Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks about her two-cent tax plan during a campaign event, Monday, Sept. 2, 2019, in Hampton Falls, N.H. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Oddly enough, the media aren’t describing Warren’s threat as a quid pro quo even though it clearly is. Weird, right?

The presumptive (but not necessarily actual) frontrunner of the Democratic party primary went on record yesterday announcing that she’ll withhold aid from Israel unless they do what she wants, which is negotiate and make concessions with terrorists.

BREAKING: Warren Threatens Israel: ‘Everything Is On the Table’ — Warren will condition critical US aid to Jewish state on making concessions to Palestinians https://t.co/i6fqyFxS8P

— Adam Kredo (@Kredo0) October 21, 2019

Lest we pretend this isn’t to Warren’s political benefit, this is a major, major issue on the left and there’s no logical reason to punish Israel outside of quelling her base. Sticking it to the Jewish state and delivering the goods to the terrorist supporting Palestinian Authority is like crack for liberals.

Andy McCarthy notices the hypocrisy here.

But wouldn’t that be *extortion* of an ally to push said ally into doing things that could help her politically? I thought that was impeachable? I’m so confused …

— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) October 21, 2019

Of course it’s extortion, or more aptly a quid pro quo. She’s quite literally saying that unless Israel does what she wants, she’ll cut off vital military aid (we stopped giving economic aid a while ago). And this is a far more relevant and damaging quid pro quo to U.S. interests than anything to do with Ukraine.

Now, some might say “well, that’s different!” How? How is different than Mulvaney saying we weren’t going to give Ukraine money unless they investigated corruption dealing with 2016? Because I’m pretty sure the media lost their minds and published half a million “Mulvaney Admits to Quid Pro Quo” headlines in response.

The answer is that it is not different. All foreign policy is a quid pro quo. All aid comes with strings attached. The only question involving Ukraine was whether Trump did something that could provably be shown to only be political. Mulvaney clearly said that situation had nothing to do with Biden and only legitimate concerns about corruption, something Joe Biden himself threatened Ukraine over, yet the media still called it an evil “quid pro quo” and feigned outrage.

Even on the legal aspects, this is hypocritical. If Congress appropriates the money for a certain country to receive aid, the President either has power to hold it up or not. With Trump, we are assured it’s impeachable and illegal for him to do so. So why are the media not pointing out what Warren is saying would be impeachable and illegal as well?

What you see here is a prime example of how the left uses language to push their narratives. When Mulvaney points out that all foreign policy has conditions, it’s a quid pro quo and super bad. When Elizabeth Warren threatens to extort one of our closet allies by withholding aid, it’s just her being tough.

Also, note that Warren whined and complained when the Trump administration cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority for not negotiating in good faith, yet she wants to punish Israel. That’s some mighty fine anti-Semitism on display because there’s no other logical reason for her flip-flop on the issue.

In closing, our mainstream media are partisan hypocrites and Elizabeth Warren shows that she toes the typical Israel hating line of her party. We also call that Tuesday.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.