The Tibetan-American community in New England has been preparing for the Dalai Lama’s arrival and have been taking part in a labor of love of sorts:

In the basement and driveway of a humble Malden house, the carpenters are building a throne.

Across town, in Medford, a lab technician spends his nights sewing embroidered silk for the drapery.

Three Tibetan-American men, two of them former monks, have devoted much of the last month to constructing the 9-foot high chair on which a cross-legged Dalai Lama will sit for a pair of lectures at Gillette Stadium next month.

The resulting throne is the most visible manifestation of the efforts by Boston’s small Tibetan community to prepare for the Dalai Lama’s four-day visit to the region, which begins April 29. But the throne also sheds light on the unusual backstories of local Tibetans, many of whom escaped difficult lives in Tibet or lived in exile in India before arriving in the United States.

The needleworker, Kunga Namgyal, leads the ordinary life of a research scientist at Shire, a biopharmaceutical company. But Namgyal is also the son and grandson of famed Tibetan tailors – his father was a tailor for the Dalai Lama – and now, at night, when he can steal time from playing with his son and dining with his wife, he sits on the floor by a china cabinet filled with Buddha statues and tries to remember what his own dad taught him about sewing.

One gem: While conventional sewing often involves pointing a needle away from the artisan, Tibetan Buddhists sew with the needle pointing toward themselves, to symbolize compassion for others who won’t get poked.

Hopefully, when the Dalai Lama returns to the United States in October (according to media reports), the US government will show him the respect and honor he deserves by granting him an official state visit with the President and the Secretary of State, although the Obama administration seems a bit too worried China might get “angry.”

The State Department said Chavez had approached Clinton during summit sessions Saturday, and the two discussed returning ambassadors to their posts in Caracas and Washington.

“This is a positive development that will help advance U.S. interests, and the State Department will now work to further this shared goal,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said.

Is Chavez a nutter? Probably a bit. But he has oil and he holds sway in Latin America and simply ignoring him is not a foreign policy strategy, it’s a cop-out. By interacting with Chavez, the US is not capitulating to socialism nor is it displaying weakness. Rather, it is recognizing the reality of the politics of Latin America.

Apparently Secretary Clinton had several informal interactions with President Chavez which culminated in Chavez offering to re-install a Venezuelan Ambassador to Washington.

While it is true that the United States has embraced the goal of a two-state solution while newly-elected Netanyahu has not, and while that will likely result in a certain amount of tension, I hardly think it represents a radical fissure in the relationship between the two allies. In fact, the cynic in me thinks perhaps the talk of growing tensions is a political ploy to make it seem like there is more of a change in vision with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, than perhaps there actually is. Thus far, however, any real change, including a more even-handed approach to the conflict, has not been evident.

During Hillary’s recent trip to the West Bank, we saw the usual demands for concessions on the part of the Palestinians with nothing asked of the Israelis. The US has never questioned Israel’s use of white phosphorous in highly populated Gaza, or anything else for that matter. When allegations of horrible human rights abuses surfaced after the recent assault on Gaza, the US remained eerily silent and seems content to be assured by the Israeli military that nothing untoward occurred anyone who suggests otherwise, is simply an anti-Semitic hater of Israel. In fact, it would seem that there is nothing Israel could possibly do to raise the ire of the US. Never mind this stunning act of diplomatic chutzpah from the Israeli government when Secretary Clinton met with Netanyahu:

Sources tell Foreign Policy that when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Netanyahu at the King David Hotel earlier this month, such was the concern that a certain former Mossad analyst who now serves as Netanyahu’s security advisor may pose a counterintelligence problem that, after conferring with an aide, Clinton suggested to Netanyahu that they reduce the number of people in the room.

The former analyst, Uzi Arad, has recently headed an Israeli think tank that convenes the influential annual Herzliya strategy dialogue. Arad has been unable to get a U.S. visa for the past two years, he has suggested, because he was identified in a 2005 indictment (though not by name) as one of the Israelis who met with then-Pentagon Iran specialist Larry Franklin. Franklin pled guilty in 2005 on charges related to unauthorized disclosure of national-security information to people not authorized to receive it, including officials with the Israeli government.

Clinton’s suggestion was made, sources say, in the hopes that Netanyahu would get the message and excuse Arad from the meeting. What happened instead, sources report, was that Netanyahu dismissed from the meeting Israeli ambassador to Washington Sallai Meridor, who has since announced his resignation. (An account of the meeting previously published on ForeignPolicy.com revealed that Clinton seemed remarkably constrained and tight-lipped during it.)

If you don’t recall who Uzi Arad is, that is probably because it wasn’t plastered all over the news. Here’s a little summary of his resume:

Arad, a long-time member of the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, was also mixed up in the spy scandal that involved two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committe, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, and a Pentagon official, Larry Franklin. (Rosen, who was charged with leaking classified information in the scandal, is the blogger who led the onslaught that killed the appointment of Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council.) The center of that scandal involving Franklin’s alleged passing of secret US plans about Iran to officials from AIPAC and the Israeli embassy.

But don’t worry, no biggie. Why let a little bit of spying and treason get in the way of our relationship with Israel! In fact, Uzi Arad has said that he fully expects the State Dept. under Hillary Clinton will issue him a Visa if he chooses to travel to the US. And why not? After all, it is Israel.

