Benjamin Netanyahu’s resounding victory in Israeli elections on Tuesday appears to have dashed any hopes President Obama might have had for a way out of his tumultuous and often bitter relationship with the prime minister.
White House officials offered no immediate reaction late Tuesday night to results that showed Mr. Netanyahu with a substantial lead after a divisive campaign that featured a national debate about whether the Israeli leader was undermining the country’s longstanding connection with the United States.
In a statement earlier in the day, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said only that Mr. Obama was "committed to working very closely with the winner of the ongoing elections to cement and further deepen the strong relationship between the United States and Israel.”
He added: "The president is confident that he can do that with whomever the Israeli people choose.”
Mr. Netanyahu achieved a surprisingly strong finish after a highly controversial speech this month before the United States Congress, addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and deepening the rift with Mr. Obama and his top aides.
If Mr. Netanyahu is able to form a new government in the weeks ahead, he may well emerge as an even more empowered antagonist for the United States during the final two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
The prime minister emerged as the top candidate in the Israeli elections by declaring that he was now opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, perhaps the most central piece of United States foreign policy doctrine as it relates to Middle East peace. And in the final hours of the campaign, Mr. Netanyahu appealed to supporters in his own country by warning that a wave of Arab voters could sweep him out of office.
Any hopes of restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in the Middle East — already a long shot given the prime minister’s disagreements with Mr. Obama over settlements — could be even further undermined by Mr. Netanyahu’s newly stated opposition to a "two-state solution” in the Middle East.
Mr. Netanyahu’s continued presence as Israel’s leader also means that his vocal opposition to the negotiations with Iran will only grow more intense as the deadline for reaching a nuclear agreement draws closer. Mr. Obama and the leaders of five other nations have said they want to reach a framework for a deal with Iran by the end of this month.
But beyond the substantive issues, Mr. Netanyahu’s victory means that Mr. Obama will not have an opportunity for a "reset” on one of his trickiest, most fraught relationships with any world leader.
On the one hand, White House officials insist that Mr. Obama has talked with Mr. Netanyahu — on the phone or in person — more than with any other world leader. And they say the bonds between the military and intelligence agencies of the two countries are as strong as ever. Aid to Israel has not wavered, officials note.
But personally, Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu have never become close, aides said. The Israeli prime minister is known for being difficult. James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, once barred Mr. Netanyahu, then a more junior government official, from the halls of the State Department. President Bill Clinton famously disliked Mr. Netanyahu.
"This is a relationship between the president and the prime minister that you could actually see getting worse,” Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary, said on MSNBC’s "Morning Joe” on Wednesday.
The question moving forward for Mr. Obama may be whether he should essentially write off the Israeli prime minister in much the same way he has written off building any relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, another frequent antagonist.
Alternatively, Mr. Obama could use the Israeli election as an excuse to try and make one last attempt at building a more cooperative relationship with Mr. Netanyahu.
Even if that happens, though, it is not clear whether Mr. Netanyahu would reciprocate, especially with the Iran negotiations looming this summer.
Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly said he views Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat to Israel, and he is unlikely to want to compromise in the interests of easing any relationship — even with the president of the United States.
(New York Times)
