The Democratic National Convention in Chicago felt like a revolution. A vice president anointed by the president to be his heir doesn’t exactly scream change, but the generational shift afoot was evident.

A Kamala Harris administration could break with the past and steer a new path in many areas. The Gaza-focused protesters in Chicago should realize that U.S.-Israel policy is one of them.

For decades, the foundation of U.S. policy toward its closest ally in the Middle East has been unconditional support. A second term of either President Joe Biden or Donald Trump likely would have stayed that course. Harris is the only option with the empathy and generational perspective that would make change possible.

Our unconditional support is grounded in generations that viewed Israel through the lens of the Holocaust and believed that was what history owed its people.

That view has shaped America’s policymakers in the White House and Congress for generations. It has shaped President Joe Biden’s view of Israel since he was a child.

Today, that policy is failing, in large part because Israel is subject to the whims of a prime minister more committed to maintaining his own power than securing peace for his people. U.S. support has helped keep him in place.

U.S. military leaders have made clear that Israel cannot win militarily in its war against Hamas and that its disregard for civilian casualties is undermining peace. Even members of his own security establishment have blamed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a lack of progress.

But, as Netanyahu has refused to change course, America has stayed with him.

As long as Netanyahu understands that American support and weapons will flow regardless of his actions, the Biden administration’s many efforts to negotiate peace will likely be in vain.

This is despite tremendous leverage that billions of dollars in military support every year should provide. The scale of Israel’s indiscriminate military campaign would not be possible without it. But for Biden and his political generation, using that to meaningfully pressure Israel’s government is simply unthinkable.

Harris comes from a different political generation, one that understands that the interests of Israel’s political leadership do not necessarily align with the national interests of the United States or those of the Israeli public.

That generational change is evident in the American public too, and that could help pave the way for Harris to make a real policy shift.

Younger Americans don’t see Israel as an underdog fighting for its survival in the wake of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks, but as the strongest military in the region today and one whose occupation and control of Palestinian territories appeared untenable and intolerable even before this war began.

In a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, Americans younger than 45 were much less likely to favor strong public support for Israel’s government (48%) than Americans older than 45 (78%).

That means younger generations can separate Israel’s right to defend itself from Netanyahu’s right to defend his political future.

That doesn’t mean a Harris administration would abandon our longtime ally in the Middle East. To the contrary, it could mean a more flexible policy approach that helps us influence our ally’s actions. This could enhance both U.S. interests and Israel’s security, while aligning with U.S. and international law and improving chances for long-term peace. It would not be an easy or certain path to peace, but our policy today is sure to fail.

Harris could make historic change simply by applying existing U.S. law to Israel just as we do to other countries, which prohibits the provision of U.S. military assistance to countries obstructing delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance or to military units that have committed gross human rights violations. The Biden administration has threatened to do so but failed to follow through. As she was a career prosecutor, enforcing the law should be a natural bridge for Harris to a new policy approach.

Even so, any policy shift on Israel is still politically risky. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, the leading pro-Israeli lobbying group, wields tremendous influence with massive political contributions. Just this summer, AIPAC is credited with taking down two progressive congressional incumbents for the offense of criticizing Israel’s military operations.

But it’s getting harder for Netanyahu’s cronies to cast as extreme anyone who criticizes his government’s actions, as outrage grows over heavy bombs routinely hitting schools, hospitals and other “safe zones.” Netanyahu’s own actions have brought criticism of his government well into the mainstream.

That’s cold comfort to those mourning civilians already killed in Gaza and worried about those still in the line of fire. Possible relief months down the line isn’t fast enough. But those calling her “ Killer Kamala” likely won’t help their own cause, since Harris is the best chance America has for a fresh effort to bring about Middle East peace.

The outcome of our upcoming presidential election remains unclear, but the generational shift will keep marching on. If a Harris administration doesn’t bring a new approach to America’s relationship with Israel, perhaps time still will.

Elizabeth Shackelford is senior policy director at Dartmouth College’s Dickey Center for International Understanding and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. She was previously a U.S. diplomat and is the author of “The Dissent Channel: American Diplomacy in a Dishonest Age.”