The Israeli Elections Aftermath

++The Times of Israel writes that pressure will resume on Israel but it may not be that bad.

++The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the occasional Washington Post op-ed felt the election was awful and Bibi cynical.

++Tehran Tom Cotton was the first Republican who said that Bibi's no Palestinian state was practical. John McCain said that he preferred a two-state solution but isn't bothered that Bibi changed his mind.

++An Israeli writes Josh Marshall about what is Likud thinking that Israel will survive while there are boycotts against it and its leaders can only fly to the United States because they are wanted by the ICC. Do they really think the Palestinians will abandon their hope for statehood and accept their meager fate? What is the Likud excuse--that they want to avoid an Islamic terrorist state next door? Then why wait ten or twenty years? For what?

++Almost at the same time as Michael Tomasky's column tab the DailyBeast, Jonathan Chait in New York magazine wrote a piece about Bibi moving far right and embracing the fate of a garrison state that appeals only to right-wing Republicans.

++Ed Kilgore thinks Bibi acted like George Wallace while J.Goldberg at the Atlantic bemoans his embrace of Lee Attwater dog whistles against the Israeli Arabs.

++Should Bibi be seen as a radical factional leader leading a small state? Another writer questions.

++John Kerry called to congratulate Bibi but didn't talk about anything. President Obama's spokesman said that Obama would call him after his created his coalition but the President was bothered by his any-Arab language. 

++The interesting question is that both the White House and the State Department have openly questioned the need to change policy on the peace negotiations. The question is when and if to use our vetoes at the United Nations when the issue of Palestine arises. But avoiding the veto,President Obama throws the ball back at Bibi in a way that makes it impossible for him to govern.

++Thomas Friedman writes that the day of a Palestinian state is rapidly fading. Historically, he doesn't buy Bibi's line but thinks from a practical point of view it is not possible.

++I am seeing the scenario rapidly developing where Israel faces the resistance by the international community that South Africa had to deal with. I can see the pro-apartheid forces lining up right now. The Christian Right,the GOP,and the business community. The situation will take years to play out in the United States but in Europe the momentum is already there. I expect Palestine to be recognized by several European states this year after Sweden's initiative. I also expect Palestine to bring war crimes accusations against Israel for Gaza and the United Nations Human Rights Council to step up pressure on Israel. 

++I also expect to see the taboo about speaking or writing about the Israeli Lobby to fall rather quickly. I also expect that some people in the Beltway will press to have AIPAC register as a "foreign agent". 

++William Brennen, writing for the Atlantic Council,suggested that President Obama appeared weak and vacillating on the Bibi Iran speech and that if he had spoken up and slammed Bibi's interference in our domestic affairs things would have been different. I humbly disagree because President Obama knows that he is detested in Israel and the results in the election would have been the same. It was clear that President Obama wanted a different result but as the LA Times said, we don't tell people in other countries whom to vote for--But now that it's done we can make ourselves be heard.

++Does Bibi's election really affect President Obama's remaining days? I doubt it. He doesn't have to answer the phone calls. And what is it that we have to do on the agenda with Israel--just the Palestinian talks. While Bibi thinks he should have the final say on the Iranian nuclear talks,his election probably diminishes his influence considerable, except among the GOP.