Netanyahu’s win has consequences

The Netanyahu who won yesterday’s Israeli election is a Netanyahu with two big international policy objectives that put him at odds with the current American administration:  he wants to block both a nuclear deal with Iran and creation of a Palestinian state. He will try to form a rightist coalition that supports him on both these key points. He and his rival Isaac Herzog have already rejected President Rivlin’s proposal for a national solidarity government that includes them both.

The relative success of the united Arab coalition in this election is likely to have little impact on Netanyahu’s fourth term in office, beyond spooking Israel’s rightwing into even more virulent anti-Arab rhetoric. It will be difficult for the Arab members of the Knesset to deliver much if Netanyahu is successful in forming his preferred coalition.

Americans need to take stock of this election result and consider their options.

Netanyahu is not a party to the Iran nuclear negotiations, but his efforts to encourage US Congressional opposition have born fruit not only in his address to Congress but also in the form of a Republican “open letter” to Iranian leaders that was intended to undermine the Administration’s negotiating stance and wreck prospects for a deal. We should expect more of this kind of subversion in the future. Netanyahu and his allies in Congress want war with Iran and will stop at nothing to get it.

It has long been clear that Netanyahu’s conditions for creation of a Palestinian state preclude the creation of one worthy of that name. He has wanted continued Israeli military control over both Gaza’s entry and exit points and large portions of the West Bank, while insisting on Palestinian demilitarization. But during the election campaign he went further, declaring no Palestinian state would be created while he is prime minister. Washington needs to recognize that there is no point in continuing the Middle East peace process in any form now that Israel’s prime minister has ruled out a two-state solution, which has been the declared US objective.

What do you do when your putative ally departs from your goals on priority issues?

You re-examine the alliance. That is difficult in this instance, because Israel has strong backing across party lines in the Washington. Any effort to restrain settlement-building in the West Bank or other moves to enable realization of a Palestinian state will be met in Congress with vigorous, and likely veto-proof, opposition. Even American votes or abstentions in the UN Security Council in favor of Palestine could engender dramatic political responses in Congress. The Obama Administration may thus be reduced on Palestine issues to immobility.

But that should not happen on Iran, where Netanyahu has a less direct role. The Administration needs to bring home next week a truly good agreement on Iran’s nuclear program that will give the international community a year’s warning of any Iranian effort to “break out” and the intrusive monitoring necessary to make a “sneak out” impractical and detectable. Netanyahu can fulminate against such a deal, but he is unlikely to be able to stop it or to take unilateral (and likely ineffectual) military action against Iran.

For those who once hoped for Israelis to reject Netanyahu, the election result is an enormous disappointment, even if his additional seats come mostly from rightwing rivals. The impact on the Middle East peace process will be dramatic. But the impact on nuclear negotiations with Iran need not be.