Our guest blogger is Peter Juul, Research Associate at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

This Thursday, President Obama gives a much-anticipated speech at Cairo University in Egypt. The president himself is billing his speech as an “occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world.” Outside observers and commentators have concurred with this assessment in order to deliver their own prescriptions or engage in handwringing over the speech’s content.

Despite differences, it seems that all parties agree that there is a “Muslim world” that President Obama can speak to. But as Parag Khanna pointed out last April, there has been no “Muslim world” in the sense of a unitary politico-cultural entity since the Middle Ages. Indeed, people of Muslim background and ancestry are one of the most diverse groups in the world in terms of geography, ethnicity, and politics. Populations of Muslim background and ancestry stretch from the United States to Indonesia and from Central Asia to sub-Saharan Africa. It makes little sense to lump such a diverse group of people into a monolithic “Muslim world.” As Khanna noted, “Speaking to all Muslims is speaking to none of them.”

Ironically enough, President Obama recognizes this fact. In an interview with the BBC previewing his trip to the Middle East and Europe, the president acknowledged, “There are actually many sides to this. Because one of the misperceptions about the Muslim community is that it’s somehow monolithic, setting aside differences between Shia and Sunni.

The Muslim country that I lived in when I was a child, Indonesia, obviously, is very different from Pakistan, very different from Saudi Arabia. And so we have to also recognize that there are going to be differences based on national identity, and not just faith.

Better yet, we need to recognize that there’s considerable political, religious, and social diversity within Muslim-majority countries just as there is diversity within our own. Making all people of Muslim background into religious automata, as the “Muslim world” formula does, is both demeaning and counterproductive.

Lumping diverse people into one box harms U.S. national security interests. First, as Khanna points out, it reinforces the “archaic Islamist fantasies” of Osama bin Laden and other global terror groups. The United States really shouldn’t be in the business of doing the intellectual heavy lifting of its enemies. Moreover, it makes it more difficult to see people of Muslim background as human beings with diverse needs, wants, and hopes -– not all of which are religious, as the “Muslim world” framework implies.

Rather than delivering an address to the “Muslim world” in Cairo, President Obama should acknowledge the diversity that exists within that construct. He should pledge, as President Kennedy did over 45 years ago, to make the world safe for that diversity.

Today, President Obama named Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) his Secretary of the Army. McHugh is the ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, and represents a district that includes the Ft. Drum Army Base. He “brings patriotism and a pragmatism that has won him respect on both sides of the aisle,” Obama said of McHugh.

Notably, neither Obama nor McHugh mentioned the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, an issue McHugh will surely have to address. His congressional record provides few clues as to his position. McHugh has not signed on to co-sponsor to a House bill that would repeal the ban on gays serving in the military, and last year earned only a 15 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign.

However, in opening and closing remarks during a hearing last year on the DADT, McHugh seemed open to changing the ban on gay servicemembers, asking for further hearings on the issue and chastising the military for having “refused to step forward” and testify on the matter:

[O]ur challenge is to examine and determine whether that conclusion of 1993 remains valid here in 2008. … I share the Chairlady’s disappointment that thus far the services have refused to step forward. I don’t see as an individual member how I fully and fairly consider this question and more importantly the issue of changing this question without the input of those in the active military who have the heavy responsibility of commanding our forces in time of war. [...]

Again, to underscore my opening comments about my disappointment in the military services because we have to at some point I would assume, come to a decision as to whose opinion prevails…And with all due deference, and respect, and appreciation to this panel and the five individuals who have appeared here, that kind of weighty decisions from my perspective ought to be based on a much broader foundation of input.

During the hearing, McHugh studiously avoided revealing his own views about the military’s discriminatory policies. With the Obama administration moving slowly on repealing the ban, it remains to be seen whether McHugh can help nudge the Army toward taking that “step forward” toward greater equality.

Ian Bomberg is the assistant to Middle East Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress

I agree with my colleague Peter Juul that a strengthened Palestinian security sector is a critical part of a comprehensive approach to Palestinian state-building. However, I think Peter’s analysis underplays the extent of current U.S.-driven economic programs in the West Bank. The United States and its partners are engaged in multiple efforts to build Palestinian economic institutions, efforts that have shown positive results. The creation of a sustainable and prosperous Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel will indeed require a comprehensive approach -– one that involves economic, security and political progress. What the United States needs to do now is tie those pieces together.

Over the past two years, Quartet representative Tony Blair, in coordination with U.S. Gen. Keith Dayton, U.S. security coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority, USAID — and, before he became national security adviser, Jim Jones as special envoy for Middle East security — have been working together on pilot projects that bring together economic and security progress. One of the first efforts is in the northern West Bank town of Jenin. This project has been helpful in reviving the economy and building economic institutions in Jenin and improving realities on the ground. These efforts are not limited to Jenin — they have also produced successes in Nablus in addition to other areas and across various sectors throughout the West Bank.

The U.S. government is also working directly with the Palestinian private sector to reform economic institutions. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a U.S. government agency, is partnering with the Middle East Investment Initiative (MEII), a U.S. non-profit organization, and the Palestine Investment Fund, an independent Palestinian investment company, to generate up to $228 million in guaranteed loans to small- and medium-sized Palestinian businesses. As of March, the program had approved 76 loans totaling nearly $28 million. These loans have already generated nearly 3,000 new jobs. Moreover, this project is helping to reform and develop the Palestinian finance sector. It is motivating banks to issue loans on the basis of businesses’ cash flow instead of collateral, which is expanding the number of businesses eligible for financing.

In addition to the loan guarantee program, the U.S. government is actively involved in helping to reform and develop the Palestinian insurance and mortgage sectors. Middle East Progress is working with MEII, the Portland Trust, USAID and OPIC to create a new form of political risk insurance for Palestinian businesses. OPIC is also working with MEII to create a program that will allow properly qualified and vetted individuals to obtain a home mortgage.

All of these projects represent a coordinated effort between the Quartet, U.S. government, including Special Envoy George Mitchell’s team, Palestinian officials and businessmen and the Israeli government, to help strengthen Palestinian economic institutions.

At the end of the day, however, economic and security efforts are not enough for long-term, sustainable growth — political negotiations and improved movement and access must accompany these efforts. In Middle East Bulletin interviews with Robert Drumheller, vice president of structured finance at OPIC, and Robert Danin, head of mission in Blair’s office, both officials emphasized that in order for economic projects to succeed, improved movement and access –- i.e. removing as many checkpoints and roadblocks as possible — combined with a sense of a political horizon, is the key to lasting economic growth. Hashim Shawa, general manager of the Bank of Palestine who has been engaged in some of these efforts, told MEP that “[I]t would be a naive approach to focus on aid money and economic initiatives alone. If the key issues that affect peoples’ daily lives are not tackled, in tandem with the economic issues, then all of the economic initiatives are at risk of being undermined, and the various stakeholders’ credibility would be at stake.”

The Obama administration has taken reassuring first steps to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It has signaled strong U.S. commitment to engage in the peace process, it has put in place a well-qualified team led by Senator Mitchell, it has solicited the help of regional actors in moving the peace process forward and it has continued the economic and security efforts begun at the end of the Bush administration. It must now help both sides to engage in a political process to support and sustain all of the other efforts.