Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Wednesday, April 4, 2019

Erik Nesler can be reached at 
egnesler@umich.edu.

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

F

ormer Vice President 
Joe Biden is without 
a doubt one of the 
most 
beloved 
political 
figures in the Democratic 
Party. He’s so likeable that 
even 
Republicans 
respect 
him — he was known to be 
good friends with former 
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., 
before his passing — and he 
has consistently stayed at 
the top of the Democratic 
presidential primary polls. 
People don’t just love Joe 
Biden. They idolize him as 
“Uncle Joe”: patron of ice 
cream, man of the people 
and forever partner-in-crime 
to President Barack Obama. 
Until recently, I was one of 
these people.
However, in the wake of 
the recent news surrounding 
his behavior towards former 
Nevada 
state 
legislator 
Lucy Flores — as well as his 
response to her article — I’m 
reminded of why idolizing 
public figures is incredibly 
dangerous.
On 
March 
29, 
Flores 
published a piece in The 
Cut 
titled 
“An 
Awkward 
Kiss Changed How I Saw 
Joe Biden.” In it, she sets 
the 
scene 
in 
which 
the 
awkward 
kiss 
happened: 
it’s 2014, and Joe Biden is 
attending a political event in 
Nevada to help Democratic 
candidates 
like 
Flores 
in 
the gubernatorial election. 
She then details the moment 
Biden invaded her personal 
space, writing, “I felt him get 
closer to me from behind… He 
proceeded to plant a big slow 
kiss on the back of my head.” 
She then goes on to explain, 
“as a young Latina in politics, 
I had gotten used to feeling 
like an outsider in rooms 
dominated by white men… he 
made me feel uneasy, gross 
and 
confused. 
The 
vice-
president of the United States 
of America had just touched 
me 
in 
an 
intimate 
way 
reserved for close friends, 
family or romantic partners 
— and I felt powerless to do 
anything about it.”
Flores’s incident is only 
one in a long list of moments 
when 
Biden 
has 
touched 
women 
inappropriately. 
The New York Post recently 
published 
a 
slideshow 
of 
other 
times 
he’s 
touched 
women and young girls. In 
one photo, he’s seen placing 
the same “big slow kiss” 
on the niece of Sen. Mitch 
McConnell, 
R-Ky., 
at 
a 
Capitol Hill event. In others, 
he’s captured kissing women 
on the lips, grabbing them 
around the waist, hugging 
them from behind and more.
A representative for Biden 
responded to Flores’s article, 
stating: “Vice President Biden 
believes that Ms. Flores has 
every right to share her own 

recollection and reflections, 
and that it is a change for 
better in our society that she 
has the opportunity to do so. 
He respects Ms. Flores as a 
strong and independent voice 
in our politics and wishes her 
only the best.”
Biden 
then 
responded 
directly to Flores article a 
couple of days later, stating, 
“In 
my 
many 
years 
on 
the campaign trail and in 
public life, I have offered 
countless handshakes, hugs, 
expressions 
of 
affection, 
support and comfort. And not 
once — never — did I believe 
I acted inappropriately… I 
may not recall these moments 
the same way, and I may be 
surprised at what I hear. 
But we have arrived at an 
important time when women 
feel they can and should 
relate their experiences, and 
men should pay attention. 
And I will.”
According 
to 
his 
statement, Biden didn’t mean 
to make Flores uncomfortable, 
and his actions were simply 
supposed to offer comfort 
and 
camaraderie. 
This 
is 
probably true, given that he 
always touched women in 
plain sight, and the media 
always made light of his 
actions in the past. Some of 
the other women whom he 
touched might have even 
welcomed his actions. Some 
were probably moved that the 
vice president of the United 
States showed his affection 
so openly and loved him even 
more for it.
None of that matters.
Bottom 
line, 
men, 
especially ones who hold 
as much power as Biden, 
should 
not 
touch 
women 
without consent. He may 
not be “grabbing them by 
the pussy” or condemning 
Flores’s account as part of 
the “#MeToo witch hunt,” 
but he still needs to be held 
accountable for his actions 
because he acted without 
the women’s consent and 
elicited the same feelings of 
helplessness 
and 
violation 
that 
come 
with 
being 
sexually assaulted. Flores is 
not arguing that his actions 
discount all of the great 
things he’s done for the 
United States.
Yet, 
many 
people 
are 
choosing to stand by Biden 
and believe he is simply 
a 
victim 
of 
a 
woman 
overreacting to some well-
intentioned affection. Others 
are angry President Donald 
Trump’s 
assault 
survivors 
are receiving no coverage 
while 
Flores’s 
article 
continues to gain traction, 
and are urging Biden to run 
for 
president 
despite 
the 
allegations 
against 
him. 
Herein lies the crux of the 
problem. People idolize Biden 

