Josh Shapiro said his views on the Middle East have changed since college

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro wrote in his student newspaper in 1993 that peace “will never come” to the Middle East and expressed skepticism about the viability of a two-state solution, describing the Palestinians as “too belligerent” to coexist with Israel.

These decades-old views are at odds with Shapiro’s current positions, which support a two-state solution in the region while he is being vetted for the Democratic vice presidential nomination.

In an opinion piece titled “Peace Is Not Possible,” Shapiro, then a 20-year-old student at the University of Rochester, argued that a negotiated agreement between Israeli and Palestinian leaders would not end the conflict in the region, writing, “Using history as precedent, peace between Arabs and Israelis is virtually impossible and will never happen.”

He described the Arab world as divided and wrote that then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was in danger of being assassinated “by his own fighting Arabs.”

“The Palestinians will not coexist peacefully,” Shapiro wrote. “They do not have the capacity to establish their own homeland and make it successful, even with the help of Israel and the United States. They are too militant to be able to establish a peaceful homeland.”

The editorial was published in Campus Times, student newspaper at the university, where Shapiro was once student government president. An Inquirer reporter obtained access to the article this week in the newspaper archives, which are maintained by the school library system.

The governor is on the shortlist to run alongside Vice President Kamala Harris — a decision she is likely to make in the coming days — and if elected, Shapiro would be the first Jewish vice president in the country’s history.

Manuel Bonder, a spokesman for Shapiro, said in a statement that the governor’s position has changed over the past three decades and stressed that he supports a two-state solution.

“Governor Shapiro has built close, meaningful, and informative relationships with many Muslim-American, Arab-American, Palestinian-Christian, and Jewish community leaders across Pennsylvania,” Bonder said. “The governor greatly values ​​their perspectives and the experiences he has learned over the years — and as a result, as with many issues, his views on the Middle East have evolved into the positions he holds today.”

” READ MORE: Will Josh Shapiro’s stance on Israel help or hurt Kamala Harris’ candidacy?

As Shapiro emerged as a frontrunner for vice president, some pro-Palestinian groups opposed him, citing his views on the war in Gaza. He has been a staunch supporter of Israel, denouncing protests in December outside an Israeli falafel restaurant as anti-Semitic and calling on police in May to break up a protest camp at the University of Pennsylvania.

Shapiro has also been deeply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he has described as a “dangerous and destructive force” and “one of the worst leaders of all time.” In remarks to reporters last week, he said the widespread suffering in Gaza was unacceptable and advocated for a two-state solution.

“I have always hoped there would be peace in the Middle East,” Shapiro said.

Several prominent Democrats have in recent days has condemned some of the opposition to Shapiro as anti-Semitic. The governor’s positions on the conflict are generally consistent with those of Harris and other Democrats considered for the vice presidential nomination.

“Singling him out or applying double standards to him on the war in Gaza is anti-Semitic and inappropriate,” said U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a U.S. Senate candidate who is Jewish.

Shapiro wrote a column for the student newspaper in September 1993, days after the first Oslo accord was signed, outlining a potential path to ending the conflict in the region. His article appeared on the heels of the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, on the White House lawn as President Bill Clinton looked on.

In the article, Shapiro said Arafat was “an egotistical, power-hungry tyrant who is in danger of being murdered by his militant Arab comrades because he does not represent the majority opinion.”

He added that “the only way for the ‘peace plan’ to succeed is for the Palestinians not to ruin it.”

“I find it unrealistic to believe that Arab factions can miraculously unite peacefully as Palestinians to be able to coexist with Israel,” he wrote.

Shapiro concluded by writing, “Despite my skepticism as a Jew and a former volunteer in the Israeli army, I have great hope and prayer that this ‘peace plan’ will be a success. History is not made by diplomatic handshakes between two political leaders, but rather when two historic enemies have the courage to stop hating, start healing, and live in peace and tranquility.”

The Oslo Accords, concluded after years of armed conflict, were deeply controversial in the 1990s — both in the Middle East and in the United States — and failed to bring lasting peace.

The first agreement was a “declaration of principles” that was secretly negotiated in Norway and outlined a path to a two-state solution. Under the terms of the mutual recognition agreement, Arafat renounced terrorism and violence against Israel, and Rabin pledged to initiate a withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

Clinton at the time hailed the agreement as historic, thanking Rabin and Arafat for their “perseverance and vision” and promising in a speech that the United States would help “marshal the resources necessary to implement the difficult details that will make real the principles to which you have committed today.”

Polls conducted in 1993 showed that a majority of American Jews hoped the agreement would end the conflict in the region, but they were still skeptical.

More than 8 out of 10 respondents to the American Jewish Committee survey said they supported the Israeli government’s handling of the secret negotiations, and 57% supported the creation of a Palestinian state. Only a third thought the PLO could be relied upon to “refrain from terrorist attacks on Israel.”

You can read the full article here.