Michael J. Koplow
It is rare that the selection of a vice presidential candidate is seen as a momentous bit of signaling. Running mates are picked for a variety of reasons, from their appeal in swing states to their campaigning ability to their rapport with the person at the top of the ticket.
Yet the fact that after meeting with three finalists, Vice President Kamala Harris did not choose Josh Shapiro and instead chose Tim Walz is being interpreted by many as a flashing light regarding Harris and the Democratic Party’s alleged preferences.
From the wild hysteria that Harris is antisemitic and that Democrats are trying to purge Jews from their ranks — which would be a sign of unsurpassed incompetence were it true given the large numbers of Democratic Jewish officeholders, particularly compared to the paucity of elected Jewish Republicans — to the more substantive concern that the public campaign targeting Shapiro for his views on Israel and quite possibly his Judaism impacted Harris’ decision not to choose him, this is being bandied about as the latest controversy surrounding the politics of Israel in the U.S.
To get the easiest and loudest part out of the way, there were plenty of good policy, political and personal reasons for Harris to choose Walz. Pick whichever outlet you like that reported on what drove her choice, and Israel is nowhere to be found. It would be a devious long con indeed to put Shapiro on a short list for vice president, vet him, include him in the whittled down list of three finalists and then cast him aside as part of a secret anti-Zionist agenda.
It would be even stranger in light of Walz having been an AIPAC endorsee when he served in the House, slamming those who did not immediately condemn Oct. 7 as terrorism and murder and dubbing opposition to Israel as a Jewish state antisemitic. I don’t discount the possibility that the pressure campaign against Shapiro was factored into discussions about the pros and cons of the three finalists, but there is nothing to suggest that it was a prominent or even decisive factor. Going with Walz over Shapiro is not de facto evidence of anti-Zionism or antisemitism any more than opposing Jamaal Bowman or Cori Bush was inherently racist.
Nevertheless, the circus surrounding Shapiro the last two weeks is indeed important, far more so than his ultimately not being selected by Harris to be the vice presidential nominee. As The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg deftly pointed out, Shapiro’s stances on Israel and campus protests were indistinguishable from other VP shortlisters, yet he was the only one to be targeted by the far left over Zionism and Israel.
The obvious independent variable here is that alone among the contenders, Shapiro is Jewish, and for those who see much anti-Zionism as thinly disguised antisemitism, the disguise here was particularly translucent. The post-Oct. 7 period has laid bare many instances of antisemitism on the far left and waving away the “Genocide Josh” campaign as harmless or only about Shapiro’s support for Israel is dangerously myopic.
But the antisemitism baked into the campaign against Shapiro is only one of the worrisome aspects. Another — and one that may be more impactful, given that antisemitism is always going to have a hard time gaining a critical mass in the mainstream — is what the campaign says about the shifting window on Israel.
In watching the effort to remove Shapiro from contention, a casual observer would think that Pennsylvania’s governor is buddies with Itamar Ben Gvir and a charter member of American Friends of Otzma Yehudit (Ben Gvir’s hyper-nationalist and proudly anti-Arab political party). Shapiro was accused of backing Israeli war crimes (utterly nonsensical) and of being rabidly anti-Palestinian (a bizarre accusation against anyone supporting two states). He was painted as an extremist, someone whose ties to and support for Israel should be disqualifying.
If Shapiro were indeed the 21st-century incarnation of Meir Kahane, then this all might make sense. But he is not, and what lies beneath all of this is a shifting of the goalposts on the politics of Israel on the left that is unfortunately not confined to the fringes.
Shapiro is about as mainstream liberal Zionist as they come. He supports Israeli security and was horrified by Oct. 7 and the unapologetic cheering of it in some quarters, and also supports two states and views Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a particularly awful Israeli leader.
In the context of American Jewish politics, he represents the overwhelming majority American Jewish opinion. Like many American Jews, he has close personal ties to and experience with Israel, which undoubtedly colored his views as a college student and also color his different views today. This is not exceptional; for anyone who views this shift as suspicious or performative, my views today on two states are unimpeachable, but I shouted anti-Oslo slogans and demanded Yitzhak Rabin’s resignation outside of the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem when I was a teenager.
Shapiro is unremarkable in having undergone a shift that many American Jews went through during the same period, and also unremarkable in the sense of being in line with what has been standard Democratic politics on Israel for decades. Were he Israeli, he would be firmly ensconced in the political left. That he is deemed extreme and unacceptable over his views on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict says nothing about him and everything about how radical the issue-based opposition to him is.
You can like Shapiro or hate him, agree with him on policy or not, and all of that is well within appropriate and legitimate politics. To portray him as anything but mainstream, however, is a sign of how the boundary of extremism on the left is expanding.
I recently argued that there is a distinction between 1967ers, who oppose Israeli policies on occupation that are eroding any chance at a two-state outcome, and 1948ers, who are opposed to Israel as an entity and Zionism as a legitimate concept. The campaign against Shapiro is representative of the 1948 camp, taking normcore liberal Zionist positions and tarring them as uniquely dangerous.
Not only does this sell out moderate and left-wing Israelis, who are battling genuine extremist forces on Israeli-Palestinian issues at home and need all the outside assistance they can get for their pragmatic and moderate vision, but it betrays the majority of American Jews who hold these positions as well and want nothing beyond a fair resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that respects and fulfills the nationalist aspirations of both sides.
If tarnishing supporters of two states — which has to mean supporting both states, and not just one of them — becomes a litmus test, it will be a reliable sign that the extremist wing has thoroughly taken over.
If there are degrees of difference between Harris, Walz and Shapiro on how they view Israel, its legitimacy and what they see as the best endgame for the conflict and the region, they are impossible to detect.
The best thing that can happen moving forward is for the forces behind the anti-Shapiro campaign to see that their efforts were meaningless, and that the liberal Zionism that has been a Democratic hallmark remains ensconced as a core policy pillar while they are relegated to the sidelines.
Michael Koplow is the Israel Policy Forum’s chief policy officer, based in Washington, D.C.
Josh Shapiro was by far the strongest candidate for Harris’ pick for the V.P. post. He is the popular Governor of Pennsylvania, a must win state for both Trump and Harris. He is a great campaigner and someone who could immediately take on the position of president should Harris become incapable of functioning in that role.
In the last few days he was seen as the logical choice for Kamala Harris until the Shapiro haters, many of whom were antisemitic, became aroused and aggressive. Harris obviously became concerned about keeping the party unified knowing that the squad would be angered should this Jewish, pro-Israeli candidate be chosen. Angry antisemitic, squad members constantly spouting their venom was not the image of unity that Harris could live with so Walz was chosen at the last minute.
Mr. Koplow admits that the Shapiro-haters were antisemitic but then tries to brush that aspect of the choice aside. The simple truth is its the only rational reason to explain why he wasn’t.