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

And I thought it was only my weimaraner that did this!

-- Steve Clemons

President Obama gets it right on the Mosque at Ground Zero during his remarks at last evening's White House Iftar Dinner. Was very pleased to see that our good friends Representatives Keith Ellison and Rush Holt were at the dinner.

Yours truly was quoted by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in this morning's New York Times on the issue and Obama's remarks. Despite the controversy, I thought that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's remarks on this Ground Zero Mosque were definitive, compelling and gave the President an important fellow traveler in doing the right thing standing for religious freedom in this country.

From the President's speech:

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose - including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious - a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

That is not to say that religion is without controversy. Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

We must never forget those who we lost so tragically on 9/11, and we must always honor those who have led our response to that attack - from the firefighters who charged up smoke-filled staircases, to our troops who are serving in Afghanistan today. And let us always remember who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for. Our enemies respect no freedom of religion. Al Qaeda's cause is not Islam - it is a gross distortion of Islam. These are not religious leaders - these are terrorists who murder innocent men, women and children. In fact, al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion - and that list of victims includes innocent Muslims who were killed on 9/11.

That is who we are fighting against. And the reason that we will win this fight is not simply the strength of our arms - it is the strength of our values. The democracy that we uphold. The freedoms that we cherish. The laws that we apply without regard to race or religion; wealth or status. Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us - a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today.

-- Steve Clemons

Today's New York Times carries a profile of the challenges facing "today's generals," after nine years of war in the Middle East and South Asia. According to the author, for these generals:

Mastery of battlefield tactics and a knack for leadership are only prerequisites. Generals and other top officers are now expected to be city managers, cultural ambassadors, public relations whizzes and politicians as they deal with multiple missions and constituencies in the war zone, in allied capitals -- and at home.

The increased demands help to explain how the two most recent American commanders in Afghanistan, among the most respected four-star officers of their generation, lost their jobs. And they are prompting the military to revamp the way it trains and promotes its top officers.

"They must be 'pentathlete' leaders," said Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Afghanistan. As Iraq and Afghanistan have proved that a commander must stretch to master nuances of international alliance accord, local governance and tribal politicking, the military has revamped its training ranges and its curriculum.

Strong scores in mock battle in the deserts of California or in swampy Louisiana are no longer the lone measurement. Fake villages with irascible, faux tribal leaders and proxies representing the competing agendas of government agencies and nongovernment organizations are all in play to test a commander's expanding set of required skills.

While I don't disagree with much of this, there needs to be a touch more perspective on just how "new" this kind of general is. While the current 24-hour news cycle allows for scrutiny of the tiniest comment or action from anywhere on the globe, it is an exaggeration to imply such a stark difference between combatant commanders or even the way we fight war now and before.

There is ample precedent in American history for removing generals who were deemed ineffective, insubordinate, or simply did not click with their Commander in Chief. And while the author acknowledges that commanders like Eisenhower had to deal with alliance politics and command nuances, they also had to deal with military governance of whole countries, population control and administration, reconstruction and development, and even dabbled in cultural understanding before "COIN" had a name. After all, one of the best-known works of anthropology, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, was written so that U.S. troops could better understand (and thus administer) occupied Japan.

None of this is to say that the responsibilities and pressures on combatant commanders are not different now. As a result of changing media pressures and different expectations, a commander must speak, and sometimes behave differently, than his predecessors. But history shows that war is not a binary between options like "COIN," and "Counterterrorism," and just as Gen. Petraeus is not a pure military strategist or practitioner, neither were those who fought before him.

-- Andrew Lebovich

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

Ramallah - For three years, Salam Fayyad, the Prime Minister in the West Bank Palestinian Authority (PA), has been a focal point for Mideast debate.

As an unelected official, he is reviled by Hamas and democracy activists alike for taking over the PA after the disillusion of the 2007 Palestinian unity government. He is also said to have alienated many within Fatah, the party of President Mahmoud Abbas, who see him as a limit to their influence in the West Bank.

But he has also won praise from other segments of society and adoration among Western commentators for his program of reforming, broadening and rebuilding Palestinian institutions, a process he says is a step toward founding a Palestinian state.

