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