This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/world/middleeast/netanyahu-obama-israel-election.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
As Netanyahu Prevails in Israel, a Thorny Relationship Persists for U.S. Obama May Find It Impossible to Mend Frayed Ties to Netanyahu
(about 13 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Benjamin Netanyahu’s resounding victory in Israeli elections on Tuesday appears to have dashed any hopes President Obama might have had for a way out of his tumultuous and often bitter relationship with the prime minister. WASHINGTON — President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had a poisonous relationship long before Mr. Netanyahu swept to victory on Tuesday night in elections watched minute-by-minute at the White House. But now that Mr. Netanyahu has won after aggressively campaigning against a Palestinian state and Mr. Obama’s potential nuclear deal with Iran, the question is whether the president and prime minister can ever repair their relationship — and whether Mr. Obama will even try.
White House officials offered no immediate reaction late Tuesday night to results that showed Mr. Netanyahu with a substantial lead after a divisive campaign that featured a national debate about whether the Israeli leader was undermining the country’s longstanding connection with the United States.  On Wednesday, part of the answer seemed to be that the president would not make the effort.
In a statement earlier in the day, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said only that Mr. Obama was “committed to working very closely with the winner of the ongoing elections to cement and further deepen the strong relationship between the United States and Israel.” In strikingly strong criticism, the White House called Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign rhetoric, in which he railed against Israeli Arabs because they went out to vote, an attempt to “marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens” and inconsistent with the values that bind Israel and the United States. The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, told reporters traveling with Mr. Obama on Air Force One on Wednesday that Mr. Netanyahu’s statement was “deeply concerning and it is divisive and I can tell you that these are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”
He added: “The president is confident that he can do that with whomever the Israeli people choose.” And with Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute turnaround against a Palestinian state alongside Israel, several administration officials said that the Obama administration may now agree to passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution endorsing the principles of a two-state solution that would include Israel’s 1967 borders with Palestine and mutually agreed swaps of territory.
Mr. Netanyahu achieved a surprisingly strong finish after a highly controversial speech this month before the United States Congress, addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and deepening the rift with Mr. Obama and his top aides. Those borders, the subject of contentious negotiations for decades, include the West Bank, occupied by Israel since the 1967 war. Most foreign policy experts say that Israel would have to cede territory to the Palestinians in exchange for holding on to major Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank.
If Mr. Netanyahu is able to form a new government in the weeks ahead, he may well emerge as an even more empowered antagonist for the United States during the final two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency.  Such a Security Council resolution would be anathema to Mr. Netanyahu. Although the principles are Obama administration policy, up until two days ago officials would never have endorsed them in the United Nations because the action would have been seen as too antagonistic to Israel.
The prime minister emerged as the top candidate in the Israeli elections by declaring that he was now opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state, perhaps the most central piece of United States foreign policy doctrine as it relates to Middle East peace. And in the final hours of the campaign, Mr. Netanyahu appealed to supporters in his own country by warning that a wave of Arab voters could sweep him out of office.  “The premise of our position internationally has been to support direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” a senior White House official said. “We are now in a reality where the Israeli government no longer supports direct negotiations. Therefore we clearly have to factor that into our decisions going forward.”
Any hopes of restarting the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in the Middle East — already a long shot given the prime minister’s disagreements with Mr. Obama over settlements — could be even further undermined by Mr. Netanyahu’s newly stated opposition to a “two-state solution” in the Middle East. Administration officials said that although the relationship between Israel and the United States would remain strong, it would not be managed by Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu. Instead it would be left to Secretary of State John Kerry, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s only remaining friends in the administration, and to Pentagon officials who handle the close military alliance with Israel. “The president is a pretty pragmatic person and if he felt it would be useful, he will certainly engage,” said a senior administration official, who asked not to be identified while discussing Mr. Obama’s opinions of Mr. Netanyahu. “But he’s not going to waste his time.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s continued presence as Israel’s leader also means that his vocal opposition to the negotiations with Iran will only grow more intense as the deadline for reaching a nuclear agreement draws closer. Mr. Obama and the leaders of five other nations have said they want to reach a framework for a deal with Iran by the end of this month. As of Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Obama had not called Mr. Netanyahu to congratulate him and left it instead for Mr. Kerry to do. The president will eventually call the Israeli leader, administration officials said.
But beyond the substantive issues, Mr. Netanyahu’s victory means that Mr. Obama will not have an opportunity for a “reset” on one of his trickiest, most fraught relationships with any world leader. Another source of administration anger is Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to Washington and an American-born former Republican political operative. Some administration officials said that it would improve the atmosphere if Mr. Dermer stepped down — he helped orchestrate an invitation from House Speaker John A. Boehner to have Mr. Netanyahu address Congress without first consulting the White House — but it would not the change the underlying divisions over policy.
On the one hand, White House officials insist that Mr. Obama has talked with Mr. Netanyahu — on the phone or in person — more than with any other world leader. And they say the bonds between the military and intelligence agencies of the two countries are as strong as ever. Aid to Israel has not wavered, officials note. Despite the fractured relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, Israel, which has received more American aid since the end of World War II than any other country, will continue to receive more than $3 billion annually in mostly military funding. In addition, the United States military will continue to work closely with the Israeli Defense Forces to maintain Israel’s military edge against its regional adversaries.
But personally, Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu have never become close, aides said. The Israeli prime minister is known for being difficult. James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, once barred Mr. Netanyahu, then a more junior government official, from the halls of the State Department. President Bill Clinton famously disliked Mr. Netanyahu. Foreign policy experts said that the United States would for the most part continue to side with Israel internationally, even as a growing number of European allies seek to pressure Israel to stop settlement expansion in the West Bank and to recognize Palestinian statehood.
“This is a relationship between the president and the prime minister that you could actually see getting worse,” Robert Gibbs, a former White House press secretary, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday. But Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now the head of the Middle East and North Africa program at the European Council on Foreign Relations, warned that the administration’s patience was growing thin. “What the Obama administration is saying is that, ‘Yes, we’re still committed to you,’ ” Mr. Levy said. “But if you don’t give us something to work with, we can’t continue to carry the rest of the world for you.”
The question moving forward for Mr. Obama may be whether he should essentially write off the Israeli prime minister in much the same way he has written off building any relationship with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, another frequent antagonist. Mr. Netanyahu’s objections to an Iran nuclear deal, and his decision to firmly ally himself with Mr. Obama’s Republican opponents in expressing his ire over the Iran deal, may well have hardened Mr. Obama’s decision to push for agreement, one Obama adviser said Wednesday. At the very least, Mr. Netanyahu’s opposition has done nothing to steer Mr. Obama away from his preferred course of reining in Iran’s nuclear ambitions through an international agreement that would sharply limit the ability of Iran to produce nuclear fuel for at least 10 years, in exchange for a gradual easing of economic sanctions on Iran. Mr. Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, are continuing in talks in Lausanne, Switzerland, this week with the goal of reaching an agreement by the end of the month.
Alternatively, Mr. Obama could use the Israeli election as an excuse to try and make one last attempt at building a more cooperative relationship with Mr. Netanyahu. “We do think we’re going to get something,” one senior administration official said. He noted, pointedly: “We are backed by the P-5 plus 1,” —using the diplomatic moniker for Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, and the United States. Mr. Netanyahu, the official added, should “look carefully” at his own anti-Iran-deal coalition, which, besides congressional Republicans, largely consists of the Sunni Arab states that all detest Israel but lately have come to fear a rising Iran more.
Even if that happens, though, it is not clear whether Mr. Netanyahu would reciprocate, especially with the Iran negotiations looming this summer. Although Mr. Netanyahu is certain to be a major critic of an Iran agreement and push Republicans in Congress to oppose it, Aaron David Miller, a former State Department official who is now a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said that in the end Mr. Netanyahu would not get his way. “You will have an Iran deal,” Mr. Miller said. ”The Israelis will not like it. But in the end, Israel will not be able to block it.”
Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly said he views Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat to Israel, and he is unlikely to want to compromise in the interests of easing any relationship — even with the president of the United States. That is in part because the administration expects lawmakers would be reluctant to reject a deal for fear they would be held responsible for what could happen after — either a nuclear-armed Iran or war with Iran.
After Iran, administration officials said the next major confrontation with Mr. Netanyahu will likely be over continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. The Palestinians plan to file a case in the International Criminal Court in April contending that the settlements are a continuing war crime.
Martin S. Indyk, Mr. Obama’s former special envoy on recent negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and now executive vice president of the Brookings Institution, said that although the United States will always be a strong supporter of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu was in dangerous terrain. “Israel does not need to be, and should not aspire to be, a nation that dwells alone,” Mr. Indyk said.