Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, February 4, 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
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
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
T
his
past
November,
Israel
faced
an
unfortunate
and
oft-
repeated event as the country
was hit by a barrage of attacks
by Hamas militants in the
Gaza Strip. The majority were
intercepted by the Iron Dome
missile
defense
system,
but
many also hit Israeli towns and
cities close to Gaza, including
the port city of Ashkelon. After
one attack, one person in the city
was killed: A 48-year-old man
named Mahmoud Abu Asabeh
who lived in a small town on the
West Bank.
Abu Asabeh, a man who had
called for an end to the violence,
was in Israel on a work permit
and died after a rocket hit his
apartment. Israeli firefighters
searched
the
building
and
evacuated others, but he wasn’t
found until an hour later and
succumbed to his injuries. Now,
according to The Times of Israel,
his family is now suing the state
of Israel and its rescue services
for
10
million
New
Israeli
shekels, the equivalent of $2.7
million, claiming negligence and
seeking reparations from the
government.
On
platforms
from
the
United
Nations
to
college
campuses,
Israel
has
been
accused
of
implementing
an unequal treatment of its
minority citizens and, more
broadly, those who are not
Jewish. Yet in this short and sad
story — which remains largely
not covered by many media
outlets
—
important
truths
about the Jewish state become
apparent to those following the
event.
Developments in this story
have revealed the remarkable
fact that the Israeli judicial
system — often accused by critics
for
discriminating
against
Israel’s
minorities
—
allows
Palestinian Arabs to sue Israel in
a court of law. Neither the terror
victim nor his family held Israeli
citizenship or residency, apart
from his approved work permit
for temporary stay in Ashkelon,
and yet they were allowed a
legal privilege that could have
otherwise been reserved for
Israelis. Furthermore, if the
case continues to move through
the courts, it may be heard by
many Arab judges of Christian
and Muslim faith in the Israeli
circuit, including George Karra,
an Arab justice on the Supreme
Court of Israel. This reality is a
stark contrast to the widespread
claims
of
mistreatment
of
Arabs in Israeli courts, and
the insistence of groups such
as the Palestinian Authority
that, because Israel is a Jewish
nation, it is institutionally racist
or discriminatory toward its
minority Arab population.
The Times of Israel also
reported that the Jewish Agency
for Israel, an organization that
was created for the support of
Israeli and world Jewry, has
pledged to financially aid Abu
Asabeh’s family through their
Fund for Victims of Terror. The
fund is intended for use by all
Israeli citizens, regardless of
religious or ethnic background.
This
action
is
even
more
substantial because the Jewish
Agency will be using these
resources to not only come to
the aid of a Muslim family, but
a family that lives in the West
Bank. Yet the terror attack
happened in Israel, and thus
this Jewish-Israeli organization
was on hand to assist. A deed
such as this speaks volumes
to the efforts of Israel — not
only by its government, but its
society — to pursue fairness and
justice in their dealings. If Israel
really did not care about its
non-Jewish citizens, residents
or even temporary workers, the
Jewish Agency would not extend
itself in this manner to help a
Palestinian family in need.
Nevertheless,
many
in
politics,
journalism
and
academia
still
continue
to
perpetuate the myth that Israel
is an apartheid state that is only
concerned with the fortunes
of Jewish citizens, and regard
Arabs as second-class citizens.
In Michigan alone, the charge
has been levied across all parts
of society, from newly-elected
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib to
professors at the University
of Michigan. They claim that
because of the disputed Israeli
presence in the West Bank, and
because Israel has designated
themselves as a distinctly Jewish
state, those who are not Jewish
face a disadvantage. However,
every detail of this ongoing
case proves these claims to be
falsehoods. After a rocket attack
by Gazan-Palestinians, a family
of Muslim Arabs, citizens under
the Palestinian Authority in the
West Bank, received the same
legal rights and relief privileges
as Israeli citizens, both Jewish
and
of
other
backgrounds.
They will be supported by an
organization founded to support
the welfare of Jewish people
and the Jewish state, but is
clearly committed to upholding
the equality that makes Israel
unique.
When
one
takes
an
honest look at the region, it
is immediately apparent that
Israel is the only country in the
Middle East with a tolerant and
equal society for minorities.
