- cross-posted to:
- theatlantic@rss.ponder.cat
- cross-posted to:
- theatlantic@rss.ponder.cat
Early Sunday morning, a man named Cody Balmer allegedly attempted to burn down the official residence of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, just hours after Shapiro and his family had finished their Passover seder. Photos from the scene captured the charred remains of the religious books they’d used that evening. In an affidavit for a search warrant, police said that the assailant had told a 911 operator that he’d targeted Shapiro “for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.” Balmer later told police that he’d planned to beat the governor with a hammer had he encountered him. He faces eight charges, including attempted homicide.
Attempting to murder an American Jew over the actions of completely different Jews thousands of miles away in the Middle East is textbook anti-Semitism. But in the case of Shapiro, it’s particularly perverse, because the governor supports Palestinian statehood and has been a harsh critic of Israel’s leadership. “I personally believe Benjamin Netanyahu is one of the worst leaders of all time,” he told reporters back in January 2024, months before then–Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called on the Israeli prime minister to resign. Shapiro sharply condemned anti-Semitic protesters on university campuses but distinguished them from non-extremist demonstrators, and defended the prerogative of “young people to righteously protest and question”—a stark contrast to the current administration, which has been deporting foreign students for their speech.
Given Shapiro’s actual positions, how might someone get the impression that he is somehow responsible for Israel’s actions and in lockstep with its leadership? Most people would not even know, let alone care about, their Rust Belt governor’s position on a foreign conflict. But most governors weren’t the target of a national campaign effectively blaming them for Israel’s conduct. Last summer, when then–Vice President Kamala Harris was choosing her running mate, Shapiro emerged as a top contender, thanks to his robust electoral popularity in an indispensable swing state. And just as quickly, hard-left activists and congressional staffers attempted to pressure Harris not to pick him. “Tell Kamala and the Democrats now: Say no to Genocide Josh Shapiro for Vice President,” declared the site NoGenocideJosh.com.
In an open democracy, there is nothing wrong with forcefully advocating for Palestinians or against Israel—whatever the Trump administration might say. But there was something very wrong with the Genocide Josh campaign. As political commentators noted at the time, no such campaign was marshalled against any other prospective vice-presidential front-runner, despite all of them having the same—or more hawkish—views on Israel as Shapiro. For example, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, the preferred candidate of many in the anti-Shapiro movement, had a long pro-Israel record dating back to his time in the House of Representatives. As a congressman, he voted to condemn a United Nations resolution against Israeli settlements that President Barack Obama had allowed to pass; called Israel “our truest and closest ally in the region, with a commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties, surrounded by a pretty tough neighborhood”; and met with Netanyahu personally, releasing a photo to the media of the two of them standing side by side.
As governor, Walz said of the Gaza campus protests: “I think when Jewish students are telling us they feel unsafe in that, we need to believe them, and I do believe them,” adding that “creating a space where political dissent or political rallying can happen is one thing; intimidation is another.” Some pro-Palestinian activists were arrested after protesting outside his residence. Walz and Shapiro advanced the same position on ending the Gaza war—except that Shapiro said that a solution would “ideally” happen without Netanyahu, whom he called “a destructive force for Israel over time,” whereas Walz never openly criticized the Israeli leader.
None of this inspired any progressive pushback, presumably because Walz is not Jewish, and so was not seen as inherently suspect and secretly in hock to Israeli interests. Put another way, the Genocide Josh movement singled out a Jewish candidate for censure over Israel while tendentiously misrepresenting his stance on the issues in order to discredit him. This was not an expression of traditional sharp-elbowed American political discourse, but rather an echo of ancient antipathies.
Since the attempted murder of Shapiro, we have learned that his assailant may have suffered from severe mental illness. Balmer’s mother told CBS News that he “went off his medication,” and that her pleas for local police to get him “picked up” the week before had gone unanswered. In the aftermath of such incidents, there is often an unfortunate impulse to stigmatize mental illness as the source of societal prejudice. But those struggling with internal demons don’t originate our external ones; they reflect them. In their confusion and pain, such individuals latch on to those already targeted by the broader culture and its preexisting pathologies, showing us not who they are, but who we are. This is why deeply troubled people—from Kanye West (now known as Ye) to the murderously disturbed—have more often gone after Jewish people than, say, the Amish. Weakened minds tend to be overtaken by strong currents.
Crimes like the one against Shapiro hold up a mirror to our collective biases. In this case, it appears that high-profile deceptions and double standards about a Jewish politician’s Israel stance contributed to an unwell person trying to kill him. The Passover attack is a warning: If we don’t reckon with the lies about Jews in our public sphere, we will see more lies, and more of their consequences.
He could be a Mongolian Buddhist and it wouldn’t matter. Supporting genocide is enough to motivate some people to rash action.
Free Palestine.
The point was, just like in the general election, some people were attacking the least genocide friendly of the options, and saying they were doing it because they hated genocide. Which is a weird thing to do (especially since in both cases it seemed to result in the more genocide-friendly option winning).
attacking the least genocide friendly of the options
What options? Who does that set include? Because if we’re talking all Democrats, then I think people like Rashida Tlaib are significantly better than Shapiro. His two wins are “supports a two-state solution” and “strong disdain for Netanyahu.” but beyond that, it’s pretty bad. Personally, I don’t find much faith in his good statements either, since his actual actions are counterproductive to either of those two views.
Rashida Tlaib is better on Israel than Shapiro, yes. Go figure. She was not an option for vice president.
The article notes that Tim Walz was the main alternative option being pushed by the anti-Shapiro crowd, and he was objectively worse on Israel in terms of messaging at least.
I do get what you mean. I read the Wikipedia article and watched an interview where he talked about Israel, and I definitely didn’t like him. All his answers are politician answers, very successfully crafted so that it’ll sound to everyone on any side of the issue that he agrees with them. He did say clearly that he prefers a two-state solution but that was about the only non-weaselly thing he said. But yeah, he has a bunch of extremely anti-Palestinian actions and I can definitely see why a committed pro-Palestine person could have a serious problem with him.
She was not an option for vice president.
So that’s the set of options you were talking about, okay then. That was not clear.
In all honesty though, my response was somewhat motivated by the articles’ defense of Shapiro, which felt less than honest considering how poor he is on the grand scale of things regarding the ongoing genocide. Given your response to ranandtoldthat below though I suspect we don’t really disagree much on the Atlantic’s not-so-great reporting on the topic, though.
Given your response to ranandtoldthat below though I suspect we don’t really disagree much on the Atlantic’s not-so-great reporting on the topic, though.
Yeah, no disagreement at all. I had no idea until this post how bad their stance on Gaza / Israel was, which definitely makes me look at this article in a new light.
I am not really in the know about Shapiro’s position on the ongoing genocide. Previously, I thought the campaign against him smelled off.
I’d like to take this article at face value, but given the publication’s track record of indirectly supporting genocide through false equivalence and whataboutism, I can’t. Unfortunately for Josh Shapiro such a defense will inevitably have the opposite effect, though I doubt he asked the Atlantic to run this piece.
Holy shit, you’re not kidding. I generally like The Atlantic for obvious recent reasons but I just looked up their Gaza coverage and about 50% of it is more or less “Why is everyone mad at Israel what have they ever done to anyone” 😳