A recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen presents a striking irony as he urges Democrats to “change course on Israel.” He argues that the Democratic Party has offered reflexive and unconditional support to Israeli governments even as, in his view, their actions have undermined American interests and values. Many supporters of Israel would argue precisely the opposite, that Israel remains America’s most reliable democratic ally in the Middle East, sharing both strategic interests and core Western values.
Van Hollen calls for reducing American taxpayer support for Israel and boasts that forty Democrats recently voted to block the transfer of military equipment to the only democracy in the region. Yet he simultaneously claims to support Israel’s security while opposing the very weapons systems that help guarantee that security in the face of persistent terrorist threats and hostile neighboring regimes.
His disdain for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unmistakable. Echoing rhetoric commonly used by Israel’s harshest critics, Van Hollen refers to Israel as an “occupier” and an “apartheid state.” He laments the destruction in Rafah caused by the Israel Defense Forces using American-made bombs and bulldozers, while giving scant attention to the October 7 massacre that precipitated the war, the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust, or to Hamas’s long-standing practice of embedding military infrastructure among civilians.
The senator also criticizes President Donald Trump for moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing the city as Israel’s capital, closing the Palestinian mission in Washington, and shutting the U.S. consulate in eastern Jerusalem. He characterizes Netanyahu’s government as “brutal” and even suggests that it bears responsibility for rising antisemitism. Yet the explosion of antisemitic demonstrations and rhetoric around the world began almost immediately after the October 7 atrocities, before Israel had mounted its major military response.
Van Hollen further argues that the next Democratic president should recognize a Palestinian state and condition future arms sales on Israel accepting a time-bound plan to end what he calls the “occupation” and implement a two-state solution. Critics contend that such demands ignore decades of failed peace efforts, repeated Palestinian rejections of negotiated settlements, and the continuing influence of extremist groups committed not to coexistence, but to Israel’s destruction.
Having castigated Israel, Van Hollen then turns his attention to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He complains that his proposals will encounter strong resistance from pro-Israel advocates and criticizes AIPAC’s use of political action committees and campaign spending. To many observers, however, this rhetoric veers dangerously close to longstanding and deeply troubling insinuations about Jewish political influence and money in American public life.
Postscript: Senator Van Hollen has issued nearly 30 statements whose primary subject was attacking Israel and just three whose primary subject was condemning Hamas.
Since retiring from IBM Steve Wenick has served as a freelance book reviewer for HarperCollins Publishing and Simon & Schuster.
His reviews and articles have appeared in The Jerusalem Post, The Algemeiner, Jerusalem Online, Philadelphia Inquirer, Attitudes Magazine, and The Jewish Voice of Southern New Jersey.
Steve and his wife are residents of Voorhees, New Jersey.