Greg Scoblete accuses me of being "a bit circuitous":

The basic problem here isn't that the U.S. has a huge stake in who lives where in the West Bank. It doesn't. The problem seems to be that American interests are endangered by Israeli behavior. But America is only implicated in Israel's behavior because of its generous financial, military and diplomatic support for the country. If you insist that this behavior is endangering American interests, and previous efforts to stop that behavior have failed, why not cease subsidizing it?

It's easier (in theory, at least) for the United States to change its own policies than to have the United States try to change another country's policy ... I'm not saying I endorse cutting off aid, but just that this seems to be the logical denouement of Sullivan's argument.

I'd cut off aid myself - because they don't need it and we cannot afford it - not as a pressure tactic. But even if you did, the key issue seems to me to be the UN veto. Until the US stops protecting Israel from isolation in the Security Council, the US's foreign policy and Israel's Palestinian policy are inextricable from one another. 

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.