CathInfo.com

The Society’s reaction to the Resistance is due to the fact that the Resistance tries hard to pull priests and faithful out of the Society. The SSPV recently consecrated a new Bishop and the Society said nothing. ( as the SSPV isn’t trying to rip the Society apart) The  Resistance was created in direct opposition to the Society, so of course the reaction will be negative.

That's understandable, except the criticism was specifically focused on the lack of the 'emergency need' to consecrate any new bishops.  +Fellay specifically applauded their quasi-communion with new-rome (i.e. confession/marriage faculties), while charging that the resistance had no business even existing.  If +Fellay had not highlighted the "lack of emergency", then i'd agree with you - that such a criticism was just bickering between old friends - but this disagreement was way more than just arguing.  +Fellay was actively selling the idea that the new-sspx was somehow legitimate (jurisdictionally speaking) while the resistance is not, therefore the resistance is gravely in error.  That's just categorically untrue.
.
 

On another note, I don’t personally have any issue with Williamson’s consecrations. Of course he has a right to do what he did( the Church is in a crisis so having a younger Trad Bishop like Bp. Zendejas is helpful) I’d say the same about the SSPV. If the Resistance focused on promoting Tradition instead of taking constant jabs at the Society, I don’t think anyone would have a problem with them. I have no qualms with Avrille’s approach. 

I appreciate your honesty, although my experience says that many of the new-sspx laity don't share your tolerance of the resistance or the sspv.  Many of them are filled with a haughty air of "we're now with rome" as if that's a label worth displaying (they think it is).
.
Of course the resistance takes "jabs" at the new-sspx (and vice versa)...because they disagree with the latter's changes.  What you call "jabs" (i.e. childish insignificant bickering) is not that at all; better they be called "proofs" and "warnings".  What the resistance is doing is calling out foundational shifts in the society's purpose and status.  What's ironic is that +Fellay's condemnation that the resistance has no "emergency need" for new bishops EXACTLY proves the resistance's point that the new-sspx has changed.    

../it means the SSPX is down to two bishops, and is now trapped into:

1) Dying on the vine;
2) Allowing Rome to hand-pick a liberal to be consecrated;
3) Consecrating without approval.

The latter option is certainly out of the question, ever since the SSPX condemned the episcopal consecration of Bishop Faure in 2015...

Consistency not being an historical strength of the SSPX, I don't think this would be a problem.

What sellout exactly? I think you mean “potential sellout”
Even Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV doesn’t think the Society has “sold out”( although he’s concerned it may happen)

Idiot.