Democrats’ Unity on Sydney Terror Masks a Deeper, Dangerous Rift Over Israel

The unanimous Democratic condemnation of the Hanukkah mass shooting in Sydney looks, on the surface, like a reassuring moment of moral clarity. But Sen. John Fetterman’s warning that anti-Israel rhetoric is “becoming more and more part of my party’s platform” points to a more uncomfortable reality: the party is increasingly split not over whether antisemitism is wrong, but over what counts as antisemitism, what counts as legitimate criticism of Israel, and how US policy should navigate that fault line.

This isn’t just a messaging problem for Democrats ahead of 2026. It is a deeper ideological struggle that will shape US foreign policy, the future of the US–Israel relationship, and how American politics defines and confronts hate in an era of polarized identity politics and globalized violence.

How Democrats Got Here: From Reflexive Support for Israel to Open Internal War

For most of the post–World War II era, support for Israel was one of the most durable bipartisan pillars of US foreign policy. Democrats were often the party of especially strong pro-Israel sentiment, reflecting a coalition that included Jewish voters, Cold War liberals, and Christian supporters of Israel. There was dissent—especially after the 1967 and 1973 wars and the occupation of Palestinian territories—but it was largely confined to the party’s intellectual left, not its elected leadership.

That began to change in three waves:

• The post-Oslo backlash (2000s): The collapse of the Oslo peace process and the Second Intifada fueled deeper skepticism toward the peace process and settlement expansion. Criticism of Israeli policy grew in progressive circles but remained marginal in Congress.
• The Iraq War era and intersectional politics (2010s): As Democrats moved left on foreign policy after Iraq and as intersectional activism gained influence, Israel was increasingly framed by parts of the left as a US-backed occupier within a broader global system of oppression. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement took root on campuses and in activist spaces, shaping younger Democratic voters’ views.
• The Trump–Netanyahu alignment: Donald Trump’s close alliance with Benjamin Netanyahu—culminating in moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and embracing hardline policies—pushed many Democrats to define themselves in sharp contrast. For many progressives, opposition to Netanyahu hardened into skepticism about Israel’s government and, in some cases, about Zionism itself.

The Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack—and the devastating Israeli response in Gaza—supercharged all these tensions. Party leaders condemned Hamas and affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself. Progressive lawmakers and activists focused on the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, calling for a ceasefire, conditioning aid, or imposing an arms embargo. The Democratic National Committee’s symbolic push to debate suspending military aid to Israel wasn’t policy, but it was a signal that what used to be an edge position is now squarely inside the tent.

Why the Sydney Attack Exposes the Party’s Deepest Fault Line

Democrats came together in the aftermath of the Sydney Hanukkah shooting to denounce antisemitism and terrorism. Yet the same leaders have been bitterly divided over how to respond to the Gaza war and how to speak about Israel itself.

This unity/discord split matters for three reasons:

1. The definitional problem: Many centrist and pro-Israel Democrats see a continuum between harshly anti-Zionist rhetoric and outbreaks of violence targeting Jews worldwide. Many on the left insist they are criticizing a government and military, not a people, and warn that branding anti-occupation activism as antisemitism chills legitimate dissent. The Sydney attack forces these debates out of the abstract: when a gunman targets Jews at a Hanukkah event, rhetoric that blurs the line between Jews and Israel comes under sharper scrutiny.
2. The global contagion of grievance: The attack in Australia, like previous attacks on synagogues in Pittsburgh, Poway, and European cities, underlines that Jewish communities are often targeted as stand-ins for Israeli policy. This dynamic strengthens Fetterman’s argument that political language about Israel doesn’t stay confined to policy disputes; it can seep into a broader climate where Jews are seen as legitimate targets.
3. The electoral time bomb: As the 2026 midterms approach and 2028 presidential hopefuls jockey for position, Democrats face a constituency split: older, more moderate and many Jewish voters tend to support Israel strongly; younger, more diverse voters are significantly more critical of Israel. Sydney doesn’t heal that split; it intensifies the pressure on leaders to show they are tough on antisemitism while still responding to activist demands for a dramatic rethink of US–Israel policy.

What Fetterman Is Really Warning About

Sen. Fetterman is not just complaining about tone. He is warning that parts of the Democratic Party are moving from a critique of specific Israeli policies into a posture he sees as structurally anti-Israel. That shift has several concrete implications:

• Policy hardening: Pro-Israel moderates will be less willing to concede on conditions for military aid or diplomatic support if they believe their critics are acting from an anti-Israel worldview rather than a human rights framework.
• Red lines on rhetoric: Expect heightened internal conflict over phrases and frameworks—“from the river to the sea,” “settler colonial state,” “genocide”—that many Jewish and pro-Israel Democrats hear as calls for dismantling Israel as a Jewish state, even when activists insist they are aspirational or symbolic.
• Jewish voters’ trust: While Jewish Americans remain overwhelmingly Democratic, survey data since 2023 shows growing unease among some Jewish voters about the party’s left flank. Fetterman is giving voice to that anxiety—and signaling that the party risks losing an influential donor and activist base if it is perceived as equivocating on violence against Jews or delegitimizing Israel’s existence.

