For some time, Russia has pursued friendly relations with Israel while unequivocally backing Palestinian statehood. But Tatyana Nosenko notes a new form of anti-Israel sentiment stemming from with the “Eurasian” ideology closely associated with Vladimir Putin:

[P]roponents of the so-called Eurasian ideology [endorse a brand of] Russian particularism based on [the country’s] special values and traditions. Their severe criticism of Zionism often borders on anti-Semitism. Jews are condemned for the dissemination of the image of Arabs, and Muslims in general, as terrorists—with the alleged aim of destroying Russia and breaking its traditional ties with the world of Islam. According to the holders of these views, the instigators of national and religious conflicts want . . . “to make our country fully dependent on the racist part of the Israeli political establishment and its Western masters.” . . .

[Eurasianists] do not see the struggle for an independent Palestine simply as a political task to realize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Russian Orthodox nationalism [on which they draw heavily] is imbued with a messianic idea, and its partisans consider Palestinian independence as a tool for the realization of Russia’s historical mission through the reemergence of the Russian sacred presence in the Holy Land. . . .

[Eurasianist] circles are also known for promoting different conspiracy theories [according to which] all the evils and misfortunes of the Middle East, like the emergence of militant Islam and its most radical groups, are attributed to the activities of the American CIA and Israeli intelligence services.

Calling the proposal to depopulate Gaza completely (if temporarily) “unworkable,” Peter Berkowitz makes the case for a similar, but more feasible, plan:

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated ten-to-fifteen miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border . . . westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. The Israel Defense Force would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. . . . Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible.