Senator Van Hollen’s Op-Ed Misses the Mark on Israeli-Palestinian Reality

His essay is historically inaccurate and out of touch with the security and political realities on the ground today.

By Brian Romick, President and CEO, Democratic Majority for Israel

Senator Chris Van Hollen’s New York Times Op-Ed, May 26, 2026

Senator Chris Van Hollen’s recent New York Times op-ed arguing that Democrats should reconsider their longstanding support for Israel is both historically inaccurate and out of touch with the security and political realities on the ground today.

The central flaw in Senator Van Hollen’s argument is that he places overwhelming responsibility for the failure of a two-state solution on Israel while minimizing the actions and decisions of Palestinian leaders who have repeatedly undermined peace efforts. An honest discussion of the conflict must account for both.

A core argument of his op-ed – that the United States needs to use its leverage to pressure Israel to enact a two-state solution – rests on this premise. But for decades, Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected partition plans and statehood offers, and Hamas continues to reject Israel’s right to exist while embracing terrorism. Yet these realities receive relatively little attention in the senator’s argument.

The United States should absolutely use its leverage to advance peace. But that leverage should not be focused solely on Israel. President Trump should also use his diplomatic tools to pressure Hamas’s backers, regional actors, and Palestinian leaders to reject terrorism, support Hamas’s disarmament, and accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

Israel has been willing to trade land for peace, but Palestinian leaders have refused opportunities for a two-state solution. While Senator Van Hollen does briefly mention Palestinian political realities in arguing for unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, he omits critical history. In 2005, Israel withdrew every soldier and settler from Gaza. After the withdrawal, Hamas was elected to power and Gaza was transformed into a terror enclave. I was in Israel during this disengagement and witnessed this firsthand, watching IDF soldiers prepare to remove Israeli settlers from Gaza.

Today, an armed Hamas remains the dominant armed and political force in Gaza. It commits human rights abuses, including using innocent civilians as human shields and torturing civil society activists – to say nothing of the unspeakable atrocities it perpetrated on October 7. And Hamas fundamentally rejects Israel’s right to exist. These realities are central to understanding why many Israelis are skeptical that territorial concessions alone will bring peace. There can be no viable two-state solution while an armed Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction on its border.

I want to make clear that pro-Israel Democrats are opposed to settlement expansion in the West Bank. Like America, Israel is not perfect and is not beyond criticism. Settlement expansion remains an obstacle to peace. Pro-Israel Democrats have long expressed concern about the growth of settlements and the influence of extremist government officials such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. Violent settlers who attack innocent civilians undermine the prospects for peace and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

At the same time, the senator relies on several deeply flawed characterizations to advance a dangerous narrative about Israel. In Israel, Arab citizens are integrated into all aspects of society: they vote, serve in Israel’s legislature, and sit on the Supreme Court. None of those factors exist in a so-called “apartheid” country. He also lends credence to claims that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Israel’s goal since the October 7 massacre has been to return all hostages – alive and deceased – and defeat Hamas. Its goal has never been to destroy the Palestinian people. Without a doubt, the war in Gaza that ensued after October 7 was heartbreaking with immense loss and suffering. But genocide is a specific legal term that requires intent to destroy a people and that standard is not applicable here.

Senator Van Hollen also largely ignores why support for Israel has long been viewed as a bipartisan American national security interest. In a region increasingly threatened by Iran and its terrorist proxies, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, the U.S.-Israeli partnership provides greater regional stability. Israel is a critical intelligence, counterterrorism, technological, and regional security partner to the United States, and our continued alliance is essential to asserting American leadership. Failing to support Israel – especially now as it faces coordinated attacks from surrounding enemies – puts American security at risk.

Finally, Senator Van Hollen argues that he “support(s) Israel’s need for security” but he also believes “no offensive weapons should be sold to Israel” unless Israel makes time-bound concessions. This argument reflects a misunderstanding of how weapons are used in real-world situations and the security environment Israel faces. For example, F-15s and F-35s jets might be considered “offensive” weapons in some circumstances, but they have also been used to help shoot down Iranian missiles headed for Tel Aviv when Iran directly attacked Israeli civilians. Our security assistance helps preserve Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge, which ensures Israel can defend itself against enemies dedicated to its destruction. In the face of these attacks, which are often coordinated to inflict maximum damage on Israel, this assistance helps prevent conflicts from escalating into widespread wars that would destabilize the region and provide an opening for Iran-backed actors and groups to gain a foothold.

Congress can and should discuss how the U.S.-Israeli security relationship should change with the times, how our partnership must evolve as Israel’s own capabilities grow and its security needs change, and how we can align on a long-term vision for the region. However, that debate must be grounded in prioritizing America’s interests and Israel’s security. It cannot shift with political changes or in the middle of a war, especially when American troops are actively deployed in the region.

The senator puts many of these concerns at the feet of Prime Minister Netanyahu. But disagreeing with the Netanyahu government is not justification for abandoning Israel, just as differences with the Trump administration are not a reason for our allies to give up on the United States.

Senator Van Hollen claims to know the region well. But lasting peace will not come from placing responsibility on one side while ignoring the roles of Hamas, Iran-backed terror groups, failed Palestinian leadership, and the refusal of some in the region to accept Israel’s legitimacy. Nor will it come from a refusal to acknowledge the vital role Israel plays in advancing American security interests in one of the world’s most dangerous regions. The United States should use its diplomatic influence to expand normalization and build broader regional acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. A lasting solution requires confronting all of the obstacles to peace, not just the ones that fit a preferred narrative.