Following the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent address to the Knesset, in which he pressed Israel to “get off the fence” and provide military support to Ukraine, the Illinois congressman Adam Kinzinger took to Twitter to suggest that U.S. aid to Jerusalem be conditioned on how much help it offers Kyiv. Benny Avni comments:

Adam Kinzinger thinks he’s found the real bad guy in the Ukraine crisis. Is it Russia? President Putin? Could it be President Zelensky? Or Communist China? According to the congressman from Illinois, it’s—wait for it—Israel. [The day after his original statement], Kinzinger’s Twitter fingers were itching again in a thread that feigned a bold position, acting as a brave man swimming against the wrong-headed tide. “So I grabbed the third rail of foreign policy today,” . . . he wrote.

Explaining his threat to cut aid, Mr. Kinzinger drove home his argument: “If we don’t want to attack Russia directly, then our leverage is in the world uniting in sanctions and assistance for the people of Ukraine. This includes everyone, and Israel doesn’t have a special exemption.”

Yet does the “no exemption” rule apply to everyone? Does it even apply to America? And is the “world” really united? [On Monday] in Brussels the European Union failed to agree on imposing oil sanctions on Russia.

Mr. Kinzinger, who serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, might have missed a crucial request Mr. Zelensky made as he memorably addressed Congress last week. As in his Knesset speech, the Ukrainian leader challenged America to increase arms deliveries—a call so far rebuffed by President Biden and Congress. Further, Mr. Zelensky asked America to lead an imposition of a no-fly zone over Ukraine’s skies. That request was also quickly rebuffed by the White House and most members of Congress.

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.