Most recently, Prime Minister Netanyahu has elevated anti-Arab racist, Avigdor Lieberman, to Foreign Minister. Great. As Professor Juan Cole points out, while the US and most reasonable nations understandably react negatively to the President of Iran’s inflammatory, hateful rhetoric about Israel, those very same reasonable nations say not a word when confronted with the reality of Lieberman as Foreign Minister, despite the fact that that both he and Netanyahu are now, alongside Hamas’ continued rocket fire into Israel, the major obstacles to stability in the region.

And to get an idea of just how radically hateful Lieberman is and just how shocking it is that the US and other nations have remained so silent about his new position alongside Netanyahu, take a look at some of Avigdor Lieberman’s greatest hits:

# In 1998, Lieberman called for the flooding of Egypt by bombing the Aswan Dam in retaliation for Egyptian support for Yasser Arafat.

# In 2001, as Minister of National Infrastructure, Lieberman proposed that the West Bank be divided into four cantons, with no central Palestinian government and no possibility for Palestinians to travel between the cantons.

# In 2002, the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Lieberman in a Cabinet meeting saying that the Palestinians should be given an ultimatum that “At 8am we’ll bomb all the commercial centers … at noon we’ll bomb their gas stations … at two we’ll bomb their banks …”

# In 2003, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that Lieberman called for thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel to be drowned in the Dead Sea and offered to provide the buses to take them there.

# In May 2004, Lieberman proposed a plan that called for the transfer of Israeli territory with Palestinian populations to the Palestinian Authority. Likewise, Israel would annex the major Jewish settlement blocs on the Palestinian West Bank. If applied, his plan would strip roughly one-third of Israel’s Palestinian citizens of their citizenship. A “loyalty test” would be applied to those who desired to remain in Israel. This plan to trade territory with the Palestinian Authority is a revision of Lieberman’s earlier calls for the forcible transfer of Palestinian citizens of Israel from their land. Lieberman stated in April 2002 that there was “nothing undemocratic about transfer.”

# Also in May 2004, he said that 90 percent of Israel’s 1.2 million Palestinian citizens would “have to find a new Arab entity” in which to live beyond Israel’s borders. “They have no place here. They can take their bundles and get lost,” he said.

# In May 2006, Lieberman called for the killing of Arab members of Knesset who meet with members of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

Oh, yeah, and then the other day he declared the US-sponsored Annapolis peace plan officially dead, which was news to just about, oh, everyone. Reaction from the United States at hearing that? *chirp*, *chirp*.

Do you hear crickets? Well, they are Israel.

The irony in all of this is that now more than perhaps at any other time, Israel is demonstrating that it’s national interests may be in direct conflict with US security interests and if that is the case, will the Obama administration have the spine to stand up to Israel? Israel is rejecting a two-state solution, publicly trying to sabotage US efforts to open a dialogue with Iran and essentially treating the new administration as if they exist to do little other than to carry water for Israel- none of this is acceptable.

One question is whether US politicians and the mainstream media will even allow such a frank, open discussion about Israel’s new government and its rejection of US policy, to occur, given that discussing Israel in anything other than the most flattering terms has become the ‘third rail’ of American politics? Are we as a nation strong enough and confident enough to discuss all of this without resorting to nonsense claims of either being pro-terrorist or anti-semitic? Thus far I am not encouraged, but promoting stability and peace in the Mid-East will be central to securing our safety here at home- that much is clear.

Secretary Clinton was in the Hague where she signaled a willingness to work with Iran on shared interests in the Afghanistan region and while there was no formal meeting with the representative of Iran, special envoy Richard Holbrooke did greet Iran’s delegation and they exchanged some pleasantries. Hey, it’s a start.

In addition, Clinton voiced support for Afghanistan’s attempts to reign in more moderate elements within the Taliban, if that is indeed possible.

During her travels yesterday, Secretary Clinton responded to a question from a reporter and she remarked that the poorly-defined and legally vague term “war on terror” seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. Good riddance.

UPDATE: I came across an interesting article about changing the US approach to mid-east peace out of necessity. This will admittedly be difficult as people have strong opinions about this issue and many have become mired in a rigid view of the parties involved and they tend to see any perceived shift in policy as threatening. That said, it is a good sign that the dialogue is opening up and there seems to be more tolerance for differing opinions and strategies for moving forward.

NYT columnist Roger Cohen wrote a commentary which has generated quite a bit of buzz in the blogosphere.

Talking Points Memo summarizes what is notable about the Cohen piece:

But Cohen is in the Times and he reports on an amazing shift among some of the biggest foreign policy thinkers (and doers) in the United States on the subject of Hamas. He writes about a letter organized by the US/Middle East project in which Brent Scowcroft, Thomas Pickering, Chuck Hagel, Paul Volcker, Lee Hamilton, James Wolfensohn, Carla Hills, Nancy Kassebaum, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Ted Sorensen urge that we recognize reality and start dealing, in some form, with Hamas. Henry Siegman from the US/Mideast Project and long time Jewish community leader quarterbacked the effort.

As Andrew Sullivan writes today, the “realist” school is gaining strength. How long can Israel survive through war with Palestinians, threatening war with Iran and, today’s latest, bombing Sudan (during the January war to intercept weapons supposedly headed to Gaza).

As Cohen puts it, it is time to “stop being hung up on prior Hamas recognition of Israel and watch what it does rather than what it says. If Hamas is part of, and remains part of, a Palestinian unity government that makes a peace deal with Israel, that’s workable…”

What I am interested in is whether other mainstream media outlets are going to be as open to this new dialogue over the coming weeks. Props to the NYT for veering a bit off their usual hawkish take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict- hopefully others will follow suit.