B

efore I begin this piece, I 
want to add a disclaimer: 
I identify as Jewish. 
Given the title of this piece 
and my own positions, I think 
it’s relevant. There’s been a lot 
of discussion about the state 
of Israel and its treatment of 
Palestinian 
people 
on 
this 
campus, much of it impassioned 
and heated. This February, the 
University of Michigan’s Central 
Student Government met to 
discuss a public statement about 
Palestinian 
rights 
following 
Vice President Kamala Harris’ 
visit 
and 
the 
protest 
that 
gathered outside of the Rackham 
Graduate School to criticize the 
Biden administration’s funding 
of Israel and the Israeli Defense 
Force. I happened to walk by the 
protest on my way to class — I 
might have joined if I’d known 
about it earlier. 
I don’t claim to have solutions 
for the conflict, and I don’t think 
I could in good faith advocate 
for any hard lines, but I feel 
compelled to say that Israel and 
its genocidal attitude toward 
the 
Palestinian 
people 
are 
repugnant and grotesque. 
Every time I see a piece 
about an Israeli settler killing 
an innocent Palestinian, or yet 
another example of Israeli Prime 
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 
cozying up to the Kahanists 
— Israel’s most racist and 
genocidal faction — I get sick to 
my stomach. Itamar Ben-Gvir, 
current Minister of National 
Security and Netanyahu crony, 
leads the “Jewish Power” party 
that espouses the doctrine that 
“Arabs are dogs” and endorses 
forced removal of any non-
Jews in the country. Before he 
was a politician, Ben-Gvir was 
even convicted on charges of 
supporting a terrorist group. 
He’s so bad that Ehud Olmert, 
former Israeli Prime Minister, 
considers him more dangerous 
to Israel’s prosperity than any 
international threats.
As with all countries, the 
actions 
of 
the 
state 
don’t 
represent the actions or feelings 
of the people, but Zionists blur 
those lines when they continue 
to try to make the Jewish 
identity inseparable from the 
state of Israel. So, let me make 
this clear. As a Jew, I condemn 
the actions of Israel. The state of 
Israel is a shanda. 
I’m sure you’ve read plenty 
of pieces about the crimes of 
the Israeli state and a plethora 
of Israel’s defenders claiming 
that Israel’s status as the most 
“Westernized” nation in the 
region justifies what they’re 
doing, so you don’t need me to 
reiterate things you’ve already 
heard. In short, I condemn 
Israel and the IDF. This is meant 
to address any Zionist readers.
When people like Ben Shapiro 
say in an interview that many 
Jews in the United States don’t 
identify with Zionism because 
“you can dissociate from the 
rest of the Jews and can say 
‘I’m the good Jew,’ he purposely 
conflates the Jewish identity 
with Zionism. By doing this, 
Shapiro tacitly encourages the 
idea that, to be a “true Jew,” you 
have to believe in the homeland 
and support Israel’s every effort 
to “defend” itself against the rest 
of the Middle East. 
When 
former 
President 
Donald Trump tweeted that 