A December 2017 study by
the Taub Center for Social
Policy Studies in Israel found
Israeli-Arabs had the highest
life expectancy among Arab
populations from all countries
in the Muslim world, at 79 years
(though this is low compared to
the Jewish population at 82.7
years and the OECD average
of 81.6 years). In addition,
Israel is one of just a handful
of countries in the region in
which the Christian population
is
growing.
In
surrounding
states, the outlook for ethnic
and religious minorities is bleak
at best. Christians in Egypt and
Syria have faced persecution
for years now, as extremists and
the tyrannical regime of Syrian
President
Bashar
Al-Assad
have caused their rights to be
reduced and civilians to be
killed. In contrast, Israel is a
refuge in which Jews, Muslims
and Christians all enjoy civil
and religious liberties on a scale
of equality not seen elsewhere
in the Middle East.
Unfortunately,
this
approach to equality — and the
commitment to all citizens —
is not shared by the leadership
of the Palestinian Authority.
President
Mahmoud
Abbas
has expressed repeatedly that
he does not want “a single
Israeli — civilian or soldier” in
a potential future Palestinian
state
within
the
pre-1967
borders, making his disdain
for them known. In addition,
according to Times of Israel ,
“No senior Fatah or PA officials
attended the burial service”
for Abu Asabeh in November,
but a month prior when it was
suspected that Israeli settlers
killed a Palestinian, many of
these officials “took part” in
the funeral. Since Abu Asabeh’s
death could not be blamed
on Israel, to Fatah, there was
apparently no need to pay its
respects to its grieving citizens.
In these statements and
actions
from
Palestinian
leadership, both an intolerance
toward others and a stunning
lack of empathy run prevalent.
In Israel, a multi-religious Arab
minority — which comprises
just over 20 percent of the
population — is given full rights
and liberty. In the West Bank,
Jews are given an ultimatum:
If a Palestinian state is created,
leave or risk your freedom and
lives.
Those
who
seek
justice
and fairness in politics and
reporting must acknowledge
Israel’s efforts and success in
creating a bastion of liberal
democracy in a Middle East
filled with extremism and rife
with persecution. The story
of Mahmoud Abu Asabeh and
his family — though heart-
wrenching to its core — is a
reminder of what makes the
Jewish state worth defending
for anyone who truly cares
about
the
advancement
of
humanity around the globe.
Israel provides and prioritizes
civil rights in a region that has
been historically and presently
devoid of leadership that cares
about
democratic
values.
Even while under siege from a
barrage of rockets and terrorist
attacks,
Israel
provides
an
opportunity for people like
the Abu Asabeh family to hold
Israeli government and rescue
services accountable in a court
of law for accused negligence
and untimeliness. Herein lies
just one reason why Israel is
inspiring and worth defending.
Supporting its well-being and
existence is in the moral and
strategic interest of the United
States and all those who work
towards the cause of freedom
worldwide.
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu
AMBIKA SINHA | COLUMN
A Who’s Who on the Democratic Primary Race
W
hile it may be hard to
believe we have just
barely made it past
two complete years
of the Donald Trump
presidency, Democrats
are desperately trying
to find a candidate
who will boot “The
Orange” out of the
White House. Here’s
my take on some of the
key players within the
Democratic Party that
have shown interest in
the job:
Elizabeth Warren: “The Rank
and File” — Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
D-Mass., has built up an esteemed
career in the Senate over her past
two terms. She frequently appears
in national news as a face of the
Democratic party in the Senate and
has not let her esteem stop her from
butting heads with the president
on several occasions. Her recent
DNA test for her Native American
heritage has shed a negative light
on the senator, her competence
as well as her commitment to
liberal causes. If Warren were to
win the nomination, she might
be the most liberal candidate for
the party since 1972. While her
future looks promising, Warren
may fall victim to something I call
the “Hillary Clinton effect.” This
term refers to politicians who have
very little connection with their
constituencies and are not relatable,
thus decreasing their voter base.
While Warren may be competent
for the job, are Democrats willing
to nominate somebody who may
not fit the newly shifted definition
of “electability”? After all, the end
game for the Democrats is to push
the president out of his seat.
