margarita Gálvez Martínez 28. Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez 29. Joisy García Martínez 30. José Luis García Paneque 31. Juan del Pilar Goberna 32. Ricardo González Alfonso 33. Iván Hernández Carrillo 34. Maikel Iglesias Rodríguez 35. Irene Jerez Castillo 36. Yusnaymi Jorge Soca 37. Eugenio Leal García 38. Miriam Leiva 39. Gloria Llopis Prendes 40. Olga Lidia López Lazo 41. Yasnay Losada Castañeda 42. Luis Ricardo Luaces 43. Juan A. Madrazo Luna 44. Ainí Martínez Valero 45. Katia Sonia Martínez Véliz 46. Ricardo Santiago Medina Salabarría, presbítero 47. Manuel Alberto Morejón Soler, presbítero 48. Félix Navarro Rodríguez 49. Jorge Olivera Castillo 50. Pablo Pacheco Ávila 51. Leonardo Padrón Comptiz 52. Héctor Palacios Ruíz 53. Gustavo Pardo Valdés 54. Yisel Peña Rodríguez 55. Ana Margarita Perdigón 56. Arturo Pérez de Alejo 57. Juana Yamilia Pérez Estrella 58. Tomás Ramos Rodríguez 59. Soledad Rivas Verdecia 60. José Conrado Rodríguez Alegre, presbítero 61. María Esperanza Rodríguez Bernal 62. Lázaro Rosales Rojas 63. Elena Rosito Yaruk 64. Yoani Sánchez Cordero 65. Fernando Sánchez López 66. Elizardo Sánchez Santa Cruz 67. Mayra Sánchez Soria 68. Pedro Antonio Scull 69. Sergio Abel Suárez García 70. Virgilio Toledo López 71. Dagoberto Valdés Hernández 72. Wilfredo Vallín Almeida 73. Alida Viso Bello 74. Liset Zamora

-- Tom Garofalo

PIMCO's Bill Gross calls the U.S. economy the "least dirty shirt." To borrow from a Flight of the Concords song, you might say that the U.S. is The Most Beautiful Girl in the Room. By virtue of every other economy in the room looking worse and worse, the United States is looking better and better.

European economies are struggling with austerity measures and will for months and years ahead. A Greek crisis has turned into an EU sovereign debt crisis, which threatens the very existence of the monetary union. Japan is stuck in deflationary territory.

By comparison, it appears the U.S. has played its cards right. We implemented a massive fiscal stimulus package and poured money from the Federal Reserve into the global economy. But, these measures look temporary and unsustainable. Policy to boost consumption was based on the flawed assumption that households would be able to resume consumption once the recession ended. But, the reality of the post-bubble economy is that Americans without jobs who have lost home equity and access to credit may have to permanently change behavior. A recovery in financial assets has helped repair the balance sheets of those at the high end and Wall Street banks, but has left the vast American middle dependent on government income support.

Tune in in about an hour as Steve Clemons moderates a discussion with Simon Johnson, author of 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown and Robert Kuttner, author of A Presidency in Peril. I would bet these authors have something to say on the "least dirty shirt" thesis. We may be the least dirty shirt today, but there is no telling that we are not sowing the seeds of the next financial crisis or relying too heavily on a recovery in financial assets at the expense of job creation and sustainable growth.

-- Samuel Sherraden

A friend of mine wrote to me about the piece below, released yesterday by Brookings, wondering when Brookings Energy Security Initiative Director Charles Ebinger will be spending time with Helen Thomas.

We hope Ebinger stays gainfully busy at Brookings -- but wow.

This came from Brookings!? Very interesting, and an important sign of the times.

It's a powerful, blunt piece that reaches back to Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, as he writes "the only maritime incident in U.S. history where our military forces were killed that was never investigated by Congress."

