>America's voting demographic for the next 40 years has begun to see Israel as a genocidal terrorist state. They will be voting for the next 50 years, while the boomer evangelicals die off.
The pro-palestine progressives are rapidly loosing political power, if not being targeted right now by the Trumpian administration. The National Conservatives may be isolationist regarding free funding, but they certainly aren't going to sanctioning Israel or ending arms sales, while Pro-Palestine is pretty much a useful proxy as is for them to signify "un-americans".
Furthermore, the sanctions on South Africa occurred within the context of the Liberal International Era where one could afford to alienate a state in a region with little importance. But it's posters like you that have been calling for the so-called multipolar world, which is where NGOs and Human Rights will be sidelined in favour of a Westphalian-Type Sovereignity whereby hard interests decide foreign policy, not human rights concerns. In that Realist context, it is virtually within complete interests for the Gulf States and other actors to align with Israel over Iran, the former which has proven itself militairly and acts accordingly to economic interest, whereas the latter is bordering on a failed state still motivated by irrational hegemonic concerns. In the same context, a Palestinian states that takes over Israel basically will likely be detrimental to the other actors.
> a Westphalian-Type Sovereignity whereby hard interests decide foreign policy, not human rights concerns
Westphalian sovereignty refers to "a principle in international law that each state has exclusive sovereignty over its territory" [1]. It doesn't support realpolitik nor negate human rights. The only degree to which it intersects with the latter is in arguing against foreign intervention. (Which realpolitik encourages.) It's a concept that was promulgated to integrate previously-independent city states into the larger nation-states and empires of the time.
It's also quite idiotically named, given the actual Peace of Westphalia dealt with foreign powers deciding what to do with the Holy Roman Empire at the end of the Thirty Years' War, with France and Sweden being "recognised as guarantors of the imperial constitution with a right to intercede" [2], sort of the opposite of inviolable sovereignty.
Today, it tends to be something Putin brings up, again, quite idiotically, given he's constantly fucking around in other countries' affairs.
(You're broadly correct that in a Realist international framework the morality of Israel's actions are irrelevant. And that everyone advocating for a multipolar world shifts us in the Realist direction. Practically, however, these are models, not theories, and they coëxist with each other.)
The pro-palestine progressives are rapidly loosing political power, if not being targeted right now by the Trumpian administration. The National Conservatives may be isolationist regarding free funding, but they certainly aren't going to sanctioning Israel or ending arms sales, while Pro-Palestine is pretty much a useful proxy as is for them to signify "un-americans".
Furthermore, the sanctions on South Africa occurred within the context of the Liberal International Era where one could afford to alienate a state in a region with little importance. But it's posters like you that have been calling for the so-called multipolar world, which is where NGOs and Human Rights will be sidelined in favour of a Westphalian-Type Sovereignity whereby hard interests decide foreign policy, not human rights concerns. In that Realist context, it is virtually within complete interests for the Gulf States and other actors to align with Israel over Iran, the former which has proven itself militairly and acts accordingly to economic interest, whereas the latter is bordering on a failed state still motivated by irrational hegemonic concerns. In the same context, a Palestinian states that takes over Israel basically will likely be detrimental to the other actors.