not only for his personality, 
but because many believe he 
is the Democratic candidate 
with the greatest chance of 
beating Trump. Maybe Biden 
does have a creepy habit of 
touching women — but he’s 
still better than Trump. And 
isn’t it unfair that he’s getting 
steamrolled by the news for 
simply kissing a woman on 
the head while Trump gets 
to sit in the Oval Office after 
several women have accused 
him of sexually assaulting 
them, with the most recent 
allegation 
coming 
out 
in 
February?
However, 
discounting 
Flores’s account won’t give 
justice 
to 
other 
sexual 
assault survivors. In fact, if 
Democrats don’t hold Biden 
accountable for his actions in 
the fear it’ll hurt his chances 
at presidency, then they are 
part of the same problem they 
condemn Trump supporters 
of having.
I idolized Joe Biden. I 
believed with certainty that 
he could win the 2020 election 
and anticipated the moment 
he 
would 
announce 
his 
candidacy. However, given his 
responses to Flores’s account 
— both of which skirt around 
actually 
apologizing 
or 
admitting to wrongdoing — as 
well as his ardent supporters, 
who seem largely incapable 
of holding him accountable 
for his actions — not unlike 
Trump’s 
supporters 
— 
I 
wonder if his supporters will 
continue to turn a blind eye 
to his mistakes should he 
become president.
It’s 
incredibly 
difficult 
to 
criticize 
someone 
who 
I grew up with as my vice 
president and respect so much 
for handling every situation 
with grace and kindness. But 
Biden has failed to handle 
this situation with either of 
those qualities, and while 
I am saddened by it, it is my 
duty as both his supporter 
and a decent human being to 
hold him accountable. I hope 
he personally apologizes to 
Flores and they’re both able 
to receive closure from this 
situation. I hope Biden uses 
this moment to prove he is the 
advocate for women he claims 
to be and is willing to own up 
to his faults, even if it may 
damage his image.
Idolization is dangerous, 
and we must not forget that 
even the most respectable 
public figures are not perfect. 
A crucial part of supporting 
someone 
is 
holding 
them 
responsible when they engage 
in problematic behavior, no 
matter how difficult that may 
be. Even if that person is your 
beloved Uncle Joe.

AARON BAKER | COLUMN

The battle for Israel’s soul
O

n April 9, Israel will 
have elections for the 
premiership. 
Benjamin 
Netanyahu, Israel’s current prime 
minister, will be Israel’s longest 
serving prime minister if re-elected.
Netanyahu 
has 
long 
used 
demagogic tactics to get votes. 
Under investigation for corruption, 
he demonizes Israel’s press and 
legal system. In a previous election, 
he demonized Israeli Arabs by 
telling voters that Israeli Arabs were 
“heading to the polling stations in 
droves” to vote. Then there was the 
nation-state bill, which endorsesd 
settlement construction, and, most 
recently, a bizarre Trumpian social 
media feud with an Israeli actress 
in which Netanyahu declared 
that Israel was not a state for all its 
citizens, but rather only its Jewish 
citizens.
Netanyahu has undoubtedly 
pushed his party, the Likud-
National 
Liberal 
Movement, 
further to the right. This is most 
clear in his decision to form a 
coalition with Otzma Yehudit 
(“Jewish Power”), an extremist 
and openly racist party. The Israeli 
Supreme Court has barred Jewish 
Power candidates from running 
for prime minister due to their 
incitements of racism, but that 
hasn’t stopped Netanyahu from 
forming a coalition with them. 
Likud 
had 
previously 
denied 
Jewish Power’s strain of vitriolic 
politics from its coalition. Yitzhak 
Shamir, a Likudnik and former 
prime minister, rejected Meir 
Kahane, the extremist ideological 
predecessor to Jewish Power, by 
refusing to form a coalition with 
him and by condemning him.
Netanyahu’s biggest opponent 
is Benny Gantz, who formed the 
Blue and White Party, a centrist 
challenger to Netanyahu’s Likud 
Party. Gantz is a former high 
ranking general, whom many see 
as quintessentially Israeli. Raised 
on a kibbutz and a decorated 
former chief of staff in the Israel 
Defense Forces, Gantz may be the 
kryptonite to Netanyahu’s enduring 
grip on Israel’s political leadership. 
Electing Blue and White into the 
Knesset (Israel’s parliament) and 
Gantz into the prime minister’s seat 
would at worst mean an extension 
of the status quo, at best, the type 
of ingenuity and leadership Israel 
witnessed with Yitzhak Rabin as 
prime minister. Rabin initiated 
the greatest peace initiative in the 
history of the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, 
which 
produced 
the 
Oslo accords. Both possibilities 
are far superior to the prospect of 

Netanyahu’s racism, populism and 
illiberalism being reaffirmed and 
strengthened.
As an American Jew, Israel can 
be an unnecessarily tricky subject. 
The discourse surrounding Israel 
is dominated by extremes. On one 
hand, there is the position that 
Israel can do nothing wrong. On 
the other, that Israel is to blame 
entirely for the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict 
and 
even 
broader 
instability in the Middle East. 
Supporting Israel’s right to exist as 
a homeland for Jews is not mutually 
exclusive with supporting the 
individual and collective rights 
and wellbeing of Palestinians. By 
supporting a two-state solution, 
it is possible to support both Jews 
and Palestinians.
In a perfect world a one-state 
solution would be ideal, where the 
land serves as a homeland for both 
Israelis and Palestinians under one 
state. There is nothing innate that 
prevents Jews and Arabs or Jews 
and Muslims from living among 
each other. Jews lived in the Arab 
world for centuries, facing far less 
persecution than in Christian 
Europe for most of history. 
Maimonides, arguably the most 
important rabbi in Jewish history, 
left Spain to escape the inquisition 
and went to the Ottoman empire, 
where Arab Muslim rationalists 
influenced his rabbinical thought, 
thus influencing Judaism. And 
in America, Jews and Arabs live 
side by side. No cultural, racial, 
religious or ethnic identity is 
predisposed with animus toward 
another. 
These 
identities 
are 
constructed over the complex 
course of history. Unfortunately, 
this course can include the 
development of some resented 
“other” which strengthens the 
internal bonds of the identity’s 
in-group dynamic. 
Both sides of the conflict have 
legitimate grievances. Israelis have 
the 1967 war, when the dictator of 
Egypt swore to drive the Jews to 
the sea in service of Pan-Arabism. 
There were decades of PLO 
terrorism, the intifada suicide 
bombings, followed by Hamas 
terrorism today. Israelis would also 
point to the peace deals the Israeli 
government has made in the last 20 
years that the Palestinian leadership 
has rejected. Palestinians in the 
West Bank have experienced half a 
century of occupation, checkpoints 
and resultant humiliation and 
abuse. They live with the fear of 
arrest and the presence of soldiers 
intruding in their daily lives 
and extremist settlers harassing 

them as the settlers seek to create 
an 
expansionist 
greater-Israel. 
Palestinians in Gaza have meager 
living conditions maintained by 
an Israeli blockade and the specter 
of Israeli airstrikes that devastate 
Gaza’s infrastructure and have 
deadly consequences. And for all 
Palestinians there is the memory 
of 1948, what they call the “Great 
Catastrophe” and Israelis call the 
“War of Independence.” Picking a 
side to assign total moral culpability 
is the wrong approach. Neither 
side is a monolith collectively 
responsible for the actions of each 
member of their group. But in the 
dynamics of the conflict, Jews 
against Palestinians, both have 
done wrong over the last 100 years. 
Continuing to bicker over who is 
worse stymies real momentum to 
change the status quo.
Given 
the 
intensity 
and 
length of the conflict, it is hard to 
envision how the two populations 
could live together peacefully 
in the near future, nonetheless 
create a cohesive national identity. 
Integrating the two populations 
would be a long, messy process 
likely mired by violence and what 
political scientists call “spoilers,” 
where 
extremists 
seek 
to 
undermine reconciliation between 
two groups in a conflict. A single 
state would probably devolve into 
a civil war type situation, in which 
either Israel would reassert military 
dominance or substantial third 
party intervention would need 
to assuage the violence between 
Israelis and Palestinians.
A two-state solution is thus 
the favorable solution for the near 
future. Israelis and Palestinians 
need to negotiate borders that can 
accommodate both groups. Israel 
has significantly more power and 
thus bears more responsibility to 
initiate negotiations and a deal. But 
these same power dynamics mean 
the Palestinian leadership needs a 
greater willingness to compromise. 
Since the Oslo accords, Palestinian 
leaders in the West Bank have not 
dropped the demand for the right of 
return to Israel proper, essentially 
meaning that they only support a 
one-state solution. And in Gaza, 
Hamas calls for the destruction 
of Israel and the death of Jews 
globally.

