In December of 2016, the UN Security Council passed resolution number 2334, affirming the view that Israel's settlements in occupied Palestinian territories were unlawful. The United States abstained from voting -- the first and only abstention on an Israel-related vote during Barack Obama's entire tenure in office.
Shortly thereafter, Congress passed H. Res. 11, condemning this Security Council resolution. In doing so, the resolution specifically denounced "politically motivated acts of boycott, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel" and expressed opposition to the resolution's insistence on distinguishing "between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967."
The vote tally on H. Res. 11 was 342-80. Among those voting in favor was Tim Walz, then the Democratic representative from Minnesota's first congressional district.
I do not reveal this detail to undermine Walz's case for joining the Democratic presidential ticket. I like Tim Walz. I liked him as a congressman, and I certainly liked him better than the antisemite who succeeded him representing my in-laws' home congressional district. And I've liked him even more as Governor. As far as I'm concerned, he'd make an excellent addition to the ticket.
Moreover, while this vote was not great, I don't think it suggests that Walz is some uniquely bad figure on matters of Israel/Palestine. Certainly, if one framed it the right way and possessed the right priors one could easily make the case: He openly attacked BDS! He was opposing even condemning Israeli settlements! He can't even claim the defense of "well, everyone was doing it back then" -- Walz was to the right of the Obama administration on this, and seventy-six Democrats voted against the resolution he supported! If one was looking to attack Walz on matters of Israel/Palestine, H. Res. 11 offers a very viable angle of attack. If one's primary concern regarding Harris' VP pick is avoiding Democratic politicians with a history of hostility towards either BDS or a record of unblinking support for Israel, then H. Res. 11 generates a very valid reason for concern.
But as far as I know, nobody has taken this angle. In fact, as best I can tell, nobody has even raised Walz's H. Res. 11 vote before I wrote this blog post. This is despite the fact that, as we know, questions about Israel policy have been front and center in why many have rallied aggressively against Josh Shapiro as a potential VP pick.
So here's the question that does motivate this post: how do you think it came to be that we learned about Josh Shapiro's collegiate op-ed columns written as a 20 year old before we started considering Tim Walz's actual voting record?
The position I took last week on Shapiro as VP nominee remains the position I'll take this week: I think Shapiro would be fine as VP, and I don't think he should be picked. On the former side of the ledger, I don't think his positions on Israel are substantially different from those of other potential members of the Democratic ticket (Harris included) -- the differences that exist are matters of degree, not kind (see also: Mark Kelly supporting police breaking up pro-Palestine protests). In that post, I argued that
the congealing anti-Shapiro backlash smacks of a very predictable and unlovely hyperpolicing of Jews-qua-Jews on Israel, whose every jot and tittle on the matter will be pored over with exacting and unforgiving scrutiny in a manner that just isn't imposed upon non-Jews. Non-Jews can have unacceptable positions on Israel, but only Jews become unacceptable for things like "her book has an Israeli in it." Shapiro is getting heightened scrutiny here not because his positions on Israel are significantly different from those of Kelly or Beshear or Cooper, but because he's a very visibly Jewish politician and so is presumed to need greater scrutiny.
The fact that Shapiro is having his college views scrutinized while nobody even bothered to look at what Tim Walz actually voted for as a congressman I think pretty emphatically proves the point. Noting that Shapiro really has done X Y and Z potentially problematic things vis-a-vis Israel cannot explain why one didn't even think to look at Walz at all.
My point is not, to be clear, that Walz is actually "worse" than Shapiro on Israel/Palestine. It's not even that they're identical. While I don't think it is clear-cut, I have zero problem with someone who is highly motivated by pro-Palestine/anti-Israel sentiment looking at Walz's H. Res. 11 vote, and the remainder of his record in Congress and as Governor, comparing it to that of Shapiro, and say "on net, I think Walz is comparatively better on the issue, and so I prefer him to Shapiro."
But the difference in affect we're seeing directed towards Walz (and all the other plausible Democratic contenders) versus Shapiro, centered around Israel, is not one of "I think so-and-so is comparatively better." What differences exist between Shapiro and Walz cannot bear the weight of justifying being ecstatic about Walz, or even just thinking of Walz as adequate, and viewing Shapiro as cataclysmically unacceptable. If what Shapiro's done on Israel while in office is outright unacceptable, then it's hard to argue that Walz's objecitvely similar record is hunky-dory. They might be different, but they're not that different, and the only reason they're viewed as that different is because of an instinctual suspicion of Shapiro that is largely based on his identity. And I'm further saying that the reason why people immediately fixated on digging into the deepest recesses of Shapiro's Israel record while being completely uninterested in learning the first thing about Walz's is because Shapiro is vocally and publicly Jewish, and so became a target.
Does any of this change my opinion on whether Shapiro should be selected as VP? No. Why not? Because even if it is the case that some of the attacks Shapiro has faced are unfair, vice presidential selection is not about "fair". It's about maximizing one's chances to win, and fairly or not Shapiro seems to be a problem for some important swaths of voters. Harris also doesn't seem to be considering any women for her running mate, presumably because it is thought that having two women on a ticket will turn off certain voters. Is that "fair"? No, any voter who thinks that way is indulging in rank misogyny. And yet, it would be facile to suggest that Harris should pick a woman just to vindicate that these voters are wrong. They are wrong, but the purpose of a vice presidential candidate is not to even justifiably say to certain influential voting blocs "you're wrong."
But we shouldn't delude ourselves as to what's happening here. Everybody reading this has seen a slew of commentary analyzing Josh Shapiro's Israel record from top to bottom. Nobody reading this had seen a droplet of ink spilled on Tim Walz's H. Res. 11 vote. Likewise, it is quite clear that what is an unforgivable heresy for Shapiro will be easily (and quite literally) overlooked when it comes to Walz. That difference is not random. It manifests for exactly the reason you'd expect it to.
No comments:
Post a Comment