PM Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

I just watched Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress (5/24/2011) and was surprised that the commentators after the speech said that there was nothing new and that this was a political speech. I think that Netanyahu's speech was pivotal.

Essentially, Netanyahu defined the settlement that Israel would accept and essentially told Obama to not waste time negotiating - here is the settlement and you can take it or leave it. Furthermore, the support that Netanyahu received from the US Senators and Congressman was essentially a message to the president that he, Netanyahu, and not Obama controlled the US Congress on the issue of Israel.

The settlement that Netanyahu presented would never be accepted by the Palestinians. The key points were that Palestinians would only have the right of return to Palestine and not to Israel (essentially conceded previously), that Jerusalem would remain undivided and under the control of Israel, that Palestine would be demilitarized and that Israel would retain a military presence in an Independent Palestine and along the Jordan River.

Netanyahu essentially stated that an independent Palestine would be an occupied territory with borders defined by the Israelis. Bottom line is that this independent Palestine would not be any different from the occupied Palestine that currently exists.

US Foreign Policy - US Interests versus Values

Periodically, most recently with regard to US foreign policy concerning the Arab awakening, the claim is made that US values frequently conflict with US interests. The interest for the US in the Mid-East is for a stable, generally secular, western friendly region which has historically been provided by local autocrats. The value generally claimed to be at conflict with US interests is democracy. Perhaps there is no conflict and the apparent conflict is just a matter of definition. Democracy is not an end in itself but a means to achieving goals. If a democracy leads to a fundamentalist Islamic government that persecutes people of other religions, limits education to religious studies for men only and recognizes few if any rights for women really in accordance with US values even if achieved via a free and fair election? Hussein in Iraq was an autocrat but he provided freedom of religion and gender equality which are key US values. If democracy leads to a civil war, are US values really served? If a country such as many of those in Africa doesn't have the institutions to support free and fair elections such as independent courts, media and election monitoring can a election really be expected to result in practices which are in accord with US values? If a country has an illiterate population with strong tribal loyalties arranged by geographic region it is likely that an election will result in an administration that is dominated by one culture or tribe which exploits the other tribes which usually results in a civil war.

I would argue that when comparing interests to values that an expansive definition of values is adopted with an assessment of what democracy will provide in light of a given nation's institutions and culture. I would also argue that stability is both a major interest and value of the US and is sometimes best served by an autocrat. The US has some ability to influence the policies of an autocrat through aid budgets and other means. Democracy as an alternative to an autocrat is no sure or quick thing. Democracy in some instances, will result in practices that are less in accord with US values than the previous autocratic government.