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.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.