Yet his state-building program, too, has come under scruitiny, prominently with the release of a study in July by Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which argued that Fayyad's program is lagging in key areas such as the rule of law, and that his efforts are proceeding in an "authoritarian context."

Confronted with these and other criticisms, Fayyad has an unflinching, some would say misguided, faith in himself and his program, which he sees as having "transformative" potential.

"This is a state-building track," he told Palestine Note's Fadi Elsalameen in an interview at his Ramallah office.

He added that his efforts are "supposed to ensure readiness for statehood. We think it's going to take us two years to get there. It's a bit ambitious, but doable despite the occupation. To end it, to end it means that--that's the dynamism of this--build, build, build despite the occupation to end it."

So great is Fayyad's confidence in the power of his own plans that he believes popular support for them could eventually be the key to reuniting the PA.

"Political parties, Hamas included, will find themselves compelled to go along," with his state-building vision, coupled with hoped-for progress in peace negotiations, Fayyad said. "Or they resist and they start to pay dearly in political terms, a very, very heavy political price associated with going against that trend."

Fadi Elsalameen: How do you respond to Nathan Brown's Carnegie Endowment study that criticizes your program?

Salam Fayyad: It's a question of building up capacity. It cannot be taken literally or nominally as building institutions that did not exist before. Especially when he says that the issue was maintenance of existing institutions. That's a badge of honor. Fixing, reforming, maintaining--that's very much the nature of the task. Reform, upgrading capacity, getting those institutions better able to deliver services, maintaining them. All of these are elements of the state-building effort. To complete the task of getting ready for statehood. So to suggest we are building things from scratch, I never said that. The program doesn't say that, but when you're talking about building up capacity to govern ourselves effectively, that could mean introducing new institutions. But it certainly focuses on bringing up capacity of existing institutions.

In terms of infrastructure, there, of course, have been lots of new things. You can't say, "They're just maintaining existing infrastructure." Over the span of two years, we implemented 1,000 community development programs, especially in rural areas, long-marginalized and most devastated by war, settlement activity, and whatnot. It's going to take us about half the time to implement the next batch of 1,000 projects--we're almost halfway through. You know, we celebrated project 1,000, I said afterward the next 1,000 projects will take us only one year. Before the year is out, I said, we're going to have another 1,000 such projects. And we are more than halfway through that mark already today, and I am certain we are going to make it. This will involve water, electricity, new schools, road networks, rural roads, the recreation center that your colleague started in Nablus [Tomorrow's Youth Organization] for the refugee camp. People have a lot of opportunities now that did not exist before. That really enters under the heading of 'new.'

And it's very much related to the need to enhance the capacity of our people to withstand the adversity of occupation. On the way to statehood, on the way to freedom, you don't do these things--people do not have adequate education and services. They want to leave if they could. Just exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. With all due respect, it's very superficial [Nathan Brown's argument]. I can better understand and better relate to those who assert that this is the other side of Netanyahu's economic peace coin. At least there is some thinking that went into making that statement that I cannot really dismiss as being superficial. It's wrong, I disagree with it, but at least there's a little bit of thought process that I can see leading to that conclusion. But here, to say, "Oh, there are no new institutions," that's almost childish. I don't know who funded this work, and it does not really... [have] any degree of scholarship. It's just really weak. How can you do that? And on the basis of what? Anecdotal stuff? "I talked to people." Who are they? I would like to know how many people he talked to. Forget about whom he talked to, but how many people he talked to. Assuming it's an unbiased sample, how many people did he talk to? How long did he stay here, to form these impressions? And it's not true that it's only Ramallah. We started this campaign in Nablus. So, this is way too superficial, if you ask me. Way, way too superficial.

Although I have had the clip above for days in a queue, I am embarrassed that I am just seeing this powerful exchange now.

It is simply remarkable to watch and hear former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson make the clearest, strongest case for the full civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans -- indeed, all Americans -- that I have ever heard.

Fox's Chris Wallace tried hard to trip up Olson, and that's his job -- but he just couldn't do it.

Olson is a busy lawyer, with many more cases than this one to deal with -- but would be great to have him on Don't Ask/Don't Tell.

Huge thanks to Ted Olson for the extraordinary role he is playing in reshaping the American civil rights environment.

