The knives are out for Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, rumored to be Vice President Kamala Harris’ pick as running mate. While Shapiro’s home-state popularity spans party and Pennsylvania will be a must-win in any path to the presidency, Shapiro’s original sin is that he is an observant Jew. His foreign policy views fall squarely in the center of the Democratic Party: He supports Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself, but also believes in a two-state solution and is sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Still, even though there is no difference between Shapiro’s positions toward the Middle East and those of Senator Mark Kelly or Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the Democratic Party’s progressive fringe labels Shapiro “Genocide Josh” and alleges with poorly concealed anti-Semitism that he holds dual loyalties to Israel.
Opposition Research Hits Josh Shapiro
Enter the opposition researchers. The latest “gotcha”? As a college student 31 years ago, Shapiro penned an op-ed entitled questioning Palestinian commitment to peace. Among his arguments? “Using history as precedent, peace between Arabs and Israelis is virtually impossible and will never come,” and he opined, “Palestinians will not coexist peacefully. They do not have the capabilities to establish their own homeland and make it successful even with the aid of Israel and the United States. They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own.” He further described the Arab world as “fractious.”
With the vice presidency on the line, Shapiro backpedaled. His spokesman Manuel Bonder explained, “The Governor greatly values their perspectives and the experiences he has learned… his views on the Middle East have evolved.” That is unfortunate because, three decades on, Shapiro’s views appear positively prescient. Isn’t the Arab world fractious? Arabs in the Middle East would be the first to admit that. Just ask the Arab Quad—the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt—that in 2017, launched a multiyear boycott of Qatar for its support for Muslim Brotherhood groups and an alleged coup plot against Abu Dhabi. Or ask Libyans, Yemenis, or Sudanese, though they would need to first agree on which of the various claimants is actually their government.
Under both Bill Clinton in 2000 and George W. Bush in 2008, Israel offered Palestinians a comprehensive peace deal, one to which Palestinian negotiators agreed. But first, Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat and then his successor Mahmoud Abbas walked away without any counter-proposal. Over intervening decades and especially today, polls show overwhelming Palestinian support for terrorism or, as it might be called in Gaza, Tehran, and on Ivy League campuses, “Resistance.”
Josh Shapiro, like his sometimes intra-party rival Senator John Fetterman, is popular in Pennsylvania because he prioritizes reality over the party’s ever-shifting ideological orthodoxy. He should not dispense with his best asset for the sake of ambition. It is not only humiliating but risks doubling down on the failures of the post-Oslo era. Until there is as serious a conversation in Washington as there has been in Abu Dhabi, Amman, Cairo, and Riyadh about Palestinian political culture, American diplomacy and aspirations for peace and security in the region will continue to fail.
About the Author: Dr. Michael Rubin
Michael Rubin is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute
