[size=32]America is preparing for the post-Netanyahu monopoly of the Israeli decision- One Hour Has Passed
The implications of the recent Israeli election results for relations between Washington and Tel Aviv cannot be underestimated, even if they have not yet fully crystallized. The first of these consequences is the coldest between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the entry of the "deal of the century" in the "Coma", as a result of the expected lull in Israeli policy that coincides with Washington's stand on the edge of the "lame duck" that usually marks the last year of the term American Presidents.
Trump, who has not contacted Netanyahu since the Israeli elections, commented on the results last week: "Our relations are with Israel, so we'll see what happens." Jason Greenblatt, the resigned US envoy to Middle East peace, visited Israel after the election and asked to meet with the head of the Blue Army, former Israeli army chief of staff, Benny Gantz, in a sign that the US channel of communication with Israel is no longer the preserve of Israel. Netanyahu, as has been the case for a decade.
The US channel of communication with Israel is no longer a monopoly of Netanyahu, as it has been for a decade
Even post-Netanyahu thinking started in Washington. Daniel Shapiro, a former US ambassador to Israel, asked in a recent Washington Post article what would happen if Netanyahu, who "dominated US-Israeli relations," left office. Even if it was too early to talk about Netanyahu's political end, it became clear to Washington that he could no longer speak alone in the name of Israel, and if he remained in power, it would be the result of a consensus government or side-settlements, which would mean that he would be handcuffed in his relations and talks with the states. United States.
This distance between Netanyahu and the Trump administration began even during the Israeli election campaign. The administration has not commented positively or negatively on Netanyahu's announcement of its intention to include the Jordan Valley, and Trump's tweet a few days ago on the Joint Defense Treaty was like raising a threshold with a promise to discuss the issue without any serious commitment from Washington. Now that Netanyahu has canceled his trip to New York for Tuesday's UN General Assembly, that means there may be no direct contact between Trump and Netanyahu until the Israeli political landscape is clear in the coming weeks.
The Israeli prime minister used the images of the US president alongside him in his recent election campaign, which means that Netanyahu's election defeat is reflected in Trump, who recently boasted of his popularity in Israel. Trump does not like those who become political burdens on him or those who lose the election, and now he feels that he has bet on a losing horse, so he has decided to take a distance from Netanyahu, at least temporarily, until consultations in Israel decide the fate of the latter, who is under corruption charges.
During the tenure of former President Barack Obama, US questions were whether Netanyahu would accept a compromise with the Palestinians, whether he would surprise everyone and deal a blow to Iran's nuclear sites. Indeed, recent reports revealed that the Obama administration spied on Israel to see if it was planning a similar strike to undermine the nuclear deal with Iran. These questions have continued over the past two years, albeit in a different form, despite Trump's unqualified support for Netanyahu. Thus, the White House does not yet know whether Netanyahu will continue to fuel the conflict with Tehran to block any US-Iranian dialogue, as well as whether Gemayel will respond to Trump and accept specific concessions to the Palestinians.
There will be no direct contact between Trump and Netanyahu until the Israeli political landscape is clear in the coming weeks
Greenblatt held the sure answer when he met Netanyahu shortly after the announcement of the results of the Israeli elections, and hinted that he might back down from his resignation if there is a serious chance for peace between Palestinians and Israelis. But Greenblatt's talk of a possible postponement of the "deal of the century" again means that Netanyahu is still influencing the timing, and that he is not yet ready to announce the few Israeli concessions in the plan. It was also clear that Greenblatt's decision to announce his resignation was linked to his belief that there was no hope of a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and that he would return from that resignation if there were signs to the contrary. If Greenblatt's resignation comes into effect following the resignation of former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Netanyahu lost two allies within the Trump administration who were betting on them to avoid any negative repercussions on him from the "deal of the century" and to maintain US pressure on the Iranian regime.
Netanyahu, who has a broader network of contacts in Washington than his rivals, is fluent in English, more manipulative and maneuvering with American politicians, as evidenced by his dramatic opposition to Obama, to his flattery for Trump at the expense of his relations with the Democratic Party. Last week, former US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson of Harvard University summarized the behavior, describing Netanyahu as "very skilful and a bit Machiavellian," adding that "in dealing with Bibi, it is always helpful to carry a great deal of uncertainty." Tillerson also noted that Netanyahu uses "false information" to convince the United States when he deems it necessary. It annoys me that a close and important ally for us is doing this to us. ”
Since coming to power in early 2017, Trump has seen Netanyahu as an ally against Obama's legacy, and as a way to strengthen his pro-Israel credentials, especially among conservative and evangelical Jews in the U.S. elections. But the president believes that he should now leave the door open to all possibilities, rather than dealing with only one person in Israel. Trump also feels that he has given Netanyahu everything possible, notably recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan, but the return of that support has been lost. Netanyahu has no autonomy to make decisions.
The White House now believes that weakening Netanyahu or the prospect of a national unity government in Israel may enhance the chances of the US peace plan
As US reports indicated the resentment of the US president from the opposition to the Israeli Prime Minister to try to manage a dialogue with Tehran. The difference between the two men is that Netanyahu rejected the nuclear deal because he rejected the idea of a compromise with Tehran, while Trump's objection to the deal was because he believed he could get better terms from Obama if he renegotiated. The divergence over Iran between Trump and Netanyahu (if he remains prime minister) will increase over time because they each have a different approach.
Another priority for Washington today is to give Trump a foreign policy breakthrough to market in the US presidential campaign, so there is in the White House calculations an organic correlation between the new Israeli government's formula and the fate of the "deal of the century." The White House now argues that weakening Netanyahu or the prospect of a national unity government in Israel may enhance the chances of the US peace plan compared to the other scenario in which Netanyahu's victory and his permanent arguments were allied with his hard-line Israeli right. But the likely scenario may be a stalemate in Israeli political life for the foreseeable future, and it is unclear whether the US desire for an alliance between Netanyahu and Gantz is feasible, and even if it does not necessarily give impetus to the "deal of the century."
If Netanyahu invokes government consultations in Israel to postpone the "deal of the century," the White House is more urgent than ever, because it has room until the end of the year to try to advance the peace plan before it enters US political life next year at the time of the presidential election.