In recent weeks, it seems, some dissonant chords have interrupted Israel-U.S. harmony. The majority of Americans appear to have the audacity to twice disagree with Benjamin Netanyahu. First, they were unwilling to widen U.S. military involvement in the Middle East by attacking Syria, and then, they supported diplomatic negotiations with Iran. Never mind the masses. What's worse is, President Barack Obama seems to be listening in earnest to the will of his people.

For Netanyahu’s dovish opposition this discord serves as a sort of a futuristic proof that the United States is finally about to put pressure on Israel. Is the American administration indeed considering a change regarding the solution to the problem of the Israeli occupation?

The answer is probably found in the good grade given by a U.S. official to Mahmoud Abbas' address to the United Nations General Assembly. In this official’s eyes, it appears, the troublemaker pupil in the American school, has mended his ways. "Abbas' speech wasn't confrontational and aggressive as in previous years," the official said. "After we've already grown accustomed to the Palestinians pursuing unilateral steps, suddenly there's nothing." The official's comment smacked of paternalism. Incidentally, appealing to the UN and its 193 member states is as multilateral as moves can get. It’s an appeal to a world that doesn't include only the United States and Israel.

The Obama administration's latest notable achievement in the Israeli-Palestinian sphere was to give in to the stronger side and allow Israel to carry on with its wild unilateral moves. In return, the leader of the weaker side was forced to break his promises to his people. Abbas returned to the negotiating table, and for the second time, he curbed the momentum behind Palestine joining international organizations, and gave up his minimalistic demand, that Israel stop planting cluster bombs also known as the settlements. Still, despite condescension toward the Palestinians, might the United States take some measures to force Israel to comply with UN resolutions? The United States will not carry out a military strike against Israel, though it did do so to other states that ignored international law, such as Iraq and Serbia. Neither will it pass sanctions that would actually endanger Israeli food and medical supplies, as it did to Iran and Iraq. But what about the financial aid to Israel?

According to last April’s report from the Congressional Research Service, Israel, since it was found, has received $118 billion from the United States, making Israel the largest benefactor of U.S. foreign aid since World War II. In 2014, the president’s request for Israel would encompass approximately 52% of total foreign military financing worldwide. Considering the sums involved, the word “aid” would be a euphemism. The United States is paying top dollar for intelligence and security services it receives from Israel, as well as for the shared interests of both world powers and their intertwined post-modern arms industries. So how could the U.S. administration withhold such sums as a form of pressure?

The United States is not about to apply any pressure on Israel; not as long as the weapons manufacturer's lobby, the Bible Belt, and Jewish votes and financial power are seen as "U.S. public opinion." Peace efforts today mean Washington will continue to apply pressure where it can, on the weaker side. Can Abbas persuade his people that the “United Federation of Palestinian Bantustans (minus Gaza)” is a reasonable final agreement? Can he afford to sign the declaration of surrender as Israel demands? The United States was certainly pleased to see that the Palestinian leader has freed himself of democratic processes and institutions. But Abbas knows that his signature on such a paper is not worth the ink it’ll be written with.