The recent Rhodes-Shapiro clash has hit the Democratic inbox like a delayed grenade.
In a December 1 New York Times piece, Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser, criticized the party for moral cowardice for hugging Benjamin Netanyahu so close after October 7 that leverage evaporated, arms poured in unchecked, UN vetoes piled up, ICC probes against Israeli leaders were trashed and the base—especially the young, the progressive, and the non-white—walked away feeling betrayed.
Two weeks later, Daniel Shapiro – former US ambassador to Israel -fired back in The Atlantic. Distancing from Israel, he warned, risks strategic setbacks including empowering Iran, rewarding terror and destabilizing regional alliances.
The truth is that this argument cycle has been running through administrations since the second intifada. What nobody wants to say aloud in polite center-left company is the following: both men are half-right, and both are half-blind.
Rhodes is dead-on about the political rot. The unconditional reflex cost Democrats dearly—look at the hemorrhaging support among under-35 voters who now see the party as complicit in endless suffering.
Shapiro is dead-on about the strategic suicide of walking away. If you cut the cord entirely, you get a cornered Israel that doubles down, an emboldened Tehran, stalled Saudi normalization (whatever’s left of it), and eventually American boots back in the region when things spiral.
So Democrats need to stop choosing sides in this intramural fight and start threading the needle they’ve dodged for too long. For it must begin somewhere.
First, maintain the alliance—abandoning it would be worse—but keep the aid flowing. Make aid continuation—still needed for the next decade or so, according to Netanyahu—conditional on behavior that complies with international humanitarian law and preserves US credibility.
Second, continue providing support for defensive systems such as Iron Dome. These protect civilian lives on both sides and serve the shared interest of countering terrorism. Military aid and offensive weapons, on the other hand, should only be supplied if there is clear, verifiable evidence of compliance with the laws of war and basic humanitarian standards.
Tools like the Leahy Law—which stops US military aid from going to any unit credibly accused of serious human rights abuses—paired with regular, transparent checks on how that aid is being used and a clear option to cut it off when real violations are proven, would actually give meaningful influence without taking risks that could shake up the whole region.
Why is it relevant now, at the start of 2026? Because the ceasefire has entered its fragile second phase. Trump’s “Comprehensive Plan” has been launched via his Board of Peace, executive and technocratic committees, disarmament talk and reconstruction promises—but the ground tells a different story.
Israeli evacuation orders still drop on Gaza families. Strikes continue intermittently, and aid trucks crawl in at a fraction of the needed levels. Hamas hasn’t disarmed. The Israel Defense Force hasn’t fully withdrawn.
Phase two is supposed to shift security to some international force and build a non-Hamas Palestinian administration. It has yet to begin.
A conditioning aid gives Democrats leverage exactly when it is needed most. It tells Israeli authorities that the blank check is over. It tells the progressive wing that the party hears the outrage over civilian carnage. It tells moderates and Jewish Democrats the alliance is being grown-up.
Rhodes wants a sharper moral break. Fine—it is true that fealty to a strongman who humiliated Biden made the party look weak in an authoritarian age. But ending support outright? It ignores Hamas’s role and Hezbollah’s shadow. Iran’s long game might also be at play.
Shapiro wants to keep the US tightly committed for solid strategic reasons. Fair enough—he’s right that walking away could seriously destabilize Jordan and Egypt, and it might even make Saudi Arabia pull back even more from any deal.
But the idea that endless unconditional aid somehow makes Israel more moderate? That boat left the dock a long time ago.
A plausible line of consensus among Democrats, one that might actually hold the party together rather than merely paper over its cracks, could rest on several interlocking commitments.
Military aid would only keep flowing once there’s clear, verifiable proof that basic rules of international humanitarian law are being followed. At the same time, genuine multilateral mechanisms for holding people accountable would take priority over knee-jerk attempts to block or discredit proceedings at the International Criminal Court.
In parallel, while quietly encouraging Israel to sharpen its own investigative processes and to adopt more discriminating targeting practices wherever feasible, Democrats would do well to lend active support to those internal Israeli inquiries that demonstrate seriousness and independence.
Reconstruction and political renewal in Gaza demand priority investment in a viable alternative to Hamas. This means backing reforms within the Palestinian Authority to combat corruption, strengthen institutions, and prepare for the two-state horizon – even battered as it is, because nothing else has ever come close to sticking – contingent on Hamas disarmament and international monitoring to ensure aid reaches civilians rather than militants.
Will this heal the Democratic divide? Likely not immediately. Progressives might see it as too cautious, while moderates and pro-Israel traditionalists will only consider the need to maintain the alliance based on common threats. Given the party’s history of evasion regarding Gaza, honesty could be the only path back to coherence and unity.
By synthesizing Shapiro’s strategic caution with Rhodes’s call for ethical consistency, Democrats could forge a position that restores credibility and positions the party to engage constructively with an evolving Middle East reality.
If, on the contrary, the party keeps pretending the old reflexes still work, be prepared to watch the base keep drifting—while opponents watch and wait. Democrats cannot afford another cycle of moral and strategic decline. If you condition the aid, you can save the alliance. Or you can lose both.
Eric Alter is a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former UN civil servant