“U.S. Jews have to get their act 
together and appreciate what 
they have in Israel,” he didn’t 
do it out of love for Israel or the 
Jewish people; he did it because 
it’s geopolitically advantageous 
for the U.S. to have an ally 
in the region. Trump’s tweet 
also appeals to the American 
Evangelical 
death 
cult 
that 
believes the Jews being back 
in the holy land is a sign of the 
incoming rapture, but that’s 
tangential. 
In 
fact, 
Israel 
itself 
is 
inconsistent on who or what 
the “Jewish state” constitutes 
–– as with all groups of people, 
Jews are not a monolith, in both 
political and ethnic respects. 
Ethiopian and Egyptian Mizrahi 
Jews have been discriminated 
against in the past, and a 
majority 
of 
Israeli 
Jews 
prioritize secular democracy 
over religious law, a position 
massively at odds with the 
current direction of Netanyahu’s 
government. Protests broke out 
just a couple weeks ago against 
Netanyahu’s judicial reforms, 
which many consider an attack 
against democracy in favor of 
religious extremism. 
These 
reforms 
sent 
the 
country into turmoil, with many 
Jews feeling as though this was 
an attack against democracy in 
favor of religious extremism, 
fueling 
the 
alienation 
and 
ostracization of Jewish people 
within 
Israel. 
Even 
trying 
to 
restrict 
“Jewish 
nation” 
citizenship by necessitating an 
Orthodox conversion with an 
Orthodox rabbi is a decision at 
odds with the 90% of American 
Jews, who are mostly Reformed, 
Conservative or Secular.
Many 
American 
Jews, 
especially young ones like the 
estimated 6,500 in our student 
body, find themselves in a 
dilemma because they might 
have attended or want to attend 
Birthright Israel and want to 
foster a connection with what 
they see as their “homeland.” It’s 
free for anyone who qualifies, so 
why not go?
Polling shows the complicated 
relationship 
American 
Jews 
have with the state of Israel. I 
am in the minority of Jews who 
say caring about Israel is not an 
important or essential part of 
my identity, but I’m in a growing 
number of American Jews who 
doubt the Israeli government 
is making a sincere effort to 
promote peace. One student who 
went on Birthright ended up 
leaving Israel with more doubts 
about the country.
Some 
groups, 
like 
the 
student-led J Street U, think 
there should be Palestinian 
or Israeli Arab speakers in 
addition to Birthright’s slate of 
Jewish Israeli speakers. I see 
J Street’s efforts as somewhat 
noble, but they’re not going 
to be successful given that 
Birthright’s implicit goals are 
to get you to “making aliyah,” 
which means immigrating to 
Israel and becoming a citizen. 
Birthright 
is 
practically 
a 
propaganda 
program 
that 
pairs up non-Israeli Jews with 
a member of the IDF, further 
encouraging the false notion 
that to be a Jew, you have to be 
a Zionist. 
Birthright 
is 
educational 
tourism 
backed 
by 
false 
and 
deliberately 
apolitical 
information, 
designed 
to 
whitewash 
Israel’s 
history 
to get you to either apply for 
citizenship or fund their army. 

Birthright 
has 
continually 
ignored complaints or protests 
calling 
for 
even 
minor 
concessions 
toward 
giving 
a more multifaceted view of 
the country. Birthright Israel 
reportedly straight up lies about 
the occupation and the policies 
surrounding it.
Birthright’s 
message 
and 
itinerary intentionally dilutes 
the structural and political 
asymmetry 
on 
the 
ground. 
Violence 
is 
bad, 
but 
the 
significant power differential 
between the Israeli state and 
the Palestinian freedom fighters 
can’t 
be 
understated. 
The 
responsibility for securing peace 
is overwhelmingly on Israel’s 
shoulders. Hamas, however bad 
they may be, doesn’t have $158 
billion in foreign aid from and 
close military ties to the U.S., 
the most powerful military on 
Earth. When you consistently 
and violently push a group of 
people back, encroaching on 
their homeland over the course 
of entire decades, why in the hell 
do you expect them to be the 
ones to facilitate peace? 
Many 
prominent 
Jewish 
groups 
are 
liberal-leaning, 
especially the ones that focus on 
the younger crowd like J-Street, 
and endorse something like a 
two-state solution. Since the 
occupation of the Gaza Strip 
and the West Bank during the 
Six-Day War in 1967, Israeli 
aggression and land theft have 
marginalized the Palestinian 
people into already slim land 
holdings. I couldn’t even hope to 
offer a practical solution to the 
geopolitical conflict, but does it 
look like Israel is attempting to 
make peace? Does annexation 
of the West Bank or overseeing 
the most violent year since the 
occupation in 1967 really seem 
like an attempt to mitigate 
damages? They aren’t trying 
for peace, they’re trying for 
conquest.
Some 
people 
may 
say 
I’m 
tokenizing 
myself, 
or 
utilizing my identity in a way 
that damages the image of 
American Jews, or plenty of 
other fallacious things, but I 
don’t care. There is a problem of 
rising antisemitism in the U.S. 
that cannot be dismissed (one 
that I’ve written about before), 
but that’s an entirely separate 
problem, and it is disingenuous 
to use antisemitism in America 
as justification for apartheid in 
a country halfway across the 
globe.
The 
disgusting 
hypocrisy 
to 
appeal 
to 
our 
people’s 
own genocide in an effort to 
perpetuate another is utterly 
repugnant and contemptible. 
I cannot and will not in good 
faith endorse the crimes against 
the 
Palestinian 
people 
that 
Israel, and the U.S. by proxy, 
perpetuate. I’ve never lived 
in Israel, and I’ve never even 
stepped foot inside the country. 
My life has as little to do with 
Israel as it does with any other 
country I’ve never visited. When 
Jews conflate Zionism with the 
Jewish identity, it makes us all 
look bad. If you do find yourself 
attached to Israel, at least make 
an effort to understand the 
Palestinian plight and push for 
more equitable terms. If you, 
like me, don’t particularly care 
for Zionism or Israel, make sure 
your identity isn’t consumed 
by genocidal mania. Don’t let 
the 
propagandists 
convince 
you you’re not a real Jew. Be a 
mensch. Free Palestine.

