.
Can’t be more clearly stated than this opinion piece in Haaretz … US senators ahead of AIPAC congress making foreign policy statements on Iran in support of President Netanyahu, oops wrong President.
If Obama wins in November, is Netanyahu in trouble?
(Haaretz) – American conservatives have begun to think out loud that Barack Obama will win in November. No one will be following the campaign more closely than the man adored by Republicans nationwide as the favorite son they can never adopt, Benjamin Netanyahu. And should Obama win a second term, perhaps recouping a measure of Congressional strength on his coattails, Netanyahu stands to lose as much as anyone.
Much of the prime minister’s policymaking strategy has been based on educated hopes for a steady decline in Obama’s first-term electoral strength and a Netanyahu- friendly Republican taking the White House in 2012. Marshalling conservative allies in Congress and the Jewish community,Netanyahu seemed to have shattered the Obama administration’s linkage of Israeli-Palestinian peace progress (with its attendant threats to the settlement enterprise) and resolution of other regional issues, notably Iran.
Jerusalem King David Hotel: McCain decries daylight between Israel, US on Iran
But it’s a different Netanyahu coming home this week. The Prime Minister’s Office is no longer betting on Obama to lose.
You can hear the change in the words of Israeli officials. Before the shift, during the run-up to AIPAC and a closely watched meeting at the Oval Office, the prime minister had five senior U.S. senators over to lunch, a group headed by Republican former presidential candidate John McCain.
Officials, riding a frankly pro-Republican wave of sentiment, later quoted Netanyahu as telling the senators he was “disappointed” with Obama administration statements on Iran, adding that the public opposition of administration leaders – apparently including the president – to an attack on Iran, “serves the Iranians.”
On Tuesday, as the AIPAC conference ended, government figures in Jerusalem took a markedly different tack, one that began to confront the possibility that Obama may occupy the Oval Office for four fateful second-term years.
“We hope that if he is re-elected in November,” Channel 10 television quoted officials as saying, “that he will appreciate Israel’s restraint, if, in fact, Israel maintains restraint.”It was not lost on them, that at a key Congressional briefing Tuesday, the head of the U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, signaled a rebirth of linkage, warning a joint military affairs committee that the current stalemate in the Israel-Palestine stalemate could not continue, and that talks toward a two-state solution were needed.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. By this time, aided by and aiding the Republican-in-all-but-name Netanyahu government, Obama, and talk of an urgent need for negotiations toward two states, were supposed to be on their way out.
But as the American economy recovers and the Republican Party guts itself in efforts to field a credible candidate to face Obama, the Netanyahu government is weighing a challenge that may prove politically second only to that of a nuclear Tehran – an Obama victory.
At issue are the twin underpinnings of the Netanyahu government, expansion of settlements and resistance to granting concessions to Palestinians. They are the cement that has kept in place an ill-fitting collection of political building blocks.
Second-term U.S. presidents often have much more freedom to bring influence to bear on their Israeli allies, a factor of significance if Obama seeks to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace as the cornerstone of his presidency.
Should Obama win, Netanyahu may have to radically rethink the composition of his government, as well as his strategy with respect to the Palestinians. He may have no choice but to begin to put substance to his commitment – empty until now – toward a two-state solution.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