Here is the Brookings piece, "The Attack on the USS Liberty: Lessons for U.S. National Security":

The Attack on the USS Liberty: Lessons for U.S. National Security

Charles K. Ebinger, Director, Energy Security Initiative

The Brookings Institution -- June 08, 2010

It is ironic that the Israeli Defense forces attacked a flotilla of relief ships bound from Europe to Gaza in international waters in a manner all too similar to its assault against the USS Liberty also in international waters on June 8 forty-three years ago. It is even more tragic and a national disgrace that in the immediate aftermath of Memorial Day there is scant remembrance of the 34 crew members comprising naval officers, seamen, two marines and a civilian who were killed in the attack along with the 171 crew members who were wounded. While the official inquiries by both nations found the attack to be a case of mistaken identity of the Liberty, to this day there is a long record of distinguished officers and journalists who take strong exception to this view believing that the attack was deliberate. Indeed the attack on the Liberty is the only maritime incident in U.S. history where our military forces were killed that was never investigated by the Congress.

While few would dispute that the United States and Israel share vital strategic interests, all too often it has been Israeli intransigent policies rather than U.S. interests which have dominated our bilateral relationships. As a global superpower, the U.S. has strategic interests in the Middle East that go far beyond our bilateral relations with Israel--regional political stability, access to oil, control of sea lanes, etc. However so lopsided have our bilateral relations become that even after scandals such as the Pollard spying case in the 1980s came to light, high level officials and lobbyists in both Washington and Israel went out of their way to downplay the significance of the information Pollard passed to both Israeli and Russian intelligence (in order to keep Jewish immigration to Israel alive), despite testimony by four retired admirals who had served as Directors of National Intelligence that Pollard's revelations had been devastating to U.S. national security and that any premature release would be "irresponsible."

Again in 1973, it was the decision by the United States to resupply Israel's military following the outbreak of war that led to the OAPEC oil embargo transforming the Geopolitics of Oil as the world's economy was sent reeling owing to the spike in the price of oil. The 1973-1974 war by changing the geographical contours of the Middle East set the stage for the growing radicalization of the Middle East as increasingly young men and women grew resentful of their leaders' inability to change the political and social status quo both in their own countries and in their nations' relations with Israel. The second oil shock in 1979 and 1980, following the overthrow of the Shah and the coming to power of Ayatollah Khomeini, led to a further radicalization of the region which further inflamed relations among Iran/Iraq, Shites/Sunnis, Christains/Druze/Palestinians in Lebanon and Iran and Iraq in their bilateral relations with various governments throughout the region. At the same time, accelerated settlements by Jewish immigrants in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem created a growing crescendo of radicalism. Then in 1982 the ill-conceived invasion of Lebanon in response to provocations by Palestinians and other radical forces led to the massacres of Palestinian and allied groups men, women and children at Sabra and Shatila by the Christian Phalanges while the IDF stood on the sidelines losing all pretense of a higher moral ground.

Since that time there have been provocations by both the Israelis and the Palestinians and their affiliated allies throughout the Middle East. There have been lost diplomatic opportunities, ill tempered rhetoric by leaders on both sides and a tragic loss of life. Indeed there is plenty of blame to go around on both sides and reasons for each side to be wary of any overture by the other. However, what has been lost during these decades throughout the Islamic world is the view of the man and woman on the street and children in the madrasahs that United States is an honest broker for peace. Having worked throughout the Islamic world for over 35 years, it is a tragedy that this has occurred, but when successive Presidents and other high ranking officials ask Israel not to expand settlements yet hardly voice a "public squeak" of opprobrium let alone some real expression of disapproval (such as a curtailment of military assistance, rescinding favorable trade provisions, etc.) when Israel continues to do so, what is the Islamic World to think about the even handedness of U.S. policy?

Nowhere was the failure of the U.S. to take strong action more visibly demonstrated than during Vice President's Biden's visit to Israel when Israel gave the green light for 1,600 new homes for Jewish settlers in annexed East Jerusalem in flagrant violation of international law. In response, both the Vice President and Secretary of State Clinton labeled the action "insulting" to the United States and destructive to the peace process while at the same time doing nothing visible to make Israel pay a price for such actions against the second highest official of our nation.

America, it is time to wake up and listen to the very few of our leaders such as General Petraeus, who even before the Vice President's visit warned that the stalled Middle East peace process is a direct threat to U.S. interests and prestige in the region and that the lack of progress in Palestine foments anti-Americanism, undermines Arab regimes, limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships, increases the influence of Iran, projects an image of U.S. weakness and serves as a potent recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. General Petraeus and his briefing team went on to say that the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian peace stalemate undermines the prospects for success in Afghanistan.

