Catastrophe for Obama

For Barack Obama, the re-election of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu borders on catastrophe. A spokesperson for the U.S. president said on Wednesday, only a two-state solution will be able to appease the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and a negotiated withdrawal from Iran’s emerging nuclear deal is far from the best option. The Israeli prime minister, however, has undergone a significant reversal of position and has since signaled his opposition to the emergence of a Palestinian state, speaking out against Obama in the U.S. Congress, in a deliberate attempt to undermine his Iran policy. Obama is a Democrat; and Netanyahu has the unconditional support of the Republicans. In fact, the Republicans were the very first to congratulate him on Wednesday. For the conservatives, the equation is simple: “Victory for Netanyahu, defeat for Obama.”

Yesterday the White House was still yet to congratulate Netanyahu on his election win. The relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, already very poor, is perhaps set to deteriorate even further. And yet, it seems now more than ever Israel may need to rely on American diplomatic support. Thanks to Netanyahu, Israel is becoming increasingly isolated as Israeli policies begin to irritate European chancellors.

The U.S. is not about to suddenly renounce all support to Israel, a commitment so deeply rooted within the country’s political DNA. Under Obama’s leadership, Washington has developed ties between the two countries. In fact, the U.S. government gives $3.1 billion per year in military aid to Israel.

Universal Sanctions

But Barack Obama does not have much to lose less than two years before the end of his presidency — especially as the American Jewish community is now highly divided. The White House, however, is one step ahead of the real issues. Until now, the Obama administration has automatically been opposed to any resolution targeting the interests of Israel. According to the former U.S. peace mediator, Martin Indyk, it’s not out of the question for the U.S. government to appeal to the U.N. Security Council in order to establish a two-state solution. Nor is it out of the question for Obama to appeal to this very same council with the hope of achieving endorsement on Iranian nuclear negotiations in order to circumvent a hostile Congress.

For the U.S. government, it’s harder to justify their opposition to Palestine becoming a member of certain U.N. organizations. Former U.S. envoy, George Mitchell, is appalled. On MSNBC, he admits “it’s very painful for me because when I was in the region I met with the leaders of nearly 20 Arab countries, and almost without exception they did not believe his statement when he made it in 2009, that he supported a two-state solution.”

Today Netanyahu is proving the validity of these doubts. But Mitchell’s biggest fear has to do with a possible agreement with Tehran. If the Israeli prime minister and part of Congress prevent this from taking effect, “there will be real consequences.” One of which will be to transform “universal” and “effective” sanctions into purely unilateral and therefore “ineffective” ones.