Kamala
Harris:
“The
Frontrunner” — Sen. Kamala
Harris, D-Calif., is often seen as
the best bet for this race. As seen
in her work as California’s attorney
general and as a California senator,
Harris has always been very vocal
on matters such as immigration,
and has recently voiced support
for Medicare for All. Harris’s
appointment to the Senate Judiciary
Committee has bolstered her image
and given her the platform to speak
out against people like Supreme
Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Harris’s campaign has run off of a
staunch call to truth and therefore
serves as a foil to the cloud of
obscurity associated with the
Trump presidency. While she has
been regarded as a second Obama,
Harris still has much to prove to
the people of color who felt ignored
by the Obama administration and
especially targeted in the Trump
presidency. Nevertheless, young
Democrats
like
myself
often
see Harris as a public servant
unaffiliated with the
stench of politics. She
has already electrified
her voting base.
Andrew
Yang:
“The Outsider” — I
know
what
you’re
thinking — the last
time a business owner
wanted to run for office
we all thought it was a
joke, only to realize our
worst nightmare had
come true when Donald Trump
was elected president. Yang is a
former tech CEO based in New
York City who founded Venture
for America. While he may not be
the most conventional candidate,
his platform has certainly set him
apart with his proposed “Freedom
Dividend” that would provide all
people ages 18 to 64 with a universal
basic income of $1000 per month.
While many may not deem Yang as
a viable candidate, he has received
recognition, as Obama named him
as the presidential ambassador for
entrepreneurship in 2015. Yang
continues to gain more traction,
and maybe the breadth of his
promises will prove beneficial.
When Trump first announced his
run for presidency, he was polling
at 5 percent, and was less popular
than Republican candidates Jeb
Bush, Ben Carson and Marco
Rubio. Perhaps Yang can pull off a
Trump-esque victory by adopting
extreme ideologies to draw voters
to him?
John
Delaney:
“The
Pragmatist” — Rep. John Delaney,
D-Md., was one of the first people
to announce his candidacy for
presidency, and has already been
gaining ground in states like Iowa.
Though Delaney is not a household
name like Warren or Harris, he
has already outlined some basic
platform ideas that center around
a moderate, bipartisan approach to
politics. Delaney’s entire campaign
centers around his pragmatic
approach to politics and his goal
of unifying the divided nation.
Delaney’s call to unity is shown
through his time in Congress, as
he has been known to work with
both Republicans and Democrats.
On average, Delaney votes with
Trump
about
34
percent
of
the time, which is higher than
the combined percentage that
Harris and Warren vote with the
president. While Democrats are
eager to prove they are not bought
by super PACs, it is important to
note Delaney is the sixth richest
member of Congress and is a
former CEO of the New York Stock
Exchange.
Delaney’s
realistic
approach to politics may not be the
best tactic for Democratic voters,
who tend to be activists with rather
extreme views. Both parties have
unified their supporters through a
common hate for their opposition.
Can Delaney’s message unify an
increasingly extreme party?
Julián Castro: “The Newbie”
— Julián Castro was the former
secretary of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development
during
Obama’s
second
term
and was the youngest member of
his cabinet. Castro’s message is
rooted in a direct contrast to the
xenophobic message Trump has
preached to the American people.
Castro entered the national stage
as the keynote speaker at the 2012
Democratic National Convention,
and was even a prospective running
mate for Hillary Clinton in 2016. At
a youthful 44, the secretary has
already accomplished a great deal
by serving on the San Antonio City
Council at age 26 and mayor of San
Antonio at age 30. His affiliation
with Obama and his vigor have
proven to be an asset to the
relatively discouraged Democratic
voters.
I know all of this can be
exciting. However, with so many
competent candidates, we must
keep in mind that the percentage
of eligible voters among Democrats
who vote in primary elections is
14.4 percent. The next time you
vote, you have to keep general
electability in mind. We are no
longer in the era where simply
“being fit for the job” is enough to
get you to the presidency — some
may argue general competence is
not even required to get the Oval
Office, based on the way these past
two years have gone. However, this
race is more about just unseating
Trump. It is about bringing
back the ideals of acceptance,
diplomacy and competency to this
great nation. The current state
of our union is one destitute of
motivated leadership. Out of the
people who have made their case
in this past month, the only person
I see capable of reinvigorating this
country with hope and efficacy is
Harris. So when primary election
season comes around, and you are
one of the 14.4 percent of eligible
Democratic voters voting, ask
yourself — who can make the most
of the United States? When all
things are considered, I am sure
your answer will bring you closer
to Harris.