As we approach the anniversary of the attack on the Liberty, let us take a few minutes to reflect soberly on whether the time has not come to once again be a honest broker, to call our Israeli friends to account when necessary with sanctions that hurt and to make clear to one and all that acts such as the attack on the flotilla of humanitarian ships bound to alleviate the suffering of the men, women and children of Gaza will not occur with impunity.

I'm in agreement with Ebinger that the failure to move forward on Israel-Palestine peace is undermining American national security interests in a way far more consequential than whatever actually transpires between Palestinians and Israelis. It is becoming an increasingly tense fault line in geostrategic affairs.

I myself would not go back to the USS Liberty as a driver in this debate, but I understand that Ebinger is trying to illustrate that there are fundamental differences in strategy and objectives between Israel and the US that can't be papered over by speeches and rhetoric that "there is no daylight" between the countries. Of course, there is daylight between them -- and has been always.

Good luck to Ebinger in holding back the storm that no doubt will hit him inside Brookings and out.

-- Steve Clemons

Politico's Laura Rozen posted a hilarious exchange of notes between the Communication Czars at the UK Embassy in DC and the US Embassy in the UK.

Apparently, US Ambassador to the Court of St. James's Louis Susman (boy he looks glum in his official photo) and UK Ambassador to the US Nigel Sheinwald have a "steak dinner" bet on the outcome of the British-American soccer hookup in South Africa.

Best line came from Sheinwald's PR director in response to his American counterpart in London:

Incidentally, you should know that the Ambassador [Sheinwald] takes his steak like American soccer victories - somewhat rare.

These soccer things really do get folks riled up it seems (I don't understand it), but after having just flown from DC to Doha to Tokyo -- and now back to DC, a lot of my Japanese acquaintances kept reciting how Japan lost its national honor in Doha. In fact, they call their qualification match loss to an Iraq team "The Agony of Doha."

We'll see whether the Brits or Americans get their own version of the agony

From Rozen's report:

From: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London To: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC Subject: World Cup Bet

Mr. Longden,

It has not escaped our attention that a certain sporting event is fast approaching, and that our respective nations will soon be meeting on the fields of South Africa. My Ambassador has asked me to see if your Ambassador might be interested in a small wager? We will understand if you decline, given the outcome of the last such encounter.

Sincerely, Philip Breeden, U.S. Embassy, London
________________________________

From: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
To: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
Subject: Re: World Cup Bet

Mr. Breeden,

Even for such an exceptionally optimistic nation as the United States, I am struck by the confidence with which your Ambassador proposes this wager. It is testament, I assume, to the generosity of your great nation - since the British Ambassador does not anticipate paying out.

Your email does not specify the exact terms of the wager. May I suggest that, in the event of an England victory, the US Ambassador agrees to entertain the British Ambassador at a steak-house of his choosing in downtown DC? And in the event that the United States is able to engineer a fortuitous win over England, then my man will entertain yours at a London pub of his choosing. Loser pays.

Your reference to a previous sporting encounter between our two countries puzzles me. Since the history of English football is long and extensive, in contradistinction to US soccer, I regret that I cannot immediately recall the encounter to which you refer. No doubt it is remembered fondly on these shores; we have quite forgotten it, however.

Are you sure you want to do this?

Yours sincerely,

Martin Longden

British Embassy Washington DC
________________________________

From: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
To: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
Subject: Re: World Cup Bet

Mr. Longden,

It is with great pleasure, and no small measure of anticipation, that the U.S. Ambassador accepts the terms of the wager. I am surprised, given the well known love of the British for history, that you have forgotten what happened the last time the "special relationship" was tested on the pitch. Of course, given the result, you are to be forgiven for having misplaced that particular episode in your memory banks. I refer of course to the victory of the U.S. over England in the 1950 World Cup.

It is true that our soccer (a fine English word we have kindly preserved for you) history is not as long and illustrious as yours. However, as your generals noted during WWII, we have a unique capability for quickly identifying and advancing talent.

