A
month ago, University
of
Michigan
Jewish
leadership organization
Hillel was celebrating Israel
on the Diag with flags and a
photo booth cutout of Israelis
riding
a
camel.
Meanwhile,
the
past
few
weeks
have
been a time of suffering and
remembrance
for
Palestine
and its diaspora as it reflects
on the 70th anniversary of “Al
Nakba,” or “The Catastrophe”
in Arabic. Al Nakba was the
exodus of more than 700,000
Palestinians from their family
homes and land to neighboring
countries where many of them
still live as refugees today.
On May 14, under President
Donald
Trump’s
directive,
the
United
States
officially
opened its embassy to Israel in
Jerusalem, recognizing the city
as capital of Israel. Moving the
Israeli capital has been a point
of contention as the gesture
seals Israeli sovereignty in the
contested city of Jerusalem. In
response, tens of thousands of
Palestinians attempted to cross
the fence separating Gaza from
Israel. In typical Israel Defense
Forces fashion, the Palestinians
were met with gunshots and
tear gas resulting in 58 dead and
more than 2,700 injured.
Scrolling
through
social
media over the past week, I’ve
seen a mixture of reactions to
the current situation in Israel
and Palestine. Many of the
strong,
passionate
activists
I know on campus have been
going out of their way to support
Palestinians via social media
by sharing articles and raising
money for relief funds. Others in
my social network have reacted
differently,
sharing
articles
and long posts about the bias
against Israel, particularly in
the media, and casting them as
the victim in this situation. I
can’t help but find these claims
of bias against Israel ridiculous.
Israel has always, and will
probably continue to, receive
blind support from much of the
Western world – particularly
its media – and it benefits from
too much systemic power to be
considered a victim in this case.
There has been a worldwide
favorable bias for Israel since a
little over a century ago when
Britain released the Balfour
Declaration
proclaiming
support for the concept of a
Jewish
state
in
Mandatory
Palestine. In 1947, Britain ended
the
declaration
and
pushed
the Palestine debate to the
international community. With
the passage of United Nations
Resolution 181 by a two-thirds
majority, the global community
solidified its support for Israel
and its people by giving over
half of Mandatory Palestine
to Israel despite the fact that
Israel’s population was a third
of that of Palestine. As time has
gone by, the United States in
particular has shown unyielding
support for Israel time and
again. No country has received
more economic or military aid
from the United States than
Israel since 1976.
The media is certainly not
biased against Israel. Much of
U.S. media today, both liberal
and conservative, is considered
to be largely in favor of Israel.
According to “The Israel Lobby
and U.S. Foreign Policy” by John
J. Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt, news sources like the Wall
Street Journal predictably lean
pro-Israel, but so do the liberal
bastions
of
reporting
such
as the Washington Post and
the New York Times. Despite
this,
the
New
York
Times,
Washington Post, and even Wall
Street Journal have reported
on the protests and Palestinian
casualties despite these inherent
biases. If even news sources that
are considered part of the Israel
Lobby are making out Israel to
be the party at fault then that
says something, and it’s not due
to a bias against Israel.
All of this global support
plays into the power imbalance
between Israel and Palestine
that makes it impossible for
Israel to be the victim in this
circumstance. The protests of
tens of thousands of Gazans
trapped behind a fence and a
multitude
of
blockades
may
not
have
been
completely
peaceful, but they were more
than justified. Gazans protested
using burning kites while the
Israeli
military
responded
with rifles, snipers and tear
gas. Of the more than 2,700
protesters
injured,
at
least
half of the injuries were due to
gunshot wounds. Among the 58
Palestinians murdered in the
Gaza protests were teenagers
and a baby girl; 8-month-old
Layla Ghandour died Monday
after inhaling large amounts
of tear gas. Palestinians simply
do not hold enough political or
military power to be the villains
in this situation.
