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.”

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.

This latest example of bullying from China was a depressing reality check which further solidified the view that human rights would take a back seat to economic interests, particularly where China is concerned.

As the day progressed yesterday and word spread of South Africa’s actions, there was an increase in anger and outrage and some big name conference participants put South Africa on notice that they found the governments treatment of the Dalai Lama unacceptable and publicly announced they would boycott the conference altogether. Today, there is now word the conference has been canceled altogether, at the behest of the SA government and it would be reasonable.

I am watching CNN right now and all they are talking about is AIG and I can’t help but think the media is taking advantage of a bad situation and even perhaps making it worse. Where was the media when the hedge funds were making billions with their questionable policies and tactics? To hear all the pundits and politicians and financial analysts tell it, you would think the current state of the economy was a result of some phantom force outside everybody’s control. The shameless call for deregulation which has been going on for two decades, not to mention the Wall Street culture which infected the SEC, was hardly worth the media’s attention until now. Lets be honest, most of the politicians and corporate media types have actually benefitted from this culture of greed.

This is not a partisan issue and there is more than enough blame to go around, although some would love to try to portray it as being the fault of one political party over the other. For a sobering look at how much trouble we are in given who we’ve charged to fix it, just google Timothy Geithner and Henry Paulson and take a look at their resumes and economic policy views and it becomes clear why we are even in this current mess to begin with. Some Democrats like to forget that it was none other than Robert Rubin who helped push along the deregulation train and I suppose it’s no coincidence that he was chairman of Goldmann Sachs prior to becoming Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. It’ll be hard for Obama to usher in real change when he’s hired the very people who helped create the crisis, and put them in charge of trying to fix it.

Then I came across this stupid article which perfectly illustrates how twisted our culture has become. And yet, in all the coverage of the economic crisis, not one single politician [that I have seen] or media pundit has mentioned the obvious- we have become so greedy and materialistic that we couldn’t even stop ourselves when we saw the writing on the wall. Capitalism can yield tremendous opportunities, but capitalism run amok with no constraints can bring out the worst in people. Forget the favorite pet moral issues of politicians like the morality of gay marriage or abortion or sex before marriage, none of the oh-so-sanctimonious democrat and republicans politicians who wear their religious convictions on their sleeves for political gain, are willing to call out the name the real sin here. Greed.

UPDATE: On a related note about how the mainstream media spends most of it’s time rationalizing the beltway wisdom and helping the political right unquestioningly advance it’s hawkish agenda (think about the role the NYT and the mainstream media played in helping the Bush admin. make it’s case for war, facts be damned), Glenn Greenwald discusses the media reaction to Cheney’s interview with John King and how they don’t have a problem with Cheney’s fear-mongering, undermining of the current President during a time of war, again facts be damned, but instead, they are shocked, shocked that Press Secretary Robert Gibbs would sarcastically dismiss such an important, venerable man as Dick Cheney. Also check out Col. Lawrence Wilkerson’s take on GITMO and Cheney’s views of what keeps America “safe.”

Court documents filed Friday reveal that Obama’s lawyers are arguing that Ex-Guantanamo detainees have no constitutional rights.

The Center for Constitutional Rights(CCR), a non-profit legal advocacy group, is supporting four British citizens – Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Jamal al Harith – in their suit alleging religious mistreatment and torture at Guantanamo Bay. Defendants in the case include Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The four men say that they were “beaten, shackled in painful stress positions, threatened by dogs and subjected to extreme medical care,” according to the Miami Herald. In addition, they reported being forced to shave their beards, being banned from prayer, being denied prayer mats, and watching a copy of the Koran get tossed in the toilet.

Last year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in D.C. voted unanimously against the 4 ex-detainees. The Appeals Court claimed that the men did not fit the definition of ‘person’ in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, because they were foreigners being held outside the United States. Months later, the Supreme Court instructed the Appeals Court to reconsider their decision, based on a Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo detainees have some rights under the constitution. On Friday, the CCR re-filed their brief in the D.C. Court of Appeal.

There seem to be some inconsistencies.

Let me say this LOUD AND CLEAR- some of the criticism of Israel and it’s policies (and those who champion them) is born of an underlying anti-semitism, but the almost constant insinuation from right-leaning, pro-Israel hawks, that any criticism of Israel is per se anti-semitic, is a lazy, lame lie which diminishes the very real anti-semitism that does exist. No nation, including Israel and the US, are above criticism or reproach. I personally support Israel’s right to exist and right to defend itself but increasingly, I find many of it’s policies to be self-defeating and even in some cases, reprehensible. Does that make me anti-semitic? Absolutely not. Just as my criticism of some US policy does not make me un-American.

Adding to the controversy is the fact that Chas Freeman sent a letter to Foreign Policy, which slammed the Israel Lobby (AIPAC?) as being the primary actors behind the firestorm of criticism which erupted when Freeman was tapped by Obama and Adm. Blair, to head the NIC. I think that there is probably some truth to that, but there was also vocal criticism of Freeman’s lax attitude towards human rights in China, among other things. That said, no one could argue that Freeman wasn’t qualified for the NIC post. More on the Freeman mess, here.

Needless to say, it didn’t help much when Chuck Shumer came out yesterday and bragged that he was the primary force behind preventing Freeman from being Director of the NIC and that the basis of his opposition was Freeman’s past statements criticizing aspects of Israeli policy.

For an excellent, but clearly progressive, take on the Freeman debacle, check out Glen Greenwald’s commentary on the issue. Regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum, it’s worth a read.

Why can’t the government just stay out of the promoting religion business and just for once, try not to cynically use religion as a political prop?

UPDATE: Today’s NYT (sub. req) has an interesting article/commentary about government funding of religious groups, charities etc. and is worth a read.