To the Editor:
Re “The Hard Truth My Party Needs to Face,” by Senator Chris Van Hollen (Opinion guest essay, May 30):
The senator’s argument that Democrats should reconsider their longstanding support for Israel does not acknowledge the security and political realities on the ground today.
Mr. Van Hollen places the blame for the failure of a two-state solution on Israel, while minimizing the actions of Palestinian leaders, who have repeatedly undermined peace efforts. He calls on the United States to use its leverage to pressure Israel to enact a two-state solution. 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.
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.
Brian Romick
Washington
The writer is the chief executive of Democratic Majority for Israel.
To the Editor:
Senator Chris Van Hollen’s core premise is summarized in two sentences: “For decades, we have called for a two-state solution, but we’ve failed to use our leverage to make it real. It’s past time that we use that leverage to end the occupation and achieve two states with full political and legal rights for all.”
What most Americans do not realize is that many of us in Israel are begging for the required tough love (leverage, if you like) that only the United States can exercise to achieve these ends. Without it, we will remain in an endless cycle of death and destruction.
One caveat: Maximum American leverage will not be sufficient as long as the present extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu remains in power. It is driven by ideology, not rationality. Israeli elections, less than half a year away, could change that.
However, even a new Israeli government would need to be pressured by the United States to pursue a two-state solution.
Jim Bellis
Kfar Vradim, Israel
To the Editor:
Senator Chris Van Hollen decries reflexive and unconditional support for Israel and outlines demands to be made of, and punitive measures to be deployed against, the Jewish state to force a two-state solution.
Notably absent are any corresponding conditions or threats addressed to the Palestinian side. Support for a Palestinian state, without insisting on the renouncement of terrorism and antisemitism, will be no more successful and is no more consistent with American values.
Daniel Wolf
Teaneck, N.J.
To the Editor:
Senator Chris Van Hollen has done what too few in Washington are willing to do: tell his own party the truth, plainly and without hedging.
For years, Democratic leaders took half measures — strongly worded letters, expressions of concern or the occasional threat to delay weapons shipments — that fell short of the sustained pressure needed to change the behavior of the Israeli government.
Mr. Van Hollen names the occupation for what it is. He acknowledges American complicity. He calls for concrete consequences and draws an important red line against displacement. These are not radical positions; rather they reflect the values Democrats have long claimed to hold. And they are the policy positions that large numbers of American Jews are ready to embrace.
Mr. Van Hollen has shown what moral courage and strategic clarity look like. His colleagues would do well to follow his lead.
Hadar Susskind
Washington
The writer is the president and chief executive of New Jewish Narrative.
Options for Mothers
To the Editor:
Re “If a Couple Splits, Who Controls the Embryos?” (front page, May 29):
I commend Erin Millender for doing everything she could to become pregnant through in vitro fertilization. It seems unethical that a partner can revoke consent after embryos have been created.
Like Ms. Millender, I went through I.V.F. at New York University. I created and froze embryos in my 30s and had the most positive experience imaginable, resulting in the birth of my daughter when I was 46.
A single woman then and now, I did not choose marriage to bring my daughter to life; I relied on a “helper,” a sperm donor whose identity I did not know, to whom I am grateful. Women do not need to place their hopes in an unknown future with a nonexistent or unreliable partner or wait for an arbitrary deadline to become a mother. If I had known one of my embryos would become my daughter — the curious, playful, affectionate, big-eyed wonder and joy of my life — I would not have waited a day.
To all the women out there yearning for a child, whatever your circumstances: You have options, and you can do it.
Catherine Elizabeth DeLazzero
New York
