Nicolas Sawaya
Mondoweiss / August 15, 2024
A review of Tim Walz’s time in Congress from 2007 to 2018 shows he supported multiple Israeli wars on Gaza, rejected the international consensus on the illegality of West Bank settlements, and opposed any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
When Kamala Harris selected Minnesota Governor Tim Walz over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro as her Vice-Presidential running mate, many viewed it as a win for pro-Palestine constituents of the Democratic party. Shapiro’s long history of pro-Israel positions and questionable ties to Israel, as well as his publicly inflammatory statements against Palestinians and their supporters, appeared to be key reasons Harris passed him over. But can Tim Walz be viewed as much better?
A review of Walz’s career shows that he can be fairly characterized as a reliable pro-Israel Democrat who has consistently voted for and taken positions in support of Israel. In fact, it is this very history that has led Israel lobby groups within the Democratic Party to celebrate Harris’s choice, which should give us all pause.
Walz in Congress
While Walz’s time as Minnesota governor has received much attention since it was announced he would become Harris’s running mate, it is actually his time in Congress that might shed the most light on how he will look to influence foreign policy from the executive branch. The record shows that during his career as a member of the House of Representatives between 2007 and 2018, Walz consistently voted in favor of pro-Israeli positions. In these years he supported every Israeli war on Gaza, rejected the international consensus on the illegality of settlements in the West Bank, and opposed any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, preferring instead to pay lip service to a “negotiated peace” while Israel continued colonizing the West Bank unimpeded.
Walz on Gaza, 2009 – 2014
In fact, it is Walz’s support for previous assaults on Gaza that are among his most alarming votes.
On January 9, 2009, Walz voted Yea on blatantly biased H. Res. 34, which essentially endorsed the pro-Israeli position on “Operation Cast Lead” (the Israeli assault on Gaza between December 27, 2008 and January 18, 2009). H. Res. 34 called on nations “to condemn Hamas for deliberately embedding its fighters, leaders, and weapons in private homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, and otherwise using Palestinian civilians as human shields, while simultaneously targeting Israeli civilians”. It also sought to “lay blame both for the breaking of the calm and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas”.
According to the UN, “a total of 1,419 Palestinians were killed by Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) attacks, of whom 1,167 (82%) were civilians; 5,300 people were injured, and around 5,356 houses were completely or partially destroyed”, whereas only 3 Israeli civilians were killed. Furthermore, according to the Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (A/HRC/12/48), also known as the Goldstone Report, “the Mission found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack” (paragraph 483); “the Mission is unable to make any determination on the general allegation that Palestinian armed groups used mosques for military purposes” (paragraph 486); “the Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities” (paragraph 487); “the Mission found no indication that the civilian population was forced by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups to remain in areas under attack from the Israeli armed forces” (paragraph 488). The report did find, however, that Israel used Palestinians as human shields in up to 4 instances, in contravention of International Humanitarian Law (paragraph 1090).
The Goldstone report also found that “some of the actions of the Government of Israel might justify a competent court finding that crimes against humanity have been committed” (paragraph 1335) and so perhaps not surprisingly, the U.S. Congress also went after the Goldstone report itself. H.Res. 867 claims that the report is “biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy”. H.Res. 867 further “calls on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose any endorsement of the Report in multilateral fora, including through leading opposition to any U.N. General Assembly resolution and through vetoing any U.N. Security Council resolution that endorses the Report’s contents”. Walz saw it fit to vote Yea to this resolution on November 3, 2009, again in line with the position of the Israeli government.
On November 16, 2012, H. Res. 813 was passed by a vote in the House. Since the vote was without objection (i.e. it passed via unanimous consent), no record of individual votes was made, but the implication is that Walz supported the resolution. H. Res. 813 “expresses unwavering commitment to the security of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders and supports its inherent right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism”, and was passed as Israel was assaulting Gaza as part of “Operation Pillar of Defense” (that took place between November 14 and 21, 2012). According to the UN, during that operation, “IOF killed 171 Palestinians, amongst them 102 (60%) civilians, including 35 children and 14 women; 648 others were wounded, and 286 houses were completely or partially destroyed”. In contrast, 4 Israeli civilians were killed.
On July 11, 2014, H. Res. 657 was passed by a vote in the House. Since the vote was without objection, no record of individual votes was made, but the implication is that Walz supported the resolution. H. Res. 657 “reaffirms the support of the House of Representatives for Israel’s right to defend its citizens and ensure Israel’s survival, and condemns the unprovoked rocket fire at Israel and calls on Hamas to cease all rocket and other attacks against Israel”, and was passed as Israel was engaged in the most destructive of all its wars against Gaza up to that date. As part of “Operation Protective Edge”, which lasted between July 8 and August 26, and according to UN report S-21/1, “Israel killed 2,251 Palestinians, including 1,462 civilians (65%), of whom 299 women and 551 children; 11,231 Palestinians, including 3,540 women and 3,436 children, were also injured, of whom 10% suffered permanent disability as a result”; in contrast, 6 civilians were killed in Israel. In addition, “18,000 housing units were destroyed in whole or in part; much of the electricity network and of the water and sanitation infrastructure were incapacitated; and 73 medical facilities and many ambulances were damaged. Many Palestinians were uprooted from their homes or temporary shelters multiple times; at the height of the hostilities, the number of internally displaced persons reached 500,000, or 28 per cent of the population”.1
Walz on illegal Jewish settlements
In June 2009, Walz visited Israel and the occupied West Bank on a Middle East tour, where he met with Benjamin Netanyahu (among other heads of state), and “told the Israelis he believes the growing number of Jewish settlements in the West Bank were hampering the prospects for peace”. However, in March 2010, when tension between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government was bubbling to the surface over the construction of settlements in East Jerusalem, Walz chose to attend and speak at the annual AIPAC conference, where he stated that “Israel is our truest and closest ally in the region, with a commitment to values of personal freedoms and liberties, surrounded by a pretty tough neighborhood.”