Game on!

Sincerely, Philip Breeden
________________________________

From: Martin Longden, British Embassy Washington DC
To: Philip Breeden, US Embassy London
Subject: Re: World Cup Bet

Mr. Breeden,

Very well; it's a bet!

Incidentally, you should know that the Ambassador takes his steak like American soccer victories - somewhat rare.

Sincerely,

Martin Longden

While this was fun, don't count on too much soccer coverage at The Washington Note.

-- Steve Clemons

Editor's Note: hat tip to Daniel Lippman.

(Photo Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In the aftermath of the Flotilla crisis, many U.S. commentators have suggested that the United States needs to make clear to Israel that there are limits to the kinds of behavior that Washington can accept.

For instance, Center for Strategic and International Studies Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Anthony H. Cordesman wrote earlier this week that:

It is time Israel realized that it has obligations to the United States, as well as the United States to Israel, and that it become far more careful about the extent to which it test the limits of U.S. patience and exploits the support of American Jews. This does not mean taking a single action that undercuts Israeli security, but it does mean realizing that Israel should show enough discretion to reflect the fact that it is a tertiary U.S. strategic interest in a complex and demanding world.

TWN Publisher Steve Clemons has made similar arguments.

Most states' actions are limited not by their allies, but by their adversaries. Implicit in Cordesman's argument is an assumption that Israel's adversaries have little capacity to restrict Israel's freedom of action.

Stratfor's George Friedman published an interesting piece today in which he explains the internal divisions among Israel's foes that prevent them from effectively restricting Israeli behavior in the region.

From his piece:

Nations base their actions on risks and rewards. The configuration of the Palestinians and Arabs rewards Israeli assertiveness and provides few rewards for caution. The Israelis do not see global hostility toward Israel translating into a meaningful threat because the Arab reality cancels it out. Therefore, relieving pressure on Hamas makes no sense to the Israelis. Doing so would be as likely to alienate Fatah and Egypt as it would to satisfy the Swedes, for example. As Israel has less interest in the Swedes than in Egypt and Fatah, it proceeds as it has.

A single point sums up the story of Israel and the Gaza blockade-runners: Not one Egyptian aircraft threatened the Israeli naval vessels, nor did any Syrian warship approach the intercept point. The Israelis could be certain of complete command of the sea and air without challenge. And this underscores how the Arab countries no longer have a military force that can challenge the Israelis, nor the will nor interest to acquire one. Where Egyptian and Syrian forces posed a profound threat to Israeli forces in 1973, no such threat exists now. Israel has a completely free hand in the region militarily; it does not have to take into account military counteraction. The threat posed by intifada, suicide bombers, rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, and Hezbollah fighters is real, but it does not threaten the survival of Israel the way the threat from Egypt and Syria once did (and the Israelis see actions like the Gaza blockade as actually reducing the threat of intifada, suicide bombers and rockets). Non-state actors simply lack the force needed to reach this threshold. When we search for the reasons behind Israeli actions, it is this singular military fact that explains Israeli decision-making.

Friedman's entire article can be read here.

-- Ben Katcher

(an aerial view of Futenma U.S. Marine Corps Air Station, Okinawa)

Chris Nelson blogged before blogs -- and his daily take on US foreign policy and political affairs, The Nelson Report, with a zealous slant towards all things Asia -- is only available to high end consulting clients and his pals (by fax and email).

With permission, I offer some of the zingers he puts together -- the latest on some action-packed public comments offered yesterday at the Stimson Center on US-Japan relations offered by Obama adviser and National Security Director for Asia Jeffrey Bader.

I should note that I am writing this from Okinawa, Japan at the moment -- about a half hour down the road from the controversial Futenma U.S. Marine Air Station in Ginowan, Okinawa.

From THE NELSON REPORT -- 7 June 2010

BADER-JAPAN...NSC senior director for Asia Jeff Bader has been on the front lines of the difficulties between the Obama Administration and Japan since Day One of the Administration, and it's well to remember that the Obama/Hatoyama disconnect was not the beginning of problems, but, rather, a continuation of several years of US officials' frustration.

