If the US – Israel relationship is the most important factor in United States’ overall Middle East policy, the interpersonal relationship between the US President and the Israeli Prime Minister is a major factor in achieving constructive dialogue and tangible policy outcomes in the region. The relationship between Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s was so close as to oversee the Oslo Accords process. The view is widespread that the Obama – Netanyahu relationship has been almost entirely dysfunctional, some even describing it as the worst between a US President and an Israeli Prime Minister in history. Assuming a Hillary Clinton victory in the presidential race, what are the future prospects for re-establishing a functional working relationship between President and Prime Minister under a hypothetical Clinton presidency – one that could reignite the peace process and work towards a Two State Solution?

Many would argue that Clinton’s consistent strong pro-Israel rhetoric implies she will not hesitate to woo Netanyahu. Last year she described the need to “reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Netanyahu”. At the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in March she pandered to the hawkish elements of the Jewish lobby and promised to protect Israel from even the slightest of foreign criticisms. Despite these public overtures, there is considerable evidence to support the conclusion that a Clinton presidency would see the fractiousness that dogged the Obama – Netanyahu relationship continue.

Firstly, at the core of tensions is Netanyahu’s strident opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal, of which Obama is a central proponent, and Obama’s firm vocal opposition to continued Israeli settlement construction, which Netanyahu has largely refused to prevent. While Hillary Clinton’s AIPAC speech was widely viewed as unashamedly pro-Israel in tone, beneath the rhetoric was an endorsement of Obama policies and a commitment to continue the status quo. Clinton reaffirmed her support for the Iran Deal and identified settlement construction as a significant barrier to peace. Consequently, Clinton’s potential assumption to the presidency could not be expected to bring any substantive policy changes so as to mend the relationship.

Secondly, many of the interpersonal tensions that plagued the Obama – Netanyahu relationship may well arise in a Clinton – Netanyahu pairing. Importantly, Clinton’s entrance would bring no clean slate or fresh start to the relationship, with the two leaders having already had run-ins during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Emails from Clinton aides have revealed that Netanyahu spoke disparagingly about Clinton in private meetings in 2010. While speaking of the need to pressure the US to be more aggressive towards Iran he allegedly said that “if we can’t sleep, Hillary is not going to sleep”. Additionally, an Israeli official described a 45-minute phone call initiated by Clinton after an Israeli announcement to continue settlement construction as “furious” and “violent”. The same goes for Netanyahu’s relationship with Bill Clinton during the former’s first term as Prime Minister from 1996 – 1999. Upon their first encounter as leaders, Bill Clinton was so incensed with Netanyahu’s allegedly lecturing and arrogant style that he was famously quoted privately as saying “Who the f – does he think he is? Who is the f – ing superpower here?” As time went on, Bill Clinton became so frustrated with Netanyahu’s intransigence on the peace process that he deployed James Carville, the pollster who won him the Presidency to assist the Ehud Barak led opposition to successfully oust Netanyahu government from office in the 1999 elections. Such longstanding personal grievances are never easily forgotten. Given it is likely Bill Clinton will play a significant role in a Hillary Clinton White House, both Hillary and Bill’s tumultuous pasts with Netanyahu will prove to be a hindrance in establishing a cordial relationship between the two offices.

In an attempt to draw a contrast with Obama’s approach, Hillary Clinton said at the recent AIPAC conference “one of the first things I will do is invite the Israeli Prime Minister to the White House”. The nuance in this statement cannot be overlooked. Her failure to specifically mention Netanyahu leaves us wondering if she might be holding out hope that

the current political rumblings in Netanyahu’s coalition will ignite a move to replace him with another Likud figure. Better still for Hillary ‘s agenda would be the triumph of Yair Lapid’s increasingly popular moderate Yesh Atid party in future elections. However, this could be as far off as 2019. The only certainty of Hillary’s presidential relationship with Netanyahu is that it will never be the same close friendship shared between Bill and Yitzhak.

Timothy Sullivan is a combined bachelor of laws/bachelor of arts student at the University of Sydney, majoring in Mandarin. Currently a law clerk at King & Wood Mallesons, he is a former captain of the ACT representative debating team, and has represented the University of Sydney at national and international debating tournaments. Timothy has also studied Mandarin Chinese at Peking University and Fudan University in Shanghai and has volunteered with the USYD China Studies Centre and the UTS Australian-China Relations Institute. Having studied Japanese throughout high school Tim has a strong interest in Japanese politics – he undertook a Sydney Law run course in Japanese Law at Ritsumeikan University in 2015. Timothy will complete his law degree at the end of 2016 on exchange at Tel Aviv University.