Why?

From Tel Aviv to Turtle Bay

The White House hoped a new Israeli prime minister would resume peace talks with the Palestinians. 

With Netanyahu holding on, the administration is weighing a turn to the U.N. to help force a deal.

Because O, thinking the US, the indispensable nation, the exceptional nation, needs to support a morally/politically correct disposition of Palestine, and his vision of that, about two decades behind the contemporary left, is the old two-state solution that included and includes a right to national statehood in Palestine for the Palestinians?

[Aside.

Does it, in his mind, include a right to national statehood in Palestine for the Jews?

/Aside.]

So will he be urging all this at the UN as an open ally of the Palestinians in opposition to the Israeli position?

The Lobby will beat his head in and the Democrats will lose a lot of their Jewish support, both big money Jews and plain old Jewish voters.

They never had the serious Christian Zionists to lose.

Which way will Hillary, quondam senator from New York, jump on this?

By the way, it looks like Bibi's support comes increasingly from religious Zionists and less and less from secular supporters of the real Zionist idea, that of a Jewish State in Palestine.

A Jewish State in the sense that makes sense to ethnic nationalists, that is.

For Jews as well as for everyone else in the Occident, ethnic nationalism has come to smell more than faintly of sulfur and there is a marked inclination on the left to equate it morally with racism, particularly among younger folk.

Perhaps this is happening as well in Israel, itself?

By the way, II, neither the US nor Israel nor any of their citizens is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, if Wikipedia is right on this point.

So it is unclear why it is mentioned in the article as a possible venue for action against Israel.