Simply put: maintaining the status quo is prerequisite to their comfortable living.

Once a fed, always a fed…

I don’t understand, what’s your point? Why would a settler-colonial entity want to stop another settler-colonial entity from continuing to erase an entire population and exert its influence on the region on top of stealing its resources? It doesn’t because it’s not in its current interest to do so.

Israel assigned a Zionist as the US Lebanese ambassador and is actively trying to start a civil war in Lebanon.

This wouldn’t have been possible (at best, it’d be difficult) had the US and the remaining West not continued their unimpeded financial, military, etc… support for the genocidal entity, though. It’s not referred to as the “51st state” or the “unsinkable aircraft carrier” for no reason. All of the other reasons here are in line with the US’ interests anyway, I don’t see how they suggest the U.S. being the “subservient” one.

The US can order the entity to a “complete cease-fire” on a whim with a single phone call. If that’s not emblematic of the clear-in-place Father-Son relationship, then I don’t know what is.

How?