Ambika Sinha can be reached at
ambikavs@umich.edu.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our open 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.
F
or
35
days,
the
U.S.
government
remained
shut down, marking the
longest government shutdown
in U.S. history. The world was
seemingly reduced to a gridlock
between President Trump and
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D. Calif.,
as both parties struggled to come
to an agreement over how much
money should be allotted towards
border security in the federal
budget. The event dominated the
news — headlining broadcasts
almost daily. And just when it
seemed that the U.S. political
system had reached its untimely
demise, the president surprised
the world by signing a continuing
resolution
that
reopened the
government
temporarily.
But
while news reports were quick to
report the “devastating effects of
the government shutdown,” how
much of an impact did it really
have on the U.S. economy?
The Dow Jones Industrial
Average has been on somewhat
of a tear so far this year, reporting
gains of nearly 2,000 points so
far in the month of January. As
many big-name corporations have
released positive results from the
past quarter, many investors are
optimistic about the market. More
than that, the Federal Reserve’s
recent decision to go easy on
interest rates resulted in a huge
upside in the market, with the
Dow jumping over 300 points in
response to the news.
This seems very contradictory,
however,
with
many
reports
showing a massive reduction of
consumer confidence as a result
of the shutdown, with the said
metric at its lowest level since July
2017. Not to mention, shouldn’t
the 800,000 workers that were
furloughed as a result of the
shutdown have some impact on
the economy? Or what about the
$3 billion of deadweight loss that
will never be recovered?
For
starters,
we
must
understand what causes a stock
– or the market as a whole – to go
up or down. Things like better or
lower-than-expected
earnings
can cause a stock price to fluctuate,
as can (as previously mentioned) a
change in interest rates. But stocks
also respond to political and social
factors that have the potential to
affect the market in the long run.
It is worth mentioning that
the stock market isn’t the same
thing as the economy. In many
cases, it is a very good measure of
how the economy is doing, but its
short-run fluctuations don’t really
tell us as much as its trends in the
long run do. Nevertheless, the
market often does act as a delayed
reaction to different economic
trends. For example, only when
a company reports its earnings
for the past quarter (or forecasts
their earnings close to the end of
the quarter) will the price of the
stock react to the information. It’s
almost never an instant response.
When the government finally
reopened last weekend, a lot of
people expected some sort of
an increase in stock prices, as
the economy was seen to have
a more certain future. Instead,
“the markets couldn’t care less”
with the S&P 500 climbing 0.8
percent and the Dow up 1 percent
the afternoon Trump made the
announcement, due more so to
the Fed’s decisions on interest
rates than due to the shutdown.
The recent activity in the U.S.’s
trade talks with China and the
aforementioned decisions made
by the Fed seemed to be viewed
as far more important than the
shutdown. And this has been true
in the past, with the stock markets
historically not really reacting to
shutdowns.
Part of this has to due with
how commonplace a shutdown
is. In fact, since 1976 there have
been 18 shutdowns. The other part
is that it really doesn’t have an
impact on the economy — at least
for now. While there may have
been a lot of government workers
without
jobs,
traders
were
more concerned about earnings
season, and how each company
fared in the last quarter. This
is not to say that there were not
personal economic losses to these
furloughed workers, with many
unable to make due diligence on
rent and loan payments. That
said, while 800,000 individual
workers do seem like quite a lot,
their welfare does little to impact
the economy as a whole — at
least for the length of time the
shutdown occurred. Perhaps the
inefficiencies would have piled up
had the shutdown persisted for
longer.
Nevertheless, when the U.S.
is operating on a $20 trillion
economy, a $3 billion loss is very
trivial. We’ll have to wait and see
to what extent this is true until
the end of the current quarter,
when companies report whether
they matched up to expectations.
But for now, it seems that the
economy is going to keep chugging
along, with little care that the
government was shutdown for
more than a month.
Did the government shutdown actually do anything to slow down the economy?
ADITHYA SANJAY | COLUMN
Adithya Sanjay can be reached at
asanjay@umich.edu.
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
Out of a tragic story, an inspiring reality
AMBIKA
SINHA