Aaron Baker can be reached at 

aaronbak@umich.edu.

Editor’s note: The author’s 
name was omitted to protect 
their identity.
M

y story is probably 
different 
than 
many 
of 
the 
stories you’ll read here. I 
was sexually abused by my 
(now ex) boyfriend during 
my freshman year of college, 
repeatedly. 
The 
abuse 
started slowly and subtly 
at first; pushing me to go 
farther than I wanted, saying 
“please.” 
And 
gradually 
over time he became more 
demanding and even violent 
before descending into frank 
disregard for my consent or 
lack thereof. Once when I 
asked him to stop, he said 
he couldn’t because I was 
“too sexy” and therefore he 
couldn’t help himself. After 
that, I didn’t feel comfortable 
with my naked body and for 
a period of time would wear 
swimsuits to shower. It got 
to the point where I knew I 
couldn’t say “no” because if 
I did, he wouldn’t care and 
having him blatantly ignore 
my pleas to stop hurt more 
than going along with what 
he wanted. I used to think 
I was weak for not putting 
up more of a fight, but I’ve 
realized it was a form of self-
preservation and may have 
saved me from something 
worse.
He was smart enough to 
not leave marks and to avoid 
triggering the usual “red 
flags” we’re warned about 
for abusers like being overly 
possessive or jealous. The 
truth is, I didn’t escape in the 
night to a domestic violence 
shelter or triumphantly break 

up with him; he broke up 
with me. I didn’t understand 
why until I learned through 
therapy that he is a sexual 
narcissist, 
someone 
who 
uses sexual abuse to control 
someone’s behavior.
This 
helped 
me 
to 
understand 
what 
had 
happened to me, why it was so 
difficult to get out even when 
the abuse kept getting worse 
and why he broke up with me. 
He was betting that he would 
be able to continue to control 
me without us being in an 
official relationship, but him 
breaking up with me also 
gave me an out. Even after 
the break up, he still tried to 
control me, but thankfully as 
school started up, I was in 
closer contact with friends 
and less in contact with him.
In 
some 
ways 
I 
feel 
guilty 
even 
sharing 
this, 
knowing that most others 
who 
experienced 
assault 
vehemently did not consent, 
but 
I 
sometimes 
had 
consented 
to 
intercourse 
with my boyfriend. But I 
also faced my perpetrator 
over and over again while 
loving and caring for him. 
Sometimes I feel like I should 
have left him earlier, that I 
should have known better. 
My 
friends 
and 
family’s 
disapproval for him and the 
subsequent isolation made 
me feel I couldn’t be honest 
about what was happening 
with anyone who cared about 
me and only made it more 
difficult to escape my abusive 
relationship.
In 
the 
aftermath, 
I 
dealt 
with 
symptoms 
that 
would 
likely 
qualify 
as 
Posttraumatic 
Stress 

Disorder. I had recurrent 
nightmares 
about 
the 
assaults 
and 
would 
scan 
my surroundings for him 
on campus and plan escape 
routes. 
My 
relationship 
with him had lasted a little 
over a year and there were 
reminders of him all over 
campus. 
He 
even 
started 
working at two of the same 
jobs I did after we broke up. 
It felt like I couldn’t escape. 
I had panic attacks, trouble 
concentrating 
at 
school, 
became depressed and even 
suicidal. 
Seeing 
him 
on 
campus would make my heart 
pound in my chest and make 
me feel like I needed to vomit 
— my mind would race about 
how to get away. It took a lot 
to reclaim my life and sense 
of self. I went to therapy and 
started on antidepressants. 
I explored reporting him to 
the police, but was told off-
the-record by an officer that 
a jury would find it difficult 
to convict him for assault 
when there were times it was 
consensual.
It’s 
been 
over 
seven 
years since I escaped that 
relationship. It has been a 
long road and it has not always 
been easy, but here’s what I 
will say: I am not destroyed. 
I am capable of and worthy of 
healthy relationships. I can 
love and be loved. Things do 
get better.

Krystal Hur can be reached at 

kryshur@umich.edu.

Hold Uncle Joe accountable

KRYSTAL HUR | COLUMN

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.

Things do get better

This piece is in the Survivors 

Speak series, which seeks to share 

the varied, first-person experiences 

of survivors of sexual assault. If 

you are a survivor and would like to 

submit to the series, please email 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com 

ANONYMOUS | SURVIVORS SPEAK

Read more at MichiganDaily.

Zack Blumberg
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Timothy Spurlin
Nicholas Tomaino
Erin White 
Ashley Zhang

