Zionist media control exemplified again

Note the way the issues are framed in the following article
by the Washington Post's reporter, Steven Mufson.

2015-11-11-WP-Mufson-in-meeting-with-netanyahu-obama-has-foreign-and-domestic-concerns

In meeting with Netanyahu, Obama has foreign and domestic concerns
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post, 2015-11-11

President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week with an eye on two fronts:
the chaotic Middle East and the domestic political campaign,
where Democrats are eager to make sure that support for Israel does not become a partisan issue in 2016.

Both categories of concern point toward
a more pragmatic and realistic approach to U.S.-Israel relations for Obama
that could reassure a key ally in an unstable region and soothe uneasy Democrats who backed the Iran nuclear deal.
The new calibration would deprive Republicans who opposed the deal of political fodder they can use against Democrats.

“Most Democratic members of Congress are and will be relieved if tension between the president and prime minister is relaxed,”
said Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman from Florida who is now president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace.
“There is no Democratic member of Congress who benefits from tension in the American-Israeli relationship.”

...

[Note the words the Post's reporter uses to characterize
policies designed to "reassure" Israel and "soothe" "uneasy Democrats":
"pragmatic and realistic".
I beg to differ.
A pragmatic and realistic approach would be to recognize that
America's unquestioning support for Israel
has been a major cause of the hostility of many Muslims to the U.S.
Most importantly, it was cited by Osama bin Laden as the cause for al Qaeda's 9/11 attack on the U.S.
Even if you don't believe bin Laden's words of 2004-10-29,
many other studies have found the not-very-surprising fact
that Israel's actions are a prime cause of Islamic hostility to the U.S.
Precisely how is it realistic to ignore this fact?
How is it pragmatic to not act in accordance with that fact,
and question whether unstinting support for Israel is really in the U.S.'s best interest?

So my claim is that,
in framing the issues as Mufson did above,
he fails to inform his readers of the real costs and consequences
of playing lap dog to Israel.]