The final returns are in from the Israeli election and it appears that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will stay on. The big surprise of the election was that centrist Yair Lapid's new party ran so strongly.
But Lapid's showing was only that: a surprise. The only thing new about Lapid is that he represents the first time Israeli voters chose a media personality for a top position. At 49, he's young (by Israeli standards), handsome and a good talker in both Hebrew and English. In terms of substance, he is nothing new. Most significantly, he is utterly conventional when it comes to issues of war and peace, specifically the Palestinians and Iran.
Does that mean the Israeli election changed nothing?
Absolutely not. It changed a great deal because Netanyahu did so poorly. Yes, he will likely remain as prime minister, but in a far weaker position than he was before the election. Prior to this week's election, Netanyahu's Likud-Beiteinu party held 42 seats. It is now down to 31, a dramatic decline and a personal repudiation of the prime minister who leads the party.
Just prior to the election Netanyahu, clearly expecting a landslide victory, said that he would run for another term after his upcoming term ended. That seems considerably less likely now. Suddenly he seems to be a man of the past, with Israeli commentators already scouting out the next prime minister from among the various parties (like Lapid's) that did better than expected.
The new, weaker Netanyahu is good news for President Obama. A half-year ago, Obama was struggling to win reelection while Netanyahu was riding high, so high that he defied tradition and sent a signal to his American friends that he would like to see Obama replaced by a Republican.
In March 2011, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he was repeatedly interrupted with standing ovations as he enunciated hard line policies that were at variance with Obama's. Obama had to play catch up, lest Netanyahu weaken the president's own standing here at home by rallying Israel's supporters against the president. As late as the fall campaign, a worried Obama kept enunciating his solidarity with Netanyahu's policies while Netanyahu's friends like Sheldon Adelson made clear that the right choice for Israel was Romney.
And then came the one-two punches. First Obama won reelection easily, earning a strong new mandate and carrying 70 percent of the Jewish vote in the process. For all the publicity it received, the Adelson push in the Jewish community accomplished nothing. And now Netanyahu, having called elections to achieve a strong mandate, barely won at all.
In short, the results of the two elections could be summed up as Obama 2, Netanyahu 0.
Obama is now in a position to squeeze Netanyahu. Does Obama want to push for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement? If so, he is in a strong position to achieve it. The same applies to negotiating a deal with Iran without worrying that Netanyahu will successfully marshal his forces against him.
After all, even before this week's election, Obama nominated Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense despite the opposition of many of Netanyahu's friends here. Hagel seems headed for confirmation while the lobby has seemingly given up the fight. It says it can live with Hagel.
The bottom line is that while the Israeli election did not change anything in terms of Israeli policy, it did severely weaken Prime Minister Netanyahu vis a vis President Obama. This change in the respective standing of the two leaders will particularly be noticed by Israelis who, in contrast to the truculent prime minister, do not like to be at loggerheads with a strong, popular American president. From now on, Netanyahu's confrontational rhetoric directed at Washington will sound tinny. It is Obama who holds the winning cards.
The question is whether he will play them. A few months ago, I would have said that he wouldn't. But since his reelection, and particularly following that splendidly aggressive inaugural address, I'm beginning to think he might.
He has no reason to fear Netanyahu now. Not only is he a second term president who is thinking in terms of legacy and not reelection, Netanyahu is on the ropes. If Obama acts strategically, he may be able to win over the Israeli people, too. No, the election was not about foreign policy. It was about achieving some sort of domestic normalcy. Obama can demonstrate (at least to the half of the population that voted for centrist parties) that the only way to achieve that, once and for all, is through achieving peace with the Palestinians and ending the politics of bluster.
This is the moment to apply pressure. And the likely foreign policy team of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (along with Vice President Joe Biden, who took a strong stand against Netanyahu early in the first term) are the people to do it. This is a moment that may not be repeated. Obama should go for it: an end to the occupation, two states and peace and security for both peoples.
