‘Cold calculation’ would suggest that a re-positioning away from the US makes good sense. Of course, it could never be a ‘clean’ pivot because a substantial segment of Israelis are culturally and politically American: ligaments and ties of connection are interwoven, not least in the military and business worlds.

The present Israeli schism is painted as one of democracy versus an attempted judicial ‘coup’ (albeit by a legal government pursuing legislation through its majority in parliament). This latter is just propaganda. It is rather a titanic struggle between those committed to the completion of the 'Land of Israel' with explicit Jewishness at its core, and those wanting to keep intact the status quo -- with secularism at its core and continuing an Occupation that has become quite comfortable and unthreatening to many Israelis. 'Don’t rock the boat’ is the motif.  

“Netanyahu’s government is extremist; a threat to US-Israeli relations – and Netanyahu is its ‘accomplice’,” Biden suggests.

Prominent Israeli figures in the anti-Netanyahu camp say openly:  “A military coup is underway in Israel. This is the unvarnished truth. At the same time, there is an attempt to play with words in order to avoid looking the reality in the eye”.  Veteran commentator, Gideon Levy, however paints in different colours:

“This is (also) the story of an army that had a state. Along came a government that acted to overturn the orders of the government, in the army’s state - whereupon the army rose in protest against the government. Even in the wake of the spectacular march to Jerusalem, whose likes have never been seen here before - there is no mistaking the protest’s militaristic character, which overshadows its civilian foundations”.

Against this threatening backdrop, why ever would Netanyahu not look around for support from elsewhere?

He is invited to visit China (likely in October). China has indicated that it is open to playing a mediation role between "Tel Aviv" and the Palestinians. And China has had its successes in this respect (i.e. Iran - Saudi Arabia). It would mark his fifth visit to China. 

Netanyahu has been careful to preserve relations too with Moscow. "Israel" has not armed Ukraine, and recently the head of Netanyahu's Security Council, Tzachi Hanegbi, has stated openly that "Israel" has no plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. In any case, Netanyahu’s favourite diversionary tool (‘Iran is closing on a bomb’) is presently unserviceable. Biden wants ‘industrial quiet’ in that particular domain. The US will not support any military adventure targeting Iran during the pre-election period. And Netanyahu would only further irritate the Team Biden by hyping the nuclear threat.

Related News

Concentration camps and the road to exile: Gaza as a laboratory of privatized genocide

Understanding Yemen 2/2: Ansar Allah values

It would be stretching credibility to imagine that China’s invitation to Netanyahu is not closely co-ordinated with Moscow. Beijing would be in the lead, but with Russia’s experience and close connections over the years with all the Palestinian factions, this would provide the key ‘bottom-up’ ingredient to underpin any Chinese ‘Great Power’ diplomacy.

Looked at from the perspective of Russia and China, there is an opportunity: The Netanyahu Administration's relations with Washington are abysmal; there is no love there. Rather they despise each other, and relations are set to get worse:

Netanyahu heads a ‘Settler’ government that is aggressively expanding the settlements, contrary to formal agreements with the US. What is more, the Settler faction plans not just an increase – but a massive increase of the settlements across the West Bank. And the West Bank is boiling.

Just to be clear, disallowing settlement expansion has been the US’ ‘Red Line’ for the last 23 years. There are many agreements in this respect. It is at bottom, America’s principal gesture toward the Palestinians -- halting the gobbling up of the West Bank. Washington cannot afford to turn a blind eye because there is no political process otherwise on offer to Ramallah.

So, Netanyahu surveys his situation -- His relations with the Biden Admin are dire, and set to get worse; his relations with the Republican front-runner are ruptured; Netanyahu probably realises that normalisation with Saudi Arabia cannot happen as long as Ben-Gvir threatens to build a ‘Temple’ in place of the al-Aqsa Mosque; the Palestinian Authority hovers at the brink of collapse; the Israeli army pursues wartime tactics in West Bank towns such as Jenin; and the platform of his party is the removal of Palestinian political rights within Israel.

Mohammad bin Salman has made a point underlying that the Beirut Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 is the ground zero of Arab League policy. In other words, no ‘normalisation’ with "Israel", absent a Palestinian State.

Why not then borrow from President Erdogan who, having survived the 2016 coup d’état against him, forever continues to play off Moscow against Washington?  Well, Netanyahu can try, but as even as the Erdogan exemplar shows, you risk angering both Moscow and Washington at the same time. And that is not a good place to be.

Nonetheless, a re-positioning has its allure -- and it's cold logic. The tectonic plates of the Middle East are shifting: Iran’s relationship with Saudi Arabia (and therefore with the Gulf as a whole), are in metamorphosis. Iran is a full member of the SCO. The SCO and BRICS are conflating, and in August, at the BRICS summit, new monetary trading arrangements are expected to be announced.

The flow and direction of the Region are as plain as a pikestaff. To which sphere would Netanyahu think to hitch the Israeli ‘wagon’?  To remain as the isolated Western outlier, protruding into a consolidated Eurasian mega economic and security bloc, or try to go with the Russia axis (that he knows well, and with which he has good relations) and be on the right side of history?

If only politics were so rational! Should Netanyahu survive the coup d’état being mounted against him, his path will likely end in tragedy --because that is his nature. He has no choice but for it to happen, because it is his nature to say one thing to one interlocutor, and flatly assert the direct opposite to another; it is in his nature to be indecisive; to postpone action, and to tergiversate, until events ultimately become the solvent that ‘undoes’ him.