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

