The Economist‘s Lexington blog says:
Until this weekend, most people assumed that Israel enjoyed an unconditional American promise to maintain its military edge, and a nearly unconditional promise to support it in the United Nations. Now it seems that President Obama is making the continuation of some of these things conditional on Israel’s acceptance of a three-month settlement freeze, during which Israel will be pressed to agree final borders with a putative Palestinian state in the West Bank. That could be construed as a less confrontational, and more subtle, but no less effective version of the way George Bush senior forced a reluctant Yitzhak Shamir to the 1991 Madrid peace conference by withholding loan guarantees. Maybe, just maybe, the Obama peace push in Palestine has stronger legs than jaded onlookers have realised.
Yeah, yeah. Sounds more like a family argument to me.
“Give up your three girlfriends and your drinking or I’ll leave you, and take your mother-in-law with me!”
Why should this time be any different than all the times before? 90 days! My, wouldn’t that be nice. Whoopee, as the American taxpayer foots the bill. Who is blackmailing whom? Time to turn the Israeli’s loose, if they blow themselves up or the middle east, or, perish the thought, some collateral damage in say, Chicago, for another round? Time for the spoiled brat to be taken to the wood shed. This is the United States of America, not the united states of isreal satellite.