Not sure that's a great example, since there's a decent argument that FDR cutting off oil shipments to Japan precipitated their attack on Pearl Harbor. The consequences of the action - the chain of events it triggered - ended up causing a lot of very negative outcomes.

I have been hearing that argument for decades "Pearl Harbor was all FDR's fault". Nonsense. The Philippines were right along Japana's line of march along Indochina (rubber) Malaysia, and the Dutch East Indies (oil). The Philippines were a US colony. Conflict with the US was almost inevitable, so they tried for a pre-emptive strike to destroy the Pacific Fleet, so the US could not interfere with their expansionist plans. Keep in mind, Japan ruled all the former German colonies north of the Equator under a League of Nations mandate. The Philippines sit between the Asian land mass, and all the islands that Japan had held since WWI.

Indeed, but if the action isn't going to actually make any positive difference in terms of Israeli policy you might reach a different conclusion than if you thought it might actually change their behavior.

Would you rather have the US be a willing enabler of genocide, or see that money spent for the improvement of conditions for the USians who paid the taxes?

Steve