It was the LDP which had determined to end the Indian Ocean refueling part of Japan's Af/Pak war support, a decision the DPJ ratified; and it was the LDP which failed to implement the 2006 Futenma agreement which Hatoyama's government so dramatically tried to roll-back.

So Obama relations with and confidence in the LDP/Aso government which preceded the dramatic shift to a DPJ take-over last Fall was difficult and frustrating for many of the same bottom line reasons in the more recent headlines...promise vs performance, and demands for status regardless.

We mention this as an "introduction" to Bader today, and a useful reminder that the Hatoyama administration inherited a "difficult" situation, but then unfortunately, if presumably inadvertently, made things a lot worse.

Among many interesting points made Bader frankly said a major cause of the Hatoyama/Obama disconnect was that for the first several months, US Amb. John Roos was the "only line of communication".

This was NOT a criticism of the yeoman work done by Roos, but a rueful comment on problems exacerbated because there was no coherent DPJ outreach to officials back here in DC.

That situation began to improve in April, Bader said, and since then there has been "some coherence" in the back-channel dialogue or conversation which is so critical to international relations and policy-making.

Bader thus rather frankly noted the problem many of us in the "Japan business" had fretted over since the Fall.

Instead, Hatoyama and his ministers seemed OK with a steady procession of DPJ politicians who might have been freelancing, or might have been semi-official, but who in any event systematically boycotted any cooperation with the Gaimusho and the professional bureaucracy which stood ready to perform their staffing responsibilities.

The result was that the White House, State, DOD et all were under a constant drumbeat of requests for private meetings with DPJ politicians who might or might not be speaking on behalf of the Government...and who in any event had very little, if any, coherence to their presentations.

So even before it got to the point of an Obama/Hatoyama disconnect and questions of "trust", there was a fundamental problem of lack of confidence back here that the DPJ had any idea what it was trying to do, or how to do it.

Bader frankly said that often, DPJ thinking on critical foreign policy issues was "very messy" and "painfully transparent" because of the problem with trying to decide who was speaking for whom.

Bader carefully noted three specific causes of White House concern with the DPJ:

First, the statements from Hatoyama, Ozawa et al that Japan wanted to "rebalance" between the US and China; second, the "East Asia Community", perhaps with, or perhaps not with US participation; third, the Indian Ocean re-fueling cancellation, but then no coherent suggestions on how to reaffirm the alliance.

Bader was also very frank in why the White House began to lose faith (our words) in Hatoyama, calling the Prime Minister's initial "promise" to decide on Futenma by the end of December, then the shift to an end-of-May "deadline" a big mistake.

The result, said Bader, was that Obama continued to be "patient but skeptical". Bader wryly noted that the President was firmly advised to be tough on Futenma, and firmly advised to be patient and understanding.

In practice, Bader said, the Administration "tried to be both", but Bader was surprisingly frank, or critical, in blaming whomever it was for "leaking" the early confrontation between DOD Secretary Gates and Foreign Minister Okada...thus implying that the subsequent negative atmosphere was unintentional, and not deliberate US "gaiatsu".

And on gaiatsu itself, whatever you may think of its recent use, Bader said gaiatsu is "finished" as a result of the Futenma hassle, an event he welcomed, and that the Futenma agreement now is important, because it reflects real policy changes in Japan.

There was some interesting stuff in the Q&A;'s on China, but it's late, and we want to get home to hear how daughter Margo's first day at work was!

More later, meanwhile, here's our selection of good quotes from Bader's official working notes:

-- This conference is timely, not least because of the events last week in Tokyo. I prepared my remarks before the resignation of PM Hatoyama. Others in this conference I am sure will speak about the impact of Naoto Kan's assumption of the Prime Ministership.

-- The fact that President Obama telephoned Kan so quickly after the vote in the Diet - well before Kan official takes up his position - and the fact that they held a warm and very substantive conversation, is indicative of the Obama Administration's attitude towards Japan.

-- President Obama's approach to Japan since beginning of Administration shows the importance he attached to the relationship.