Opinion

A Jewish criticism of Israel: 
It’s a shanda

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
14 — Wednesday, April 5, 2023 

A

fter 
centuries 
of 
presidential scandals, a 
terrifying first has finally 
come. With Manhattan District 
Attorney Alvin Bragg bringing 
a criminal indictment against 
former President Donald Trump 
on Thursday, America is bound 
to experience an unprecedented 
legal fallout. While members of 
both parties have called for legal 
action against Trump in recent 
years, Bragg’s case has no relation 
to Trump’s incitement of the Jan. 
6 riot or his concerted efforts to 
overturn a free and fair election. 
Instead, Bragg intends to accuse 
Trump of illegally making a 
hush payment to Stormy Daniels, 
which allegedly was intended 
to cover up a relationship that 
occurred almost 17 years ago.
Pursuing an indictment, in this 
case, is a catastrophic mistake 
for the Justice Department as 
well as the Democratic and 
Republican Parties. On top of 
the shaky legal foundations of 
the case, indicting Trump for a 
relatively inconsequential crime 
would come across as politically 
motivated. As a result, it could 
distract from further inquiries 
into more serious crimes Trump 
has 
committed, 
and 
further 
diminish faith in the Justice 
Department for a large portion of 
the country.
Independent of the political 
ramifications of the prosecution, 
Bragg’s case seems incredibly 
tenuous and unlikely to stand 
in court. With the star witness, 
Trump’s former “fixer” Michael 
Cohen, having already admitted 
to lying to Congress, and Daniels’ 
notoriety casting doubt on her 
claims, a jury would likely be 
skeptical of any testimony from 
the pair.
In addition, since the crime 
of falsifying business records 
is only a misdemeanor in New 
York and has already exceeded 
the statute of limitations, in 
order 
to 
prosecute 
Trump, 
Bragg would need to show that 
he falsified business records 
with the intent to breach federal 
campaign finance law, which is a 
felony offense. If Bragg is unable 
to prove that Trump wrote 
Daniels the check in an attempt 
to influence the election, even if 
he proves that Trump directed 
Cohen to cover up the affair, he 
will be unable to convict him. 
On top of being significantly 
more difficult to prove, even this 
charge has arguably exceeded the 
five-year statute of limitations. 
As a result, the case risks being 
thrown out by judges or being 
quashed by Trump’s legal team if 

