The Washington Post describes the brutal treatment the Israelis have received from the US in the past few years:
That will certainly be news to Israel's "ruling faction," which in the past few years alone has seen the U.S. government promote a Palestinian election that it opposed; refuse it weapons it might have used for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities; and adopt a policy of direct negotiations with a regime that denies the Holocaust and that promises to wipe Israel off the map. Two Israeli governments have been forced from office since the early 1990s after open clashes with Washington over matters such as settlement construction in the occupied territories.
The jaw drops. It is really pushing Israel's ruling faction around for the US to support a Palestinian election? We all know, of course, that the results of Palestinian elections are irrelevant, if they vote for a government hostile to Israel. But is it really tough love for the US to actually have a separate foreign policy from Israel? Is it also actually a stretch for the global superpower to refuse to give Israel actual American weapons to launch a war against Iran? I mean: seriously.
And what about those settlements? Growing apace, supported by the new Israeli prime minister, untouched since the first GHW Bush? No American government is actually allowed to impose any meaningful sanctions on Israel for refusing to remove and continuing to expand those settlements. No: mere discussion of America's right to ask an ally to do such a thing is over the red line.
This spat has been fascinating, because it reveals how far apart some of us have gotten on approaching the Middle East. The Washington Post actually seems to believe that Israel has been subject to great pressure from the US for the last few years. But at least the New York Times is capable of writing the headline that reflects the obvious truth:
Israel Stance Was Undoing of Nominee for Intelligence Post