Furthermore, his 2009 statement on settlements is at odds with his voting record on the issue. Indeed, Walz voted Yea to H.Res. 11 on January 5, 2017, which opposes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 that passed on December 23, 2006 by a vote of 14-0-1 (with the United States abstaining), and that describes the UN resolution as “an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace”. UNSC 2334 reaffirmed “that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”. However, it uses weaker language on Israeli settlements than prior UNSC resolutions, and could potentially allow Israel to retain already existing settlements beyond the 1967 lines “through negotiations”. Still, this was one of the rare instances where the Obama administration deviated from Israeli policy by not vetoing the resolution, and Walz still saw it fit to oppose his own Democratic administration on this issue.
Walz as Governor
This brings us to the current day, where in his role as Minnesota governor, Walz has paid some lip service to Palestinian concerns, but maintained his staunch support for Israel and opposed legislative action to hold it accountable, even during a genocide.
Walz on the Gaza Genocide
Walz made some encouraging remarks after the Minnesota Democratic primaries in March of this year about the voters in the Uncommitted movement (19% of Minnesota’s Democratic electorate), signaling to Democratic leadership that they should not take their votes for granted in light of the Biden administration’s support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Speaking to CNN, Walz said that they were engaged, and that “we’re really proud of Minnesota civic responsibility. We have some of the highest voter turnouts. These are voters that are deeply concerned as we all are. The situation in Gaza is intolerable”.
The day after, in an interview, Walz told MPR News Host Cathy Wurzer that he “certainly calls [s] for a ceasefire in Gaza. It has to be a working ceasefire. I’ve asked for these humanitarian pauses to get folks out. I want this thing to end; I don’t want a ceasefire to last for a week or something like that. We need a permanent solution.”
However, it is unlikely that these words of sympathy will actually translate to tangible actions that put pressure on the Netanyahu government to end their genocide in Gaza. Indeed, Walz hasn’t called for an arms embargo or sanctions on Israel (and Harris’ national security advisor Phil Gordon recently clarified that Harris “does not support an arms embargo”), or taken any other meaningful policy positions that would potentially result in an end to Israel’s mass slaughter.
In November of last year as the Gaza genocide was unfolding, he faced protests by pro-Palestinian activists who urged the Walz administration to “stop investing state employee retirement funds in the Israeli government and defense contractors who supply arms to that nation”. In February of this year, protesters called “on the state to cut financial ties with Israel, ahead of Thursday’s State Board of Investment meeting, where dozens of Minnesotans spoke in favor of divestment from accounts that benefit Israel”. According to Walz’s office, $116 million is invested in support of Israel, although per pro-Palestinian activists, “investments total over $3 billion, including indirect investments and entities that profit from Israel, such as weapons manufacturing companies Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman”. There is precedent for the State Board of Investors to divest from companies and funds that support violations of International Law “as the board moved on its own to divest from South Africa in the 1980s in response to apartheid”.
Furthermore, Walz signed legislation directing the board to divest from Russia as punishment for the invasion of Ukraine, although state legislation prevents Minnesota from engaging in “discrimination against Israel” per the state’s (likely unconstitutional) anti-BDS law. Still, as of today, Walz has given no indication that he intends to support divestment of companies or funds that directly or indirectly support Israel’s violation of human rights in Gaza and the West Bank, and recently canceled a meeting with Minnesota activists that took 10 months to schedule after they “explained that they weren’t just going to share their stories, but also press for policy changes”. According to a staff person for Walz, the governor was “not prepared to talk about divestment”.
Walz on a resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli ‘conflict’
In early March of this year, in an interview with CNN, Walz said that he supports a “lasting two-state solution”, although he didn’t provide any details as to what that entailed. His voting record suggests the typical support for a “negotiated peace”, where Israel holds all the cards, and opposition to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Indeed, on July 7, 2011, Walz voted Yea to H.Res. 268, which “opposes any attempt to establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians”. It is unclear how a “peace process” that has been ongoing for over 30 years and that has led to the immiseration of the Palestinian people will bring about a viable Palestinian state, especially in light of the recent decision by the Israeli Knesset to reject Palestinian statehood in a vote of 68 in favor and just 9 against.
Coupled with his previously discussed position on settlements, Walz’s position aligns with the mainstream of the Democratic party, which pays lip service to a viable Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state settlement, while exerting no tangible pressure on Israel to adhere to International Law as it continues to colonize the West Bank unimpeded.
It’s no surprise then, that Marc Mellman, President of Democratic Majority for Israel, praised Walz’s selection and said that he was “a proud pro-Israel Democrat with a strong record of supporting the U.S.-Israel relationship”, while the pro-Israel lobby J-Street (who had previously endorsed him), said that “we know the Harris-Walz team will stand up for our shared values, protect our community, and pursue smart, pro-Israel, pro-peace leadership abroad. We’re all in.”
NOTE
UN report S-21/1 was described by Norman Finkelstein in his book Gaza, An Inquest into its Martyrdom (p.306), as conveying a “wholly misleading, distorted picture of what happened in Gaza. Whereas it suggested that Protective Edge was a legitimate military campaign lamentably marred by sundry excesses, in fact the assault was a terror campaign designed, if not to break, then at any rate to temper Gaza’s will to resist”.
Nicolas Sawaya strongly supports the Palestinian struggle for freedom and justice and has been a member of various Palestinian solidarity groups for over 15 years