brought to court.
Beyond the legal limitations 
of the case, indicting Trump for 
a minor crime would contradict 
years of precedent involving 
the 
criminal 
prosecution 
of 
present and former presidents. 
Though 
nobody 
deserves 
to 
live above the law, the past 
several 
administrations 
have 
seen presidential legal woes go 
overlooked in the interest of 
preserving the stature of the 
office. Despite copious evidence of 
perjury in the Monica Lewinsky 
case and strong involvement in 
the Whitewater scandal, former 
President Bill Clinton was never 
indicted during or after his time 
in office.
Similarly, during the more 
severe 
Watergate 
scandal, 
despite resigning from office 
in an apparent admission of 
guilt, President Richard Nixon 
was 
immediately 
pardoned 
by 
his 
successor 
President 
Gerald R. Ford in an attempt 
to preserve the integrity of the 
presidency. Even in more recent 
years, despite having classified 
documents illegally and unsafely 
stored in more locations than 
Trump, President Joe Biden’s 
Justice Department seems highly 
unlikely to bring formal charges 
against him.
If the same legal threshold 
applied to Trump was enforced 
on prior administrations, it’s not 
unreasonable to expect that half 
of recent presidents might be 
behind bars. As a global leader, 
indicting presidents for minor 
crimes would be extraordinarily 
embarrassing and detrimental 
to the United States, likely 
weakening its standing as a 
global superpower. As someone 
who 
is 
supposedly 
“looking 
forward to” his perp walk, 
Trump would surely capitalize 
on his indictment to compare the 
severity of punishment for his 
transgressions to other presidents 
who committed more significant 
crimes. This would allow him 
to convince supporters that the 
system is “rigged” against him, 
an otherwise baseless claim that 
would gain credence from the 
Justice Department’s reckless 
actions.
Extending 
that 
colossal 
political capital to Trump will 
prove 
catastrophic 
to 
both 
Democrats and Republicans. In 
the GOP primary, it will create 
a solidarity vote that casts aside 
Republican challengers, and in 
a general election it could form 
a resistance vote against a Biden 
Justice 
Department 
seen 
as 
enforcing uneven legal standards 
against a rival. Moreover, the 
scandal itself will likely have a 
negligible impact on Trump’s 
reputation, given the dated nature 

of the claims. Despite running in 
a party that theoretically prides 
itself on family values, when 
first revealed in 2018, Trump’s 
infidelity with a porn star bucked 
the trend of historic presidential 
sex scandals and was a nonissue 
by the 2020 election. Though 
such an allegation would likely 
have destroyed the credibility 
of any other president, Trump’s 
endless 
stream 
of 
riotous 
scandals has seemingly brought 
him immunity against even the 
most sordid of claims.
His rivals, on the other hand, 
will not be immune to the 
fallout from the case. Biden, in 
particular, would come under 
fire for any Trump prosecution. 
Despite 
distancing 
himself 
from the judicial process in 
cases 
involving 
conflicts 
of 
interests, 
an 
indictment 
of 
Trump 
will 
immediately 
be 
branded by Republicans as Biden 
prosecuting a political rival. 
Such spectacles are unheard of 
in the United States and far more 
common in dictatorial regimes. 
Republican 
voters 
who 
are 
already distrustful of Democrats 
could lose faith entirely in the 
current two-party system, with 
swing voters even potentially 
coming out in favor of Trump.
Though top Republican rivals 
like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis 
have remained quiet on the case 
in the hopes of benefiting from 
a prosecution that diminishes 
Trump’s credibility, even those 
outwardly 
opposed 
to 
the 
prosecution stand to lose in the 
polls to Trump. After losing 
headway to opponents in recent 
months, the arrest of a candidate 
responsible for reshaping the 
modern 
Republican 
Party 
will provide a much-needed 
adrenaline boost to Trump’s 
stagnating campaign, potentially 
propelling him to a primary and 
general election victory. With 
little policy focus in his current 
campaign, fighting a prosecution 
will give Trump a signature issue 
to center his campaign around 
and galvanize voters with.
Ultimately, 
a 
prosecution 
of 
Trump 
for 
his 
alleged 
involvement 
in 
the 
Daniels 
case will cause ripple effects 
that harm both parties and 
delegitimize more consequential 
investigations 
against 
him. 
While it’s critical that the justice 
department be mobilized to 
investigate 
Trump’s 
election 
interference, by jumping the gun 
on a Trump indictment, Bragg 
is risking the derailment of the 
legitimacy of any future cases 
brought at a state or federal level. 
If the justice department hopes 
to preserve its reputation and 
regain public trust, it should have 
backed down.

