This is a latest actual count, showing Bibi's Likud party with a five percent lead, higher than expected, over the Labor/Kadima coalition (Herzog):

Here's a final thing I want to get down as a marker for future discussions about where US/Israel policy is going.  What I find particularly interesting is that I truly believe that those of us in the left of center blogosphere will be far less likely to be surprised by steps the president is likely to take in the remaining years of his presidency to significantly alter the nature of America's relationship with Israel.  I believe this to be so because many of you have been advocating for some kind of a shift or another for years.  And many of you should be proud that the president appears to get what some of you have been pining for well before it was cool to be doing so.  This is a generalization of course, but worth pondering.  

In a way, and I'm not prepared to argue this point, but I am thinking that Bibi, bad or good, continues to be useful as a pretext to convince others not so informed as I believe most of us are through increased communication on the internet, is just a bad man who should not be trusted.  And I have generally believed that to be true for many years in large measure.  And I believe I've followed his career since its inception.

But, here's the thing, changing the U.S. position on attaining a two-state solution from one in which a negotiated agreement between the parties was an imperative for any peaceful solution, to one now centered on setting forth the terms of settlement through the UN or with the EU (as I've discussed elsewhere in this thread), should not be done on the basis of what the MSM and the DC establishment have unanimously, lazily, or purposely concluded that Bibi has abandoned the 2-state solution.  On that point, I think Bibi said what he said for desperate and nasty political reasons.  But I submit it was said in the context of the existing circumstances with respect to ISIS et al generally, and the related extremist support in both the West Bank and Gaza -- with Gaza in the full control of Hamas, and with the West Bank which many say would be in control of Hamas were Abbas to permit long-delayed elections. [By the way, Twitter reinforces that much of the MSM is lazy and herd-like and not always very analytical when it comes to all kind of stories.]

Edited to add for clarification -- What I'm saying is that I believe that Bibi will say he was saying that he cannot think of two-states in the face of Hamas, ISIS and the overall chaos in the Middle East.  He's certainly right about chaos, and while one may argue that this means there should never be two states, Bibi will say he said (consistent with a point he's made in the past) that you cannot negotiate a new state under existing circumstances because it places the frontline of various Middle East civil wars at its border.  One can dispute Bibi's good faith, as I often do, but as to the facts on the ground he has the advantage of being absolutely correct (from the border with Lebanon, to the Golan and that with Syria, and perhaps soon Jordan) it is not the same thing as the problems between Denmark and Sweden.

You may disagree with me and go to the English translation of what Bibi said actually said in Hebrew or you may do the reverse, but I submit that the Administration is harping on the so-called "abandonment of 2 states" because it is helpful to it as pretext for moving ahead with additional steps relating to Israel that are more in line with where most of the international community appears to be on Israel.  The pretext is necessary because some people actually believe that the reason things are bad with Israel is because Bibi and the president don't get along, and that underlying that relationship is the intransigence of Bibi, period and end of story.  Those folks, the Democrats you see in Congress stand out for example, need to have a villain forcing a change in policy -- changes that many of us have spoken and argued about for years.  

If the Secretary-General of the Arab League defended Bibi with his recognition of what was said being totally related to the campaign, so too could the Administration -- but only if it wanted to. Here's Arab League Secretary Nabil Elarby on Bibi's so-called new position:

Netanyahu’s statements would “not be the policies of the future Israeli government,” said Elaraby, the secretary-general of the 22-nation bloc in an interview with AFP. “We will have to wait and see,” he added.

“I believe personally that he made that statement about… no two states to gain the votes of the extremists, particularly those Russian immigrants who went to Israel in the last 10, 15 years,” Elaraby said.

Apparently the remote possibility that Bibi's statement was not a change in policy has been lost on this Administration, as it leaks (or openly reports) now that it has suddenly seen a need to explore changes to long-standing American policy because of what Bibi said in the final days of the campaign.  Two responses to that: (1) balderdash; and (2) Administrations in glass houses centered on Iran policy should be the last ones to be throwing stones about the significance of what is said in a campaign.