³ÉÈËXÕ¾

As a Jewish American and voter who supports conservatives, my expectations from the Democrats are rarely high. Yet, the recent decision to select Tim Walz as vice president over Josh Shapiro leaves me deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism within the Democrat’s progressive base. The choice of Walz is more than a political maneuver; it is a clear capitulation to the antisemitic progressive base that continues to take over the Democrat party.

Antisemitism in the Democratic Party isn’t some phantom menace; it’s a tangible, growing cancer highlighted by the Josh Shapiro snub. We’ve witnessed anti-Israel protests that quickly morph into outright Jew-hatred, members of Congress amplifying Hamas talking points and the shameful boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

These aren’t isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of hostility towards Jews and Israel, thinly veiled as political dissent.

More from Jason Rantz: Seattle has an antisemitism problem. It’s not surprising

How have Democrats embraced antisemitism in the Josh Shapiro snub?

Consider the anti-Israel protests that have taken place across the country, often endorsed by progressive leaders. These demonstrations devolve into antisemitic rants, with chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a call for the eradication of the Jewish state. It’s not just rhetoric — it’s a call for genocide, and it’s being tolerated, if not outright endorsed, by many from the base of the party.

Then there’s the cheerleading for Hamas. “Squad” members like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Pramila Jayapal characterized Israel’s self-defense against Hamas rockets as the problem, while posed by an organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. They either dismissed or turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas terrorists against innocent Israeli women. Their positions aren’t criticism of Israeli policy; it’s support for a terrorist organization dedicated to killing Jews.

And who could ignore the disgraceful boycott of Netanyahu’s address to Congress? When Democratic leaders chose to skip a speech by the Prime Minister of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, they sent a clear message: Jewish concerns are secondary to appeasing their increasingly radical base. And it’s some of the very people who boycotted the speech who reportedly had influence on Harris’ choice of Walz over Shapiro.

More from Jason Rantz: Antisemitic ‘teach-in’ told students Hamas are ‘resistance fighters’

Josh Shapiro could have been a turning point

Josh Shapiro’s candidacy represented a potential turning point. As a more moderate Democrat and a proud Jew, Shapiro could have signaled a firm stance against antisemitism, a much-needed rebuke to the toxic elements within the party. It also would have helped Harris win in Pennsylvania, a state that she almost certainly must win in order to take the White House. But instead, the Democratic leadership chose Tim Walz, a far-left progressive who only reminds voters of Harris’ own extremism, all to avoid antisemitic controversy rather than confront it.

Why was Shapiro overlooked? The answer, sadly, seems to lie in his Jewish identity. In a party where antisemitic voices continue to gain power, a Jewish candidate like Shapiro was always going to face an uphill battle. It’s a tragic irony that the party, that prides itself on inclusivity and fighting discrimination, would shun a candidate precisely because of his faith.

Choosing Shapiro would have been more than a symbolic gesture. It would have been a strong, unequivocal statement that the Democratic Party stands against antisemitism. It would have shown that the party values the principles of equality and justice over pandering to extremists. And it was the wisest strategic move electorally.

But the decision to go with Walz indicates a troubling acceptance, if not endorsement, of the antisemitic undercurrents within the party. By not taking a firm stand against antisemitism, and letting progressives sandbag Shapiro’s chances of being chosen for the ticket, it allows the poison to spread, affecting policy decisions, future candidate selections, and the overall tone of the party.

More from Jason Rantz: Kirkland Hamas rally celebrated terrorist attacks against Israel

There’s now a concrete way to defeat antisemitism

For those of us who are both deeply concerned about antisemitism and politically conservative, this is a stark reminder that the fight against hate is far from over. Antisemitism requires constant vigilance and opposition.

As a Jewish Republican, I find myself in the unenviable position of wanting Kamala Harris to lose but also recognizing the missed opportunity for the Democrats to take a stand against antisemitism. But I’m a Jewish American before I’m a conservative voter. And while a Harris/Shapiro ticket would be more difficult for Trump/Vance to beat, it would help me and my fellow Jews feel less concerned should our Star of David necklaces peek from underneath our shirts. I never thought I’d be this uncomfortable being visibly Jewish in Seattle, where I live, given the insufferable declarations by locals about how accepting they are.

Choosing Walz over Shapiro is not merely a political decision; it’s a moral failing. It demonstrates that Democratic leadership is more concerned with appeasing its radical base than standing up for what is right.

However, there’s some solace in this: while “fighting antisemitism” might be a nebulous task, opposing a Harris/Walz ticket and the message it sends to the antisemitic Democrat base is much more straightforward. And when we win, it will be that much more fulfilling.

Listen to The Jason Rantz Show on weekday afternoons from 3-7 p.m. on KTTH 770 AM (HD Radio 97.3 FM HD-Channel 3). Subscribe to the podcast here. Follow Jason on ,ÌýÌý²¹²Ô»åÌý.