Indicting Trump is a mistake

SAM FOGEL
Opinion Columnist 

NIKHIL SHARMA
Opinion Columnist 

O

n Tuesday, The Michigan 
Daily 
Editorial 
Board 
formally 
endorsed 
the 
MPower ticket for president and 
vice president of the University 
of Michigan’s Central Student 
Government. 
The 
Daily’s 
support for MPower’s candidates 
demonstrates 
their 
apathy 
towards the 5,000 undergraduate 
and nearly 1,500 graduate Jewish 
students at the University. Given 
MPower’s insensitive rhetoric, The 
Daily must claim responsibility for 
their misguided endorsement. 
Specific parts of MPower’s 
platform are troubling, specifically 
the complete ban on all University-
sponsored trips to Israel and 
the call to battle Zionism on 
campus. We have included direct 
quotations from their platform 
below: 
(1) “We pledge to staunchly fight 
… antisemitism (and) Zionism …”
(2) “End the Central Student 
Government’s trip/all University-
sponsored trips to Israel” 
It is not antisemitic to criticize 
Israel. In fact, criticism of Israel is 
essential — it sparks conversation, 
ignites cooperation and inspires 
change. Marginalizing any group 
through the denial of their right 
to self-determination is wrong. 
The 
Anti-Defamation 
League 
defines Zionism as “the movement 
for 
the 
self-determination 
and statehood for the Jewish 
people.” The outright rejection 
of 
self-determination 
directed 

exclusively toward the Jewish 
people, simply on the basis of 
their religion, is antisemitic. More 
importantly, it imposes the same 
ideology that these candidates so 
proudly advocate against. To claim 
that you stand for “community and 
coalition building” while denying 
any group’s religious rights is 
disappointing and hypocritical at 
best. 
We appreciate the mention of 
adding Kosher options to campus 
and the commitment towards 
fighting antisemitism. However, 
MPower has yet to hold or attend 
events to engage with Jewish 
students and their communities. 
Merely mentioning issues that 
“appeal” to a Jewish student body 
without engaging in discussion 
is tokenizing and disingenuous. 
How can you fight antisemitism 
without engaging in discussion 
with Jewish voices? You can’t. 
The greatest way to spur 
conversation and spark progress is 
through open dialogue and cultural 
exchange. MPower’s decision to 
demand the University eliminate 
trips to Israel is short-sighted and 
unproductive. Additionally, CSG 
does not offer, plan or fund any 
trips to Israel, and the previous 
administration actively avoided 
any mention of foreign policy. If 
anything, the University should 
fund educational programs in the 
region. Cooperative trips will not 
only bring a larger community to 
the conversation but will increase 
partnership and foster positive 
student relationships. 
For 
nearly 
a 
century 
the 
University has proudly served as 

an ally for the Jewish community. 
In the wake of the 20th century’s 
“Jewish Problem” — a sentiment 
aimed at significantly limiting and 
reducing the amount of Jewish 
students at elite institutions — 
the University refused to partake. 
It is paramount that the U-M 
community continues to actively 
defend and advocate for the 
rights of Jewish people and all 
marginalized groups. 
A 
student 
government 
under the leadership of the 
MPower platform will create 
an environment of hostility for 
Jewish students; leaders who 
promote these sentiments should 
not be endorsed by one of the 
University’s 
most 
prominent 
student 
organizations. 
The 
Daily 
has 
a 
storied 
history 
covering 
issues 
that 
matter 
to U-M students. This comes 
with a noble goal of striving “to 
uphold 
impartiality, 
fairness 
and the complete truth (and to 
seek) equitable coverage in our 
representation of all communities, 
identities and groups.” Sharing 
a piece from the Editorial Board 
on the day of an election that 
misrepresents 
the 
extent 
to 
which MPower has engaged with 
the larger campus community 
is 
not 
convincing, 
impartial, 
fair, nor representative of the 
complete truth. Many members 
of the undergraduate Jewish 
population strongly disagree with 
The Daily’s endorsement — we 
encourage The Daily to reconsider 
its endorsement and invite the 
Editorial Board to engage with the 
larger Jewish community. 

Letter to the Editor: A misguided 
CSG endorsement

ANONYMOUS
CONTRIBUTOR

Design by Emma Sortor

