Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Friday, January 25, 2019
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
FINN STORER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Frustrated with Israel? America needs to look in the mirrror
ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
I
n January of this year,
Jonathan Weisman of the
New York Times published
an interesting article detailing
what he described as the “Great
Schism” — a sharp ideological
divide rapidly forming between
American
and
Israeli
Jews
over
Israel’s
ideology.
Now,
schisms
don’t
just
magically
appear — they stem from intense
polarization regarding an issue.
In this situation, American and
Israeli Jews disagree over Israel’s
foreign
policy
under
Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
who has taken a more aggressive
stance
against
Palestinians,
seemingly
shifting
from
a
diplomatic approach to a military
one. Last year, Netanyahu said
he did not think a Palestinian
state should ever have control
of its own security measures, a
sentiment which was reflected
in decreasing support for a two-
state
solution
among
Israeli
citizens, which dropped from
47 percent in 2017 to 43 percent
in 2018. Israel’s changing stance
regarding Palestine brings up
a simple question: Why? The
parameters of the dispute itself
haven’t changed in recent years,
and the number of fatalities on
both sides has actually been
decreasing.
In reality, Israel’s increased
antipathy stems from decisions
the United States has made.
The
U.S.
has
continuously
supported
Israel
financially
ever since its creation in 1948.
Originally, this was a necessary
step for protecting a U.S. ally
that needed aid. However, U.S.
financial
assistance
toward
Israel has since spiraled into
unconditional,
consequence-
free support for the Middle
Eastern nation, allowing it to
do as it pleases with nearly no
repercussions. Every year since
1978, the U.S. has given Israel at
least a billion dollars in aid, and
every year since 1983 it has been
at least $2.4 billion. For the U.S.,
unconditional aid to this degree,
especially military aid, is largely
unique to Israel. The only two
countries the U.S. gave more aid
to last year were Afghanistan
and Iraq, both countries where
there are active troops.
Fundamentally,
I
believe
in the idea of a Jewish state.
However, it is important to
distinguish between believing
something
should
exist
and
supporting
it
unconditionally
with
billions
of
dollars,
especially if it might violate
human
rights.
It
is
hardly
surprising that Israel has taken
a more militant stance towards
Palestine recently considering
the U.S. has given Israel the
green light to do what it pleases.
Since 2000, there have been a
total of 7,065 Palestinians killed
in the Israel-Palestine conflict,
compared to only 1,101 Israelis,
meaning
88
percent
of
the
deaths have been Palestinians.
Additionally,
numerous
reports have come out alleging
Israel has used institutional
torture
against
Palestinians.
While these abuses are overly
aggressive
and
unacceptable,
the U.S. continues to simply
give Israel billions of dollars in
military aid. Without so much
as a verbal condemnation, let
alone a financial threat, there is
no incentive for Israel to change
its ways. Those who encourage
protests against Israel are often
accused of holding Israel to
a higher standard than other
countries, but holding Israel to
a higher standard is seemingly
fair: The U.S. contributes far
more money to Israel than to
nearly any other country, so
it is reasonable to have higher
expectations for it.
This brings us to our final
question: Why such staunch
support
for
Israel?
The
United States has never been
particularly
concerned
with
ethics or human rights when
making foreign policy decisions
in the past (see Iran, Nicaragua,
Chile or many other countries),
instead prioritizing things like
cheaper
access
to
resources
like oil. With Israel, it would be
logical to assume this support
would come from Jews — Israel
is a Jewish state, after all.
Surprisingly, however, this is far
from the case.
Backing for Israel is not solely
based on collegial support from
Jews, but can also be partially
attributed to Islamophobia from
white, conservative Americans,
particularly
evangelical
Christians, many of whom see
support for Israel as a way
of
opposing
Muslims
and
Muslim
states.
When
asked
to rate Muslims on a “feeling
thermometer,” Jews (who skew
heavily Democratic) rated them
a 51 out of 100, slightly above
the overall average of a 48
ranked by U.S. adults overall.
On
the
other
hand,
white
evangelicals rated Muslims a 37,
lower than any other surveyed
group. The disdain for Muslims
among conservative voters, in
particular white evangelicals,
subsequently leads to strong
support from Americans. In
the 2018 midterms, 75 percent
of
white
evangelicals
voted
for
Republican
candidates
in elections for the House
of Representatives. Both the
Republican Party as a whole
and
white
evangelicals
are
strongly supportive of Israel,
with 79 percent of Republicans
saying they sympathized with
Israel (versus only 27 percent of
Democrats). Most tellingly, 46
percent of white evangelicals
said the U.S. was not doing
enough to help Israel, while
only 31 percent of Jews and 25
percent of the general public felt
the same.
Lastly, perhaps even more
worrying than the evangelical
right’s ideological support of
Israel is how willing everyone
else is to go along with it. Over
the course of the past year,
there has been support from
members of both the Democratic
and
Republican
parties
for
passing a bill to make it illegal
for
companies
to
boycott
Israel, a blatant violation of
the First Amendment. The bill,
literally titled the “Israel Anti-
Boycott Act,” would allow the
government to fine organizations
up to $1 million for boycotting
Israel and other nations the U.S.
has not officially sanctioned a
boycott against.
As a Jew myself, writing
this piece was a difficult and
upsetting endeavor. I support
a Jewish state in theory, and
I want to be able to fully
support one in reality as well. I
understand the political climate
makes Israel a tough place to
govern.