-- Steve Clemons

In an important article titled "The Point of No Return" to be published in The Atlantic tomorrow, national correspondent Jeffrey Goldberg recounts something many people didn't realize at the time and still have a hard time believing. President George W. Bush knocked back Dick Cheney's wing of the foreign policy establishment - both inside and out of his administration - that wanted to launch a bombing campaign against Iran. In a snippet I had not seen before, Bush mockingly referred to bombing advocates Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer as "the bomber boys."

George W. Bush was showing his inner realist not allowing his own trigger-happy Curtis LeMays pile on to the national security messes the US already owned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But that was several years ago. Today, there is a new US President, more Iranian centrifuges, and a different Israeli Prime Minister - and Bibi Netanyahu seems closer to a Curtis LeMay, John Bolton or Frank Gaffney than he does to the more containment-oriented Eisenhowers and George Kennans who in their day forged a global equilibrium out of superpower rivalry and hatred.

Today's New York Times features a dispatch from Portugal today, discussing the amazing growth as well as the pitfalls of Portugal's rapid transition in building its renewable energy capacity. Nearly 45% of Portugal's energy will come from renewable sources this year, outpacing many other countries, including the United States:

Although a 2009 report by the agency called Portugal's renewable energy transition a "remarkable success," it added, "It is not fully clear that their costs, both financial and economic, as well as their impact on final consumer energy prices, are well understood and appreciated."

Indeed, complaints about rising electricity rates are a mainstay of pensioners' gossip here. Mr. Sócrates, who after a landslide victory in 2005 pushed through the major elements of the energy makeover over the objections of the country's fossil fuel industry, survived last year's election only as the leader of a weak coalition.

"You cannot imagine the pressure we suffered that first year," said Manuel Pinho, Portugal's minister of economy and innovation from 2005 until last year, who largely masterminded the transition, adding, "Politicians must take tough decisions."

Still, aggressive national policies to accelerate renewable energy use are succeeding in Portugal and some other countries, according to a recent report by IHS Emerging Energy Research of Cambridge, Mass., a leading energy consulting firm. By 2025, the report projected, Ireland, Denmark and Britain will also get 40 percent or more of their electricity from renewable sources; if power from large-scale hydroelectric dams, an older type of renewable energy, is included, countries like Canada and Brazil join the list.

The United States, which last year generated less than 5 percent of its power from newer forms of renewable energy, will lag behind at 16 percent (or just over 20 percent, including hydroelectric power), according to IHS.

The growing gap between the U.S. and other countries in producing renewable is interesting to see, but more telling is the article's explanations for why so little progress has been made in this country, an alternate combination of aging infrastructure, lack of political will, and pressure from energy lobbying groups. Indeed, it is telling that much of what the article says for why America is not further expanding its development of renewable energy has to do with political considerations.

This is not to say that America can emulate the Portuguese or other European models for energy development; as the article points out that many American energy grids are out-of-date and require serious upgrades, our great distances and suburban sprawl make energy transfer complicated, and even the "successful" European models for energy development, especially solar energy, require huge subsidies to stay solvent. As I have written, I recently visited a massive and state-of-the-art solar panel factory in Saxony, where after a lengthy presentation on the company's growth and market share in Germany and around the world, a company spokesman still admitted that without government subsidies it would be difficult to continue their development and production.

Still, moving forward we must make sure that it is economic, infrastructure, and environmental concerns that determine how we develop renewable energy sources, rather than political ones.

-- Andrew Lebovich

The Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin has highlighted a powerful video montage by his colleague HuffPost video editor Ben Craw on comments made by then-Senator Obama on Iraq in 2007 & President Obama on US policy towards Afghanistan.

There are many notable moments in this constellation of past commentary -- but the heaviest zinger is when then Senator Obama, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asks Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about benchmarks for America's increasing troop deployments to Iraq.

He asks:

"At what point do we say: 'Enough'?"

Exactly.

-- Steve Clemons

This is a guest note by General Asad Durrani, who previously served as the head of Pakistan's ISI, or Inter-Services Intelligence. Durrani later served as Pakistan's Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany and to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Double or Quits

A soldier can do better than dying on the battlefield in pursuit of paradise -- he can send his adversary to hell.

