"A reckoning is coming."

BooMan

The Times apparently toned down its online attacks on Bibi, at some point yesterday.

Considerably more interesting is how much left support, and Jewish support, there is for the not at all toned down version that involved lots more anger and lots more denunciations of racism.

Mondoweiss

And for a shift in the US position regarding Israel, though that is not to say any of these people are looking for a withdrawal of the permanent, tacit US guarantee of Israel's safety and existence as a state.

Far from it.

Recall that the two-state solution supported by the US and others frankly includes UN and specifically US security guarantees, guarantees that our congress would be only too delighted to formalize with a treaty.

Guarantees these irate Jews and other irate leftists, upset at Bibi and Bibi's policies, have shown no sign of opposing.

Jonathan Alter

In the days before the election, Netanyahu accused the opposition of being manipulated by Americans, insulted Arabs for simply voting, doubled down on support for settlements in East Jerusalem and—most significantly—said there would be no Palestinian state on his watch, thereby confirming a view that critics always suspected he harbored.  

. . . . 

Monday’s comment set his feet in cement. 

“I think that anyone who moves to establish a Palestinian state and evacuate territory gives territory away to radical Islamist attacks against Israel,” Netanyahu told a website owned by his most generous supporter, American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. 

Should he go back on this pledge, his right-wing supporters would desert him and he would be forced to call another election next year that he would likely lose. 

And yet the "reckoning" Alter predicts is not much: a few UN slaps on the wrist, more successes for the leftists of the divestment movement, and unwillingness of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, and other Arab states to "ally with Israel against Iran" - whatever he actually means by that.

Bibi and his supporters will complain, but regard those things as a very small price to pay for the nation's safety.

Michael Crowley

In the wake of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decisive reelection, the Obama administration is revisiting longtime assumptions about America’s role as a shield for Israel against international pressure.

Angered by Netanyahu’s hard-line platform toward the Palestinians, top Obama officials would not rule out the possibility of a change in American posture at the United Nations, where the U.S. has historically fended off resolutions hostile to Israel.

. . . . 

There is no virtually no chance that the U.S. will trim its financial or military support for Israel. 

But some analysts believe that going forward, Netanyahu may be vulnerable in international forums where the U.S. has long been a bulwark against criticism of Israel and its presence in Palestinian territories.

“I do think the administration is going to look very closely at the possibility of either joining, or at least not blocking an internationally backed move at the U.N. to restate the parameters for ending the conflict,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street.

I can hear Bibi now, going "Oh, boo hoo."

As I noted before, if O goes too far with this it will please the angry Jewish left but hurt any Democrats who support him with far more Jews, both the money and influence men and the men in the street.

The Republicans and the neocons will be thrilled to howl mightily, all the more delighted if these new O moves happen over many months, right up to the primary season and generals of 2016.