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