When Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to power last year, he assembled a right-leaning coalition that would support him in his opposition to a two-state solution to his country's long-running conflict with the Palestinians. But in a blow to his plans, US President Barack Obama announced a new twist in US policy.

In a major speech he delivered in Cairo, Obama declared his administration's opposition to continued Israeli settlement in the Palestinian lands it occupies in the West Bank. One of the key constituencies for Netanyahu's coalition is the Jewish settlers who have been taking over more and more land in the West Bank. Netanyahu must now choose whether to please them, or to please Israel's crucial ally, the US.

Previous initiatives

One difference between this and previous US initiatives on the Middle East is timing. It sometimes seems that US presidents seek to bring peace to the Middle East at the twilight of their presidencies. As they grow more marginal at home, they sometimes travel more, hoping to claim some kind of 'legacy' for their presidency.

The last US president to invest so much of his political capital in trying to bring peace to the Middle East was Bill Clinton. But by the time he last broached the issue, the Lewinsky scandal had (ahem) blown away what political capital he had left in Congress, and his authority was weak. At such times, Palestinian or Israeli leaders who dislike what the president is proposing can just demur and see what the next White House incumbent has to offer; or they might hesitate to make major commitments, knowing the next president might not follow through on his promises.

Different approach

Obama has taken a different approach. He is making a bold policy statement at the start of his presidency, when his popularity is high and his support in Congress is strong. One of the striking results of this is that Israeli officials, who in such a situation would normally resort to the old practice of drumming up support in Congress, are receiving a cooler reception than usual. Some of the most pro-Israel Congressmen are telling Israeli envoys that they are standing behind the president, at least for now.

Netanyahu, therefore, faces a dilemma. Demurring or delaying is probably not an option. He will have to either come on board and declare openly for a two-state solution, or he will declare his opposition to the Obama plan.

If he chooses option one, he risks alienating the most right-wing elements in his coalition, and breaking up his government. If he chooses option two, he holds on to power, but risks isolating Israel diplomatically. What do you say to someone who is given the choice between two doors, behind each of which lies certain death?

Policy shift

Reports in the Israeli press suggest that the government is already accepting it will have to shift on its policy. But there will be negotiation around what 'settlement' means, and whether existing settlements can continue growing as their populations grow naturally - as one Israel official, if their residents have babies.

Some analysts are parsing Obama's statements to suggest that he has left enough ambiguity in his declaration to allow some wiggle-room for the Israelis. The problem for Netanyahu is that the Israeli right, which underpins his government, is not known for wiggling.

Yet even some right-wing opinion in Israel seems resigned to some form of surrender on this point. That sets the stage for a possible major split on the right wing of Israeli politics. Netanyahu is a canny politician, but his survival instincts will now be tested to their limits.

John Rapley is president of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI), an independent think tank affiliated to the UWI, Mona. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.

Netanyahu is a canny politician, but his survival instincts will now be tested to their limits.