Yes; you said Israel had “close relations” with Red China (characterizing it as an alliance with great depth, implying that Israel is an enemy of the USA since Red China is, via such “close relations”)—and then you changed it to “business dealings” when pressed on it. That’s accusatory, in the first case; anything but prosaic. By claiming that responses are “hypersensitive” says that you were expecting responses that would criticize your characterization of Israel/Red China relations, indeed.
Again, the USA has “business dealings” with Red China, but does that constitute “close relations”? And frankly (and tragically), so does Australia—and their present stance on Israel’s capital reflects how deeply Red China has dug into Australia’s sovereign politics.
I never said, nor even "implied" that Israel is "an enemy of the USA." Such an "implication" stems from your hypersensitive imagination.
Again, the USA has “business dealings” with Red China, but does that constitute “close relations”?
Sure it does. And so what?
So Israel also has close relations with China. Again, so what? Only in your hypersensitive mind does saying so translate into an accusation that Israel is an enemy of the U.S.
My point was simply that China is on good terms with Israel, and thus has no reason to pressure Australia on where Israel's capital might be. (The topic of this thread.) Any other implication is in your imagination.