Now I could be talking out of my ass, but my own stance has been that foreign countries' support for the Zionist entity is based on risk vs reward in short. So the simple answer for why the government of the USA is so willing to "kick the hornet's nest", as it were, is not because "Joe Biden is a cuck" or because of some sort of "ZOG" conspiracy, but rather because the consequences for the Usonian bourgeoisie of "kicking the hornet's nest" is simply, as it were, less: they have the most to gain from the continued occupation of Palestine, and the least to lose. If there is a big regional war in the Middle East, the Usonian bourgeoisie will continue to sip martinis like they always have, and if average Usonian workers die in such a war, then this is not of much concern for them so long as they can still secure their own class rule.

Then the further down the chain of the imperial core we go, the risk of the colonial project failing becomes more disproportionate to the reward of its continued existence. Thus the "fringes of the core" will be the first countries in the imperial core to establish diplomatic relations with the State of Palestine as a sort of "brace position", such that they can move towards neocolonial rule of a liberated or partially liberated Palestine long before the liberation has actually occurred — the bourgeoisie of these countries are simply more anxious about not getting a good return on investment, so they're more willing to "set one foot out the door". Then by the time we get to the bourgeois dictatorships of the imperial periphery and semi-periphery, it's practically guaranteed that these countries will already recognize and have relations with the State of Palestine, because this has been in their national bourgeoisie's interests from the beginning.

This being my analysis, I might even say that it is the "fringes of the core" that provide "insurance" for the USA's recklessness: whatever the USA might do, its allies will already work to ensure neocolonial rule no matter what, thus the consequences for the USA's actions are further lessened. The USA is then free to be diehard for Zionism until the exact minute it is pronounced dead.

This is just my own perspective, though, and it could be wrong or uneducated. In any case we need to remember that we should be analyzing based on class foremost: that "calling the shots" may be a useful shorthand in some situations, but that ultimately no country ever truly "calls the shots" of another — there are only individual actors within countries who cooperate or conflict based on their own circumstances.