1) First visitor to Oval Office was PM Aso. Not a statement of personal support for him, but for Japan relationship. 2) First step on foreign soil by Secretary Clinton was in Japan, in February 2009. Europeans and others have remarked that they saw our early approach as putting Asia first. Certainly was intended to signal increased attention to Asia, though not to downgrade other areas vital to US interests. 3) President's trip to Asia in his first year, and his first stop was in Japan.

-- Secretary Gates visited Japan in October and made clear that the FRF remained the best option, that walking away from it would damage the alliance. There was criticism of Secretary Gates' so-called "confrontational" approach. In fact, someone on the Japanese side chose to leak virtually the entire transcript of Gates' first meeting with FM Okada to Kyodo News, giving the appearance that Gates was seeking a public confrontation when he was in fact speaking frankly in a private meeting.

-- As we all know, PM Hatoyama decided in December Japan would not implement the FRF as agreed upon. He said Japan would reach agreement with us on a new proposal by the end of May and made clear his preference was to relocate the MCAS Futenma off Okinawa - if not off Japan altogether. - We thought this was a mistake, for various reasons. We made clear our disagreement to the Japanese government. At the same time, we did not reject Hatoyama's proposal to talk. We would have preferred to stay with the option so arduously negotiated over 15 years, and continued to say it was the "best" option, but we did not insist that it was the "only" option. Rather, we showed respect and understanding of the politics of Japan and the needs of the new government. We were frankly skeptical that delay would produce more positive results. But, that is how allies should treat each other, particularly in the "alliance of equals" about which Hatoyama spoke and which President Obama has accepted.

-- The President has always believed that US-Japan relations are much larger than a single base issue. We did not want relations to be overshadowed by this matter. But we couldn't ignore it. It came to be seen as an indicator of how the Japanese government viewed the security relationship and its own national security.

-- So this agreement is important, not only in its own right but in terms of what it reflects about political change in Japan. First of all, it shows that the old model of "gaiatsu" - the-Americans-made-me-do-it - is finished. We welcome its demise since that is simply not the way that President Obama does business. In its place, the DPJ leadership introduced a very messy and very public rethinking of Japan's security interests and the meaning of the U.S.-Japan Alliance. The outcome of their review of the options on the FRF is significant because Japan's leadership reached their own conclusion through an inclusive and (painfully) transparent process. This was not a handful of Japanese national security policy experts making a backroom deal and then selling it as something Japan is obligated to do for Washington. The agreement reflects Japanese public mainstream views about its own best interests. Lastly, this outcome reflects in my view, a maturation of the DPJ's understanding of the stakes and national security implications of the alliance.

-- Within hours of the vote to make him Prime Minister, Kan held a news conference making clear his intent to implement the Futenma agreement.

-- The sinking of the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan by North Korea served as a dramatic reminder that NE Asia is still a dangerous neighborhood. The Japanese government also experienced some difficulties in a relationship with China in which it had invested a considerable amount. The DPJ has come to understand with increasingly clarity that others in the region were watching closely the US-Japan alliance, and Japan could not afford the impression of a rift to gain traction. It turns out that all politics is not 100% local, as it had been seen in Japan for some months before then.

-- Japan has strongly backed the ROK in the face of aggression from the North in the wake of the Cheonan incident. Its solidarity with the ROK has been firm and public. Japan has sought trilateral cooperation with the US and ROK and taken a leading role in fashioning a UN Security Council response.

-- As a member of the UN Security Council, Japan is strongly supporting the US-led draft of UNSC sanctions resolution on Iran. Mr. Kan indeed reiterated that support in his first conversation with President Obama this past weekend.

-- Japan's leadership has made clear recently that it favors US participation in any eventual East Asian Community, a change from the position taken by the DPJ leadership last fall. - Japan strongly supported President Obama's initiatives at the April Nuclear Security Summit in Washington and worked closely with the U.S. delegation at the NPT Review Conference in May.

-- So 9 months after the DPJ's electoral victory, the scorecard from the US perspective is positive, and improving.

-- There has been lots of attention to what a rough ride it has been, to the drama of Hatoyama's resignation, to the difficulties of the DPJ government in getting its feet solidly under it. I'll leave to experts on Japan the analysis of these.