Just do it.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Avi Ben-Hur: Israel's Elections Results: It's the Socio-Economics, Stupid!
Dr. Josef Olmert: Obama and Netanyahu -- The Saga Continues
Netanyahu will always win since Obama have no power telling him not to commit whatever action.
Really? Your enemy has to wear a uniform in order to be considered a foe? I guess all those flag-draped coffins coming back fro Afghanistan aren't "real" soldiers also since they they aren't fighting a real army, just a bunch of people that know how to make IEDs and lots of dead people. Israelis have 15 seconds to find a shelter from incoming rockets. Up until a few years ago they had to brave a ride on a public bus knowing it could blow up at any time. And you probably think twice, jhNY, before you go into Central Park at night. Yeah, from the comfort of your own home it's easy to minimize or dismiss another's battles.
The best takeaway and sound advice is;
'This is the moment to apply pressure. And the likely foreign policy team of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (along with Vice President Joe Biden, who took a strong stand against Netanyahu early in the first term) are the people to do it. This is a moment that may not be repeated. Obama should go for it: an end to the occupation, two states and peace and security for both peoples.
Just do it.'
Thanks again.
This stuff is merely inaccurate and not at all loathsome.
If there is a 2-0 score it is that of the democracies vs. non-democracies. You see, the mere fact that citizens of these two countries have the ability to participate in free and open elections underscore the values that the two countries share rather than whatever policy differences the leaders of the two countries may have.
Shame on Obama if he ever feared Netanyahu as you claim. Neither leader should fear the other. And shame on Obama if he has to "act strategically", to win over the Israeli people. The question from the anti-Israel camp would be why should he need to win them over, he is the President of the US,-not Israel? Those who support Israel would ask, what did he do to lose the support of the Israeli people in the first place?
I know it is more fun to try and pit Netanyahu against Obama. But the relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is relatively low on the priorities of the two countries’ voters, well below concerns over domestic issues and overall foreign policy issues.
Rather, The President's skin tends to crawl whenever he deals with Netanyahu, as seems to be the case with many world leaders who must do business with Bibi.
I don't think that "winning over the Israeli people" has ever been much of a priority with The President.
We throw away TEN BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR in aid to Israel (direct and indirect aid, per the Congressional Budget Office). We squander our international good will to support Israel and, in the Security Council, veto anything that might upset the fragile Israeli government. Israel has huge privileges in the United States that cost the American Tax Payer a great deal of money and good will. Neither of these can be squandered on a state that claims to be so powerful and successful, that bribes our elected officials for even more privileges and then thumbs its runny nose at us.
You've yet to prove that outrageous lie. The link you've circulated doesn't support your ridiculous comment AT ALL. The same can be said for your repugnant "bribes" reference.
You more than justify why you've been banned many times on HP for promoting slander against Israel and the Jewish people. Why you're still allowed to do so is very disturbing.
He painted Israel into a very tiny corner. They will have to fight harder now to get out of it.
Once again, Mr. Rosenberg, your words are spot on and wise. Thank you!
What support and opinion did Bibi weaken that wasn't already weak?
>>>>and has set back the peace process with his hubris and hate filled rants.
What peace process? Abbas demanded a halt to settlement building for talks to resume. Bibi complied and Abbas never showed up. He ran to the UN instead, violating Oslo in the process. If the Palestinians can't abide by interim agreements, how could they be trusted in a comprehensive peace plan?
Hamas bombed the area during the last war; they clearly don't consider it "a holy city" at all.
"In 1948, the United Nations created the state of Israel without consulting the majority of the people who live there, a violation of its own principle of self determination."
Arabs didn't have sovereignty. Merely residing in the region didn't obligate anyone to consult anybody about anything.
"For whatever reasons, the state of Israel has been following a consistent program of expansion, ceding territory only in its settlement with Egypt."
Nonsense. Israel returned Gaza and much of the West Bank. Given the horrifying results, they needn't have bothered. The goal of Israel's enemies is the entire country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em-MnAYiEWk