Expert Perspectives: A Clash of Moral Frameworks, Not Just Politics

Political scientists and sociologists studying the Democratic coalition emphasize that this conflict is less about raw partisanship and more about competing moral frameworks.

On one side is what some scholars call a “security and alliance” framework—rooted in the Holocaust, the Cold War, and the idea of Israel as a democratic ally in a hostile region. Within this frame, Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is non-negotiable, and criticism is legitimate only up to the line where it threatens that existence or treats Jews collectively as responsible for the actions of a government.

On the other is an “anti-oppression and decolonization” framework, in which Israel is seen as an occupying power backed by US military might. Here, solidarity with Palestinians is connected to Black Lives Matter, Indigenous rights, and global South movements. Within this frame, refusing to criticize Israel aggressively is complicity; centrist talk of “security” sounds like justification for structural violence.

The Sydney attack exposes the collision of these frameworks. If an assailant targets Jews at a religious celebration, pro-Israel Democrats see a direct line from demonizing Israel as uniquely evil to the dehumanization of Jews globally. Activists, however, tend to insist that such violence is aberrational, and that the real moral crisis remains the human cost in Gaza.

That disconnect is widening, not narrowing, as the conflict in Gaza drags on and external attacks like Sydney reinforce Jewish communities’ sense of vulnerability.

Data: The Rising Gap Inside the Democratic Coalition

Polling over the last decade highlights just how stark the internal Democratic divide has become:

• Partisan realignment on Israel: Surveys by organizations like Pew and Gallup have repeatedly found that Democrats have grown more sympathetic to Palestinians over time, while Republicans have become more sympathetic to Israel. Younger Democrats, in particular, are more critical of Israel than older Democrats.
• Attitudes after Oct. 7: Post–Oct. 7 polling has shown that while a majority of Americans initially backed Israel’s right to respond militarily, support for the scale and duration of the Gaza campaign eroded fastest among Democrats—especially young voters, voters of color, and progressive activists.
• Antisemitism vs anti-Zionism: Surveys of American Jews consistently show that most see a link between some forms of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, while many progressive activists insist they are distinct. That gap in perception is precisely where Fetterman’s warning is focused.

What Most Coverage Misses: The Policy Stakes Are Enormous

Much mainstream political coverage frames this as a messaging headache for Democrats—how to “balance” Jewish and progressive constituencies. That misses the larger stakes.

If the party’s platform and voting patterns shift from “unconditional support for Israel with some criticism of settlements” to “conditional or significantly reduced military aid, arms embargo debates, and possible recognition of Palestinian statehood regardless of Israeli consent,” the US–Israel relationship itself will be fundamentally redefined.

That has concrete consequences:

• Military posture: US weapons deliveries and intelligence cooperation could face new legislative hurdles. Even if they ultimately pass, the perception in Jerusalem will be that Washington is no longer a reliably unconditional backer.
• Diplomatic shield: US vetoes or abstentions at the UN Security Council on Israel-related resolutions could become bargaining chips, rather than automatic. This would reshape Israel’s sense of strategic security.
• Domestic climate: The way leaders talk about Israel and Gaza will shape how students, activists, and extremists frame Jews and Jewish institutions domestically. A discourse that treats Jews as monolithic stand-ins for Israel—or treats Zionism as inherently racist—can make it harder to maintain clear red lines against hate, even if that is not the intent.

Looking Ahead: 2026, 2028, and the Risk of a Public Schism

Fetterman’s warning lands at a moment when several Democrats mentioned in the Sydney coverage—Gavin Newsom, JB Pritzker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—are widely seen as potential presidential aspirants. Their statements condemning antisemitism in Australia are uncontroversial now. The test will come when they are forced to spell out what they think about:

• Conditioning military aid to Israel
• Recognizing Palestinian statehood over Israeli objections
• Defining when anti-Zionism crosses into antisemitism
• Handling campus protests and speech codes around Israel–Palestine

If they diverge sharply, the party will face a real choice instead of papering over differences with unanimous statements after attacks abroad. And if another major attack on Jews—or a major escalation in Gaza or the West Bank—occurs closer to US elections, the pressure to take clear, divisive positions will become overwhelming.

The Bottom Line

The Sydney terror attack provided Democrats a rare moment of rhetorical unity against antisemitism. Fetterman’s unease is a reminder that unity is fragile and may be largely superficial. Beneath it lies a profound disagreement about Israel’s role in the world, the meaning of Zionism, and how antisemitism manifests in an era when global conflicts are fought as much on social media and campus quads as on battlefields.

The real question for Democrats is not whether they can condemn violence against Jews in Sydney. It’s whether they can craft a coherent framework that simultaneously confronts rising antisemitism, recognizes Palestinian suffering and rights, and offers a consistent, principled foreign policy that doesn’t whiplash with each new tragedy.