Practically, of course not. Within the New Republic's convoluted moral thing, where does your hypothetical leave us?

If the answer is "no" to my questions, I think the New Republic's moral thing falls apart; unless one believes Israeli humans are more valuable than Palestinian humans.

The New Republic's argument is that it's necessary: Israel can't do anything else, and ought implies can. My claim is that if they can do else with their own citizens, they can do else with others.

governments have an obligation to their people

Right. Perhaps all governments must necessarily be immoral. Ethicists have made similar arguments.

I think there's a balance. I don't condemn the Israeli government for negotiating a trade agreement to the detriment of other humans. I do condemn them for slaughtering other humans. There's a line somewhere.

Something astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell said comes to mind,

You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch.'