Since President Joe Biden announced he would not be seeking re-election and endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris has made only one major decision: choosing Minnesota governor Tim Walz to be her running mate. Fortunately, it seems to have been a good one. The numbers certainly say so, given the 36 million dollars donated to the Harris campaign in the 24 hours after the vice presidential announcement. The internet has fawned over his warmth and his straightforward attacks on former President Trump (the highlight of which was calling the Republican party “just weird as hell”). He also has the potential to solidify key Democratic bases, with his membership in a teacher’s union, as well as bring in independent voters with his Midwestern background and military service.
Now that the Democratic presidential ticket has been confirmed, voters and international observers can begin to speculate on their stance on major issues, the most notable being their stance on Israel’s war on Gaza. Both Harris and Walz have called for a ceasefire and support a two-state solution to the conflict, though the devil is in the detail as to what any leader means by ‘ceasefire’. It is unlikely that a major foreign policy shift would occur under their administration given Harris has said publicly that she does not support an arms embargo against Israel. However, the founder of the Black Muslim Leadership Coalition Fund said that Vice President Harris has demonstrated “more sympathy for the people of Gaza” than either Trump or President Biden. Walz, meanwhile, is pretty much the average Democrat: supportive of Israel and humanitarian aid for Gaza and critical of both Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Yet the situation in Gaza might well have played an important role in the final VP selection between the two reported finalists: Walz and Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro. It is worth noting that while Walz and Shapiro haven’t differed much on Israel-Palestine, Walz has called for an immediate ceasefire where Shapiro hasn’t. While a running mate was being selected, Governor Shapiro came under fire for some of his remarks regarding the conflict.
In a 1993 article Shapiro wrote for his college newspaper, he said that he believed that there would never be a two state solution because the Palestinians were too “battleminded”. Although Shapiro and his staff say that his opinions have evolved in the more than thirty years that the paper was written, some on the left have used the remarks to brand him as racist or anti-Palestinian.
More recently, Shapiro has taken a harder line than some governors on the student protests and encampments on college campuses. He joined in calls for the president of the University of Pennsylvianna to step down after she told Congress that whether calling for a genocide against Jews breached the university’s code of conduct was “context dependent”. He additionally made it clear that colleges should ensure the safety of Jewish students during campus protests and encampments and that anti-semitism should not be tolerated. He argued that colleges would not allow students to dress in KKK regalia and they should similarly not allow them to be blatantly anti-semitic. The governor’s critics say that he was accusing all student protesters of being anti-semitic while his supporters say he was referring only to specific instances of harassment.
Around the same time as the rise in pro-Palestinian protests, Shapiro also updated the state’s code of conduct to prohibit “scandalous or disgraceful” behaviour. Some worried the change could be weaponized against participants in pro-Palestine rallies though there is no evidence that this happened.
These instances have made Governor Shapiro a target of the pro-Palestine movement, particularly among young people, and if Democrats hope to keep the White House, they must ensure that this bloc does not boycott the general election in the way many of them did the primaries. It is quite likely that the need to appease (or at least not intentionally anger these voters) outweighed Shapiro’s record as the popular governor of a key battleground state.
The selection of Walz over Shapiro, who is Jewish, has led to some allegations of anti-semitism and the New York Times has raised the possibility that it might alienate Jewish voters. However, many prominent Jewish Democrats and organisations have denied this. What is clear though is that the Democratic Party is aware of the ever growing anger from within their base over the U.S.’s support of Israel. It is unlikely that this will be able to overcome decades of foreign policy precedent and the millions of dollars pro-Israel lobbying groups spend on American elections. However, it does raise the possibility for significantly more humanitarian aid and further emphasis on peace talks. The choice of Walz (and the non-choice of Shapiro) shows that the Democrats want to keep pro-Palestine voters, especially young ones, engaged in the presidential election. They likely believe that by not making the situation in Gaza worse and instead focus on issues such as access to abortion or student loan debt, they will be able to avoid an election boycott and secure the support of young left leaning voters.
Interestingly, even though Walz has not thus far taken a strong pro-Palestine stance, his supporters have highlighted his record as someone who is willing to change his opinions and political stances, often becoming more liberal. In the wake of the Parkland school shooting, he changed his position to support significantly more gun control reforms, a shift he partially credits to conversations with his daughter. It is this exact willingness to listen to voters and to change his mind that pro-Palestine advocates will need to appeal to if they want to gain a major ally in the White House.
A spokesperson for Vote Uncommitted Minnesota (a movement that encouraged Democrats to vote uncommitted in the primaries in protest of President Biden’s support of Israel) hopes the situation in Gaza will be an issue Tim Walz evolves on. For now though, tensions between the Uncommitted bloc and the Democratic party remain and were visible at the Democratic National Convention. While there were some minor concessions such as holding a panel discussion on human rights of Palestinians, other demands such as having a Palestinian-American speak on the convention stage weren’t met. Walz’s selection signals more of the same for the Democratic Party line on Gaza, however, the injection of energy and funds his nomination brought to the party have already made him a strong addition to the ticket.