-- But from the viewpoint of the US the much larger issue and conclusion is this: Japan has gone through the single most dramatic political change after 50 years of stasis in party rule and the US-Japan alliance has emerged in sound condition, having been scrutinized and ultimately validated by the new political leadership.

-- This is in one sense not surprising, since 80% of all Japanese in polling support the alliance. That is the indispensable foundation for the alliance.

-- On the other hand, one shouldn't take for granted that in a 2 party or multi-party system our alliances are immune from trauma when parties lose power.

-- So this last year has been historic in affirming the support of overwhelming majority of the Japanese people and all the major parties in Japan for the U.S.-Japan alliance. This year has given us the answer to the question of what would happen if the "guardian" of the security relationship, the LDP, lost power and has demonstrated that the alliance is a bond between the people of our two nations,.

-- I believe this is good news for Japan, for the US, and for Asia...

I like Jeff Bader and respect his take on Asia, but there is a lot of 'wishful thinking' and perhaps unintentional fabrication in his talking points.

First of all, there was clearly "gaiatsu" or foreign pressure applied to Hatoyama and Japan's political leadership over Futenma. Go talk to folks in the DPJ, in Japanese journalism circles -- from the Asahi, Yomiuri, Nikkei, Tokyo Shimbun, TV Asahi -- and there is widespread agreement that the Obama team pushed hard on Futenma.

Secondly, US Ambassador to Japan John Roos was the only conduit for communications because the U.S. did little to help the incoming Hatoyama government, which represented an enormous pivot in Japanese politics, to construct an alternative structure of elite-level communication that stepped away from the old structure that had been dominated by US-Japan personalities on both sides that had been there for many years. Hatoyama didn't trust these channels of communication, and the Obama White House should have had more foresight about that.

Bader is not plugged in if he thinks that the US and Japan will be able to get by the Futenma problem and move forward now. Many Japanese students I spoke to in Tokyo feel as if they are subordinates of the United States and have no control over their national destiny. Not healthy. When it comes to military affairs, most Japanese I have spoken to feel that Japan is still a "vassal state" of the US and that this needs to change.

In Okinawa, the Ryukyu Shimpo just did a poll of every mayor on the island -- and 100% of those voted said that they believed the Hatoyama deal with the US on moving Futenma from one part of the island to another should be rejected.

Bader may not like some of the things the Hatoyama did, but the bottom line remains that many think that the single-minded, obsessive focus of the administration in not yielding anything substantial on the Futenma issue has undermined confidence and trust for many Japanese citizens and politicians in the long term US-Japan security relationship.

Even inadvertently contributing to circumstances that brought down a Japanese prime minister who was the first to seriously undo the structural hold the Liberal Democratic Party had in Japan was an enormous mistake -- and there will likely be consequences that Bader seems unwilling to acknowledge and accept.

Bader's dismissal of the notion that the US did anything out of line in the dance around Futenma and the resulting resignation of Prime Minister Hatoyama is an ominous sign on the 50th anniversary to the day of the signing of the US-Japan Security Treaty.

-- Steve Clemons

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Director Jeffrey Gedmin has just authored a disconcerting brief on his recent observations of Pakistan's political and social scene for the journal World Affairs that I encourage folks to read.

Nations that block Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are from my perspective on the wrong side of history and don't get that efficient social network building -- while scary to some countries who fear their own people -- are also dynamic sources of power and innovation that can greatly benefit those nations.

Turkey and China block YouTube. When I was in Saudi Arabia, I had access to all three -- twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, and the same was true in Qatar and UAE.

Gedmin reports that Pakistan has now shut down access to Facebook along with 1,000 other websites including YouTube. So much for modernity getting a chance in a country to which we are sending $1.5 billion a year.

But Gedmin has an extremely important passage that has nothing to do with social media and everything to do with the rich terrain of what is unfolding in the arena of "political Islam."