When living on a liberal
college campus full of clubs
and activists drawing attention
to important and controversial
political issues like the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, it can be
easy to lose perspective on these
issues. While the pro-Palestine
community may be significant
on campus, this is simply not
the case in a country where
the
president
declares
the
international city of Jerusalem
the sole capital of Israel. It is
important to remember that
outside the bubble of university
life, the government and media
are still strongly in support of
Israel and Palestinians continue
to suffer due to that fact.
However,
there
are
ways
to
influence
the
situation
outside
of
Ann
Arbor.
An
easy start is sharing articles
and keeping people in your
network aware of the injustices
Palestinians endure every day.
There are also plenty of relief
funds that donate food and
medical supplies to Palestine.
However, if we want to see
long term changes in the state
of Palestine, it will take more
than that. In order to change
the way the United States
treats Israel, we must be more
conscious about not voting for
politicians who are supported
by the Israel lobby and pressure
the government to stand up
against Israel’s human rights
violations.
5
OPINION
Thursday, May 31, 2018
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
interest
of
the
public’s
physical
safety.
However,
no
similar
rationale
exists
between
voting
disenfranchisement
of
ex-felons and the sacred right
to vote.
This is not to say that other
exclusions from voting-rights
protection are invalid. Minors
and the mentally incapacitated
are also excluded from these
protections, just as they are
unable to independently sue or
enter into contracts, because
they are considered to lack
the requisite mental capacity.
Such
voting
restrictions
meet the strict criteria for
encroachment on fundamental
rights, because they exclude a
particular group based on their
incapacity to comprehend their
own best interests. Acting in
the name of self-interest, after
all, is central to the voting
process.
In contrast, while it may
be tempting to use the moral
failures
of
ex-felons
to
justify a reduction in their
public
participation,
their
classification
as
a
group
is not based on a question
of mental capacity. Their
disenfranchisement
is
therefore incongruent with
the other provisions Congress
has made for restrictions on
suffrage.
There
are
recognized
state interests served by the
imprisonment of felons. It is
punitive. It restricts ex-felons’
autonomy and protects society.
Additionally, it deters criminal
action by would-be felons.
These justifications, however,
only hold up as long as a felon
is still serving their sentence.
After release from prison and
completion of parole, a felon
has fulfilled the punishment
deemed proportionate to their
crime, and the need to protect
others from their behavior has
accordingly been reduced or
eliminated. At this point, any
semblance of legitimate state
interest is outweighed by the
demonstrated need to extend
and preserve suffrage.
The
right
to
vote
has
not always been received
as
sacred
throughout
America’s
long
history,
just as “We the People”
has not always included all
peoples. Bitter struggles to
extend the franchise to all
qualified Americans shows
the power of voting and
the justice achieved when
more citizens are able to
take part in selecting their
representatives.
The last episode in this long
crusade is the holdover of felon
disenfranchisement from an
era of unscrupulous political
motivations
and
severely
entrenched
inequality.
Disenfranchisement
of
ex-felons
has
proved
damaging
to
the
ideals
of
American
democracy,
carving out exceptions to the
electorate without adequate
justification.
Voting is a right that must
be afforded the protections
provided to other crucial
institutions, such as speech
and privacy. Allowing states
to nullify the natural-born
right to vote for millions of
Americans beyond repayment
of their debts to society
neither meets the standards
for disenfranchisement nor
serves the legitimate interests
of the public. As such, it is
time to amend suffrage to
include all capable citizens,
regardless of past criminal
convictions.
Audrey Gilmour can be reached at
audreymg@umich.edu.
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters
to the editor and op-eds. Letters should
be fewer than 300 words while op-eds
should be 550 to 850 words. Send the
writer’s full name and University affiliation to
emmacha@umich.edu
Expand the Franchise by Ethan Kessler continued below:
AUDREY GILMOUR | COLUMN
“When living
on a liberal
college campus
full of clubs and
activists...it can
be easy to lose
perspective on
these issues.”
Ethan Kessler can be reached at
ethankes@umich.edu.