US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) speaks to media during a Senate vote, at the US Capitol, in Washington, DC, May 2, 2024. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect

For decades, support for Israel was one of the few enduring bipartisan constants in Washington. But a new essay by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) suggests that consensus is fracturing, with some Democrats increasingly viewing distance from the Jewish state not as a political liability but as a requirement for the party’s future.

In a lengthy opinion essay published Tuesday in The New York Times, Van Hollen issued one of his most sweeping criticisms of Israel to date, calling for the next Democratic president to condition military aid to the Jewish state and recognize a Palestinian state even absent a negotiated peace agreement.

The Maryland Democrat accused Israel of maintaining what he described as “apartheid” conditions, enabling “ethnic cleansing” in the West Bank, and carrying out actions in Gaza that human rights groups and some scholars have characterized as “genocide.”

Van Hollen, who has become one of the party’s most outspoken critics of Israel since the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 massacre, argued that Democrats must fundamentally rethink the US-Israel relationship.

“The next Democratic president should recognize a State of Palestine that is subject to clear benchmarks, including free and fair elections,” Van Hollen wrote. “Unless and until a different agreement is reached, the United States should treat Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of Palestine — a policy some of our European and Asian partners have already begun to carry out.”

The essay reflects a growing rift between Israel and the Democratic Party nearly two years after Hamas-led terrorists invaded southern Israel, murdered some 1,200 people, and kidnapped more than 250 others. The war in Gaza has accelerated a sharp ideological divide among Democrats, with progressive lawmakers and younger voters increasingly demanding a tougher posture toward Israel.

Van Hollen framed his proposal as a moral and strategic correction. But critics argued that his essay placed disproportionate blame on Israel while minimizing the realities that Israeli leaders say drove the war: Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre, the continued captivity of hostages, years of rocket fire, and the terrorist group’s use of civilian areas in Gaza for military operations.

The essay quickly drew backlash from Israel supporters, who warned that Van Hollen’s rhetoric risks legitimizing some of the Jewish state’s harshest international critics at a time when antisemitism is surging globally. Others argued that unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would reward Hamas for the Oct. 7 atrocities and strengthen the group’s standing across the Islamist world.

Van Hollen condemned Hamas and acknowledged Israel’s right to security, but critics noted that the bulk of the essay focused on Israeli conduct while devoting comparatively little attention to Hamas’ strategy of embedding fighters, weapons, and tunnel networks in densely populated civilian areas.

Israeli officials have repeatedly said the country’s military campaign in Gaza is aimed at dismantling Hamas and preventing the terrorist group from carrying out another Oct. 7-style attack. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected accusations of genocide and apartheid as politically motivated smears designed to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist.

The most politically significant portion of Van Hollen’s essay may be his warning to future Democratic presidential candidates. The senator argued that Democratic primary voters would no longer trust candidates who supported military aid to Netanyahu’s government during the Gaza war or aligned themselves with senior Biden administration officials involved in Middle East policy.

That warning highlights how rapidly Israel has evolved from a foreign policy dispute into a battle over the future identity of the Democratic Party. Progressive lawmakers and left-wing challengers have increasingly used terms such as “genocide,” “ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid” to describe Israel’s military campaign, pressuring party leaders to move away from traditional support for the US-Israel alliance.

Some foreign policy veterans argue that conditioning military aid to Israel could weaken one of America’s closest Middle Eastern allies while emboldening Iran and its regional proxies, including Hamas and Hezbollah. Others warn that recognizing a Palestinian state outside a negotiated settlement could remove incentives for Palestinian leaders to compromise and further entrench the conflict.

Critics also challenged Van Hollen’s claim that Democrats have offered Israel “reflexive and unconditional support.” The Biden administration repeatedly criticized Netanyahu’s government, sanctioned extremist Israeli settlers, pressed Israel to increase humanitarian aid into Gaza, and clashed with Israeli officials over military operations, even as it continued to provide weapons and diplomatic backing.

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, Van Hollen has grown increasingly adversarial toward Israel. He has backed resolutions seeking to block arms transfers to the Jewish state, accused Israel of creating a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and called on fellow Democrats to speak out more forcefully against Netanyahu’s government.

Whether Van Hollen’s essay marks a temporary backlash to the devastation in Gaza or a lasting realignment inside the Democratic Party could help determine the future of both Democratic politics and the US-Israel relationship.