Gedmin writes:

I visited the home of the deputy head of Pakistan's version of the Muslim Brotherhood, a member of the parliament who also directs a prominent think tank. Khurshid Ahmad counts as a moderate in Pakistani politics. He rejects the Taliban vision for Pakistan, condemns suicide bombings (at least in conversation with me) and says the September 11 attacks were a crime. He also blames America for many of his country's ills, sympathizes with the plight of Iranian mullahs and wants a Pakistan where religious leaders play an active role in governing. For the foreseeable future the real battle for Pakistan's soul remains a struggle not between liberals and jihadists but between Islamists of different stripes.

Gedmin is exactly right -- and this is something very few Americans realize or acknowledge. I'm impressed with Jeffrey Gedmin's openness on this as he is a serious thinker in the neoconservative establishment and was the institution builder behind what was once the dynamic "New Atlantic Initiative" at the American Enterprise Institute.

The kind of debate Gedmin got a peek at between members of the Muslim Brotherhood, themselves quite different in focus and objective depending on which nation they call home, and either Taliban representatives or Selafist groups is going on throughout the Arab and South Asia regions.

I saw this ferment on full public display at the recent Wadah Khanfar-orchestrated 5th Aljazeera Forum in which some Muslim Brotherhood adherents were publicly rebuking both the Taliban on one hand and then Iraq's more secular Ayad Allawi on the other.

I'm really pleased that someone with Gedmin's stature and network "gets this" as we need to begin to figure out strategies to deal with political Islam in a way that doesn't stupidly and inappropriately relegate all of them to al Qaeda-like status.

I'm hoping to encourage Jeffrey Gedmin to speak to the New America Foundation and do an interview for The Washington Note next time he is in Washington and over from Prague.

-- Steve Clemons

(Photo Credit: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In yesterday's New York Times, White House Correspondent Helene Cooper addresses one of the difficult questions that the recent Flotilla row between Israel and Turkey poses to American officials: what to do about the fact that Israeli policies seem to be having increasingly negative consequences for the United States' standing in the region?

Drawing on an article by Center for Strategic and International Studies Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy Anthony H. Cordesman called "Israel as a Strategic Liability?", Cooper suggests that the pressure in Washington is mounting for the United States to distance itself from Israeli policies and make clear that there are limits to what Washington can tolerate. (Cordesman's article was reprinted here at The Washington Note.)

Cooper quotes New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force Director Daniel Levy, who asserts that:

America has three choices. Either say, it's politically too hot a potato to touch, and just pay the consequences in the rest of the world. Or try to force through a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians, so that the Palestinian grievance issue is no longer a driving force or problem. [The third choice] is for America to say, we can't solve it, but we can't pay the consequences, so we will distance ourselves from Israel. That way America would no longer be seen, as it has been this week, as the enabler of excesses of Israeli misbehavior.

Cooper then reports that "Unsurprisingly, Mr. Levy advocates the second choice. But he warns that the third may become more palatable to Americans if Mr. Netanyahu's government stays on its present course."

Essentially, Levy appears to be suggesting that doubling down on Middle East peace is the only viable option for American policy in the region over the long-term.

Cooper's full article can be read here.

-- Ben Katcher

RabbiLive got a provocative comment from the iconic White House correspondent Helen Thomas -- sort of the Max Blumenthalesque treatment of the Israel-Palestine issue from the other side of the coin.

Helen Thomas, in my view, is right to talk about the problems of Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. She is clearly passionate about that.

But then arguing that Israelis should "go home" and go back to "Poland, Germany, America, and everywhere else" is just way over the line.

Responsible commentators on the Israeli and Palestinian/Arab/Muslim side of the equation need to really get beyond the hyberbole. Israel is not going anywhere and shouldn't. Helping to secure a new equilibrium in its own long term political and security interests, Israel should do much more to facilitate the creation of a Palestinian state on its border.

But Helen Thomas, who I mostly admire, was wrong on this one.

-- Steve Clemons

George W. Bush said both before and after the Palestine elections of 2006 that they were the fairest and most well run elections held in the Middle East outside of Israel.

"The people made their choice," Bush said.

Now, Liz Cheney -- who was a senior official at the Department of State at the time of those elections -- is saying that the Palestinians weren't ready for the elections and that they were a mistake.

She revealed this in a testy exchange with Arianna Huffington.

I guess elections are only good if one gets the stacked deck outcome that neocons want.

-- Steve Clemons