However, it still saddens me
to see a Jewish state operating
on many values I, as a fellow
Jew, do not agree with. I want
to see an Israel that is governed
on hope and a willingness to
compromise, not on entrenched
views of xenophobia. Here in the
United States, I want an Israel
that is supported not because
we fear or dislike Muslims, but
rather because we are tolerant,
loving and accepting. As it is
said in Leviticus 19:34, “The
foreigner residing among you
must be treated as your native-
born. Love them as yourself, for
you were foreigners in Egypt.”
Zack Blumberg can be reached at
zblumber@umich.edu.
MILES STEPHENSON | COLUMN
O
n Jan. 13, Gillette, a
titan in men’s razors
that
has
toted
the
macho “The Best a Man Can
Get”
tagline
for
decades,
uploaded an advertisement to
YouTube titled, “We Believe:
The Best Men Can Be.” The ad
challenges men to be better in
an age where people attribute
bullying and harassment to
“toxic masculinity” and the
#MeToo movement saturates
headlines. The backlash was
instantaneous.
Gillette’s
YouTube video faced almost
double the number of dislikes
as likes, and the comment
section is filled with comments
such as “I will not apologize for
being a man,” “Never gonna buy
Gillette ever again,” and “I am a
woman, and I refuse to support
a brand that insult(s) men so …”
It’s clear America isn’t united
behind Gillette on this issue.
The
central
thesis
of
Gillette’s ad seems noble and
well-intended; being a man
at his best means upholding
what is right and showing
compassion for others. Who
wouldn’t
support
that?
Are
men overreacting and missing
the valid criticism of their
behavioral
constructs?
Or
are
political
identitarians
unfairly indicting an entire
gender for the behavior of
a subset of bad actors? And
what is “masculinity” anyway?
How much of it is innate and
biological and how much is
inculcated from society? This
controversy sparked a dialogue,
and with it came an opportunity
for others to define the issue.
Two days later, the company
Egard
Watches
uploaded
the ad, “What is a man? A
response
to
Gillette.”
The
advertisement emphasized the
good in men, showing vignettes
of firefighters, soldiers and
civilian heroes paired with
statistics demonstrating that
men account for 93 percent of
workplace fatalities, over 97
percent of war fatalities, 71
percent of all homicide victims,
80 percent of all suicide victims
and 75 percent of all homeless
people (though numbers taken
from
SAMHSA
suggest
51
percent of all homeless people
are single men, 24 percent are
single women, and 23 percent
are
families,
usually
single
mothers with children). The
video was dedicated to “all
those who sacrifice everything
to make the world safer and
better
for
all
of
us,”
and
projected a positive message
about the nature of traditional
masculinity.
The
founder
of
Egard
Watches, Ilan Srulovicz, said
Gillette’s ad unfairly painted
men with a broad brush: “It’s the
overwhelming majority of men
who sacrifice, who want to be
protectors, who want to be good.
And how do you effect positive
change? … You show the best of
us.” Is masculinity an archaic
set of tools that have become
outdated and problematic for
our modern world, or is it a
strength men can use to make
the world better? While Gillette
highlights
toxic
masculinity,
Egard
highlights
virtuous
masculinity, and judging from
YouTube’s
responses,
the
majority of viewers decidedly
favor Egard’s message.
So perhaps Egard’s critique
reflects the issue here: Gillette’s
delivery. While many agreed
with
the
message
Gillette
espoused, the majority don’t
believe it is the place of an
often
morally
challenged
multinational
corporation
to
feed them their ethical peas
and carrots. “Just the type of
social commentary I look for
in my shaving gel,” said one
commenter,
garnering
over
11,000 likes. A similar sentiment
was seen in the backlash to Nike’s
Colin
Kaepernick
campaign.
Furthermore, many commented
that Gillette’s representations of
men were extreme, unrealistic
and outlandish, and perhaps a
popular video with cartoonish
vignettes
is
not
the
most
sensitive instrument to deal
with an important issue like
this.
One vignette in the Gillette
ad shows two boys beating
each other at a barbecue to
an
audience
of
complacent
men when Gillette’s ideal man
swoops in to break them up.
“That’s not how we treat each
other,
okay?”
he
instructs
with
a
paternal
kindness.
Gillette’s implication here is
the unenlightened men would
merely stand by and watch these
little boys tear violently at each
other. Here, Gillette’s vision was
fair, but its portrayal of men
missed the mark.
Gillette believes some part
of traditional masculinity is
flawed. This toxic masculinity —
the violent, overly competitive,
unemotional
or
sexually
aggressive behavior in men —
is a product of our historical
attitudes
towards
men
and
women. Certainly, it is true that
some male behavior considered
“masculine”
is
undesirable.
Unfortunately, however, Gillette
missed a great opportunity to
better analyze this with morally
reasonable
and
instructive
scenes.
A
viewer
must
recognize that both of these
advertisements
are
merely
business campaigns designed
to appeal to consumers in a
divided political atmosphere
and rake in market share and
sales for their shaving razors
and wristwatches. There’s no
such thing as bad publicity
after all, and just as Nike’s sales
increased 31 percent after their
Colin Kaepernick controversy,
Gillette’s trending status may
follow suit. Yet both of these
videos do offer us fascinating
insights into a modern dialogue
of what it means to be a man. In
the end, perhaps we should be
careful about how we paint half
the population of the planet,
and ensure our well-intended
messages inspire rather than
alienate.
Razors, wristwatches and masculinity
Miles Stephenson can be reached at
mvsteph@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
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our editorial board meets
Wednesdays 7:00 - 8:30 PM at
our newsroom at 420 Maynard St.
All are welcome to come discuss
national, state and campus affairs.
Without any
condemnation, there is
no incentive for Israel
to change its ways
Gillette’s vision
was fair, but its
portrayal of men
missed the mark