That at least was once the unofficial American doctrine. Diplomats too occasionally dispatch each other to hell; the British traditionally in a manner that the adversary looks forward to the journey. The subtlety was lost on Pakistan.

Though often persuaded to go to hell, at times all expenses paid, the country keeps turning back from the brink. The British Prime-Minister therefore decided that the time for diplomatic equivocation was past and this enfant terrible had to be told in no uncertain terms that it was playing a "double game".

We were indeed not amused, but can now be blamed for "double standards". Earlier we had applauded David Cameron when he fired the first shot from his double-barrel: blamed Israel for turning Gaza into a prison. It was more than a diplomatic gaffe. For him it could be politically fatal. We should make amends and encourage the young Prime-Minister to carry on catching the bulls from their horns.

It is not because I wish him more trouble with Israel or with his political opponents. I also must acknowledge that but for the diplomatic mambo-jumbo we may at times be in serious trouble. If you have to convey a piece of your real mind about your nemesis, it was better done with a preamble; like "how highly we admire him or her". And just in case you had no idea about the status of a case in your charge, "it is under our active consideration" would save many a blush. I still believe we would be better served with some straight talk; Pakistan more than all the others.

If we, for example, were to wish the Afghan Taliban -- our best bet to get the region rid of the US-led Alliance -- all the luck, anyone believing in stating things "as they are" would be much impressed. If we could also add that since many of our troubles began with the arrival of the foreign forces, we were now willing to facilitate their departure, some of them would jump at the offer.

And just in case we did not have the courage to convey that a number of groups targeting us were sponsored by our so called allies, we could always leak an odd document to the Wikileaks. Indeed, it would be nice if countries like China, Russia and Iran also expressed their discomfiture with NATO's meddling with the New Great Game.

The Brits too would be delighted. They would dump all the debris of the last decade on the senior partner, hang some of its poodles now under trial (like they used to execute generals and admirals who lost wars in faraway places), and make up with their old friends, the Afghan Tribesmen.

The Americans too could benefit. They will finally get a chance to get even with "Big Money" that has run the country to bankruptcy, mortgaged its future to China, and created the most expensive war machine in history that routinely loses to ragtag warriors in this postmodern warfare.

And who knows, India may also concede that the real reason it was dragging its feet on reconciliation with Pakistan was that the price for peace exceeded the cost of status quo.

On second thought, this conversion to the true faith does not seem to be a good idea. It would deprive us of all the fun in conducting international relations, of running with the hare and hunting with the hound, and in letting our emissaries run wild in pursuit of refining diplomatic doublespeak.

In due course, Mr Cameron too would give up his new found enthusiasm for calling a spade a spade; latest, when the former US Defense Secretary William Cohen reminds him of the lesson he learned from an illustrious British diplomat, Lord Robertson: "now that you have joined the circus, learn to ride on two horses".

When the Prime-Minister was admonishing us for looking "both ways", his Indian hosts should have recalled what their own "showman of the century" taught them about life: "it is a circus, in which one must move and look in all directions".

Double-crossers!

-- Asad Durrani

Fareed Zakaria's dramatic rebuke of the Anti-Defamation League for opposing a mosque at the Ground Zero construction site replacing the 9-11 destroyed World Trade Center in New York raises obvious questions about who else has been honored by the ADL and how these recipients feel about the high profile controversy.

As he explains in his commentary above, Zakaria is not just hitting ADL on the head but rather returning the Humphrey Medal and $10,000 prize as an effort to encourage the organization to regain its credibility by recognizing that it made a mistake. This is a principled move by Zakaria and holds open the hope that ADL will pivot back towards the ethical track it has long been on.

I don't necessarily believe in follow-the-leader behavior and don't know if other recipients of the Humphrey Medal would be in the same position as Zakaria to easily return a large cash prize years after the fact. But knowing how other recipients feel about the ADL controversy and the Cordoba mosque could be instructive and important.

Barack Obama is occasionally photographed carrying a weighty and important book around with him. One of those books -- which he seemed to carry around for nearly a year (it is a very long book at 738 pages) -- was Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 by my New America Foundation colleague Steve Coll.

