We have stood by Israel through thick and thin since its creation at the end of World War II.  Whether it is because of the horrors of the Holocaust or because of its strategic value as a counterweight to rogue states in the Middle East, we have consistently fought their battles for them, and as Israel is the only stable democracy in the area, we are right to do so.  

However, we have always been faced with the perennial problem of Israel’s domestic politics.  Seats in the Knesset, Israel’s legislative body, are assigned on a proportional basis with the entire nation as a single district.  This electoral structure is a sure guarantee that there will always be radicals in power.  The clearest example of the hazards of the system is the Faustian deals that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been forced to make with Far-Right parties in his governing coalition.

The latest disaster took place during Vice President Joe Biden’s March visit to Jerusalem.  Biden began his visit with almost romantic words affirming eternal friendship and intimating the Obama administration’s “absolute, total, unvarnished commitment to Israel’s security.”  During the Vice President’s visit, the Israeli housing minister, from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, issued an announcement authorizing the construction of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem. This attack on President Obama’s calls for a settlement freeze was perceived as a serious affront.  By the end of the Vice President’s visit, Secretary Clinton issued a blistering rebuke in stark contrast to the administration’s warm words just hours previous: “The status quo is unsustainable for all sides. It promises only violence and unrealized aspirations.”  This public statement was followed with a forty-five minute chastisement of Mr. Netanyahu by phone.

To add insult to injury, when Prime Minister Netanyahu traveled to Washington last week, his visit was prefaced by yet another announcement of construction in East Jerusalem, this time in a predominantly Palestinian neighborhood.  He was given the diplomatic cold shoulder at the White House and presented with a list of American demands of “trust-building measures,” but he stood firm on the unequivocal right of Jews to build in what Palestinians see as their future capital.

The failure of this linchpin of Obama’s Middle East strategy has threatened his legacy as the American president to finally bring peace to Israel, and it may mark the beginning of a new era in U.S.-Israeli relations. It also marks the collapse of Obama’s image as the poster child of soft multilateral engagement.  He was swept into office as the alternative to Bush’s rabid unilateralism and promised to restart frosty relations and apologize to snubbed allies.  On the campaign trail, his main Democratic rival Hilary Clinton offered an alternate approach best exemplified by their divergent views on Iran.  Obama pushed to extend the hand of friendship to the Islamic Republic, offering them a chance to peacefully retreat from the brink.  Clinton favored a tougher approach, fighting for stronger sanctions and the so-called “pressure-track” for Iran.

As Obama’s engagement has failed on a grand scale across the world, we have witnessed a slow and steady shift to Secretary Clinton’s approach.  This latest cold snap with Israel is an example of the coming sea change in Obama foreign policy.  Look for the President to take a tougher stance on a wide variety of issues.  Soon his appointment of Clinton as Secretary of State will begin to look shrewder every day.  It will allow Obama to maintain his olive branch façade while using Clinton as the iron inside his velvet glove.  As U.S.-Israel relations continue to turn frosty, expect Israel to be just the first of many disappointed targets  of the new Obama foreign policy.

David is a sophomore majoring in international relations.