Another book that Obama took very seriously and had his pic snapped with is Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World.

What Obama likely learned from Coll's book is that Afghanistan would be a tough grind, one that America couldn't easily walk away from without running the risk that the drama in that region will come knocking on America's door if not dealt with. What the President learned from Zakaria is that the tools of American power are severely diminished, that enormous global doubts exist about the United States and its future course, and that foes and allies alike are not doubling down on American leadership but are rather placing new bets.

I just received an email from a leading public intellectual on US foreign policy who just returned from Israel and Palestine and reported that there were "construction cranes all over Ramallah."

The source commented that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is getting something right. According to the source, he's building up the state even before there is a State.

I worry that what goes up can be blown up either by those left out of the political equation inside the Palestinian scene or be blown up through Israel incursions, but I remain cautiously hopeful that the infrastructure and urban development continue.

On another front a friend from the American Task Force on Palestine alerted me to this new resource for those interested in documents and materials related to Palestine state-building. This is the link.

-- Steve Clemons

Israeli media is reporting that former Clinton administration Secretary of Health and Human Services and University of Miami President Donna Shalala was "humilitated" at Ben Gurion International Airport. What makes matters a bit more complicated for Israel is that she was there to help protest the "academic boycott" of Israel.

Secretary Shalala was held for some two and a half hours in her view because she had a Lebanese last name, was not apparently reported in a VIP registration system, and had no "handlers" from Israeli organizations assisting her.

Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israel Ambassador to the US Danny Ayalon has "agreed that a new protocol will be drafted that will keep incidents to a minimum."

But this should not be just about VIP treatment in Israel. This kind of incident occurs in the United States frequently as well as Israel, and probably in other countries. Stories abound not just about time delays but about the gruff treatment that US customs officials handle those they hold back.

I wrote some time ago about the US Customs treatment of German Green Party Chairman Cem Oezdemir at Dulles Airport -- and when traveling through much of the Middle East, I constantly hear about VIPs and just regular folks who succeeded in getting visas nonetheless being subjected to equivalent forms of "humiliation" as Shalala apparently received while in Israel.

When I have been in Israel on my own and not under official sponsorship, I too have been subjected to pretty serious scrutiny. I once answered a question honestly that added an hour or so to my time. The young lady security screener asked (as I was departing Israel), "what place of worship do you belong to? a church in your community?" I responded, "I don't do religion." Red flag.

That said, I was treated with great respect by the Israeli screeners who frequently apologized for how long the search of my bags and perhaps my past were taking. But they were the epitome of politeness -- and I got through.

I went to St. John's Episcopal right across from the White House after this trip -- just so I could claim it next time in Israel -- but there is a deeper problem about the treatment of folks at borders, particularly the American border that I hope those angered by the Shalala case think about.

While many may be justifiably irritated by ethnic profiling and screening at Israel's airport, the spotlight should equally be held on US airports.

-- Steve Clemons

Is it possible that even the center-right tilting viewing audience of Fox news programs is also open to significant upgrades of gay civil rights? That is what a surprising new, unscientific survey of a Fox web audience seems to be showing.

With pleasure, I direct you to this interesting Fox News online poll in which at the time of this posting 300,499 votes had been cast.

The poll poses the following issue and question:

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that Prop. 8, California's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. Do you agree with the judge's decision?

Kudos to Fox for asking this important question straightforwardly.

Although Fox notes that this is not a scientific poll, the response thus far strongly affirms the decision by Judge Vaughn Walker to strike down the California anti-same sex marriage Proposition 8.

Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has now filed a brief with the courts calling for gay marriages to immediately resume.

Here are the current responses to the Fox poll:

Yes -- Prop. 8 violates the Constitution. 71.1% (213,547 votes)

No -- Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I don't care what the judge thinks about the Constitution. 24.8% (74,455 votes)

I'm not sure but shouldn't the voters views count for something? 3.6% (10,812 votes)

Other (leave a comment). 0.6% (1,685 votes)

Total Votes: 300,499

I have mixed feelings about online polls, but I voted in this one.

No matter which side of the issue you find yourself on, I'd encourage you to vote in this poll given the very large number of participants (you can only vote once).

-- Steve Clemons