Opinions • February 2016
Page 5
hold Israel
To a
By Murad Awad Staff Writer Nelson Mandela once said, “Our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” While this icon of the resistance to apartheid knew how vital the situation in Palestine was, nowadays many would rather ignore the plight of the oppressed than stand for justice. Walter Benjamin was right when he said, “History is written by the victors”— this notion is most profoundly shown by the American coverage and media surrounding the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Let’s start with the 2014 conflict in Gaza. There was a spike in coverage after the despicable murder of three Israeli teens, Naftali Fraenkel, Gilad Shaer, and Eyal Yifrah by Hassem Quwasameh, a member of Hamas. Israel then used this event as justification for a war that killed 2,310 Palestinians, 67% of whom were civilians. In contrast to this, there was very little coverage when two Palestinian teens, Nadeem Siam Nawara and Mohammad Odeh Abu Daher, were murdered by an Israeli sniper during a protest in the West Bank, before the war occurred. Despite the Israeli government not being reprimanded by the international community for this injustice and other heinous acts committed during the war, all of Palestine was blamed for the murder of the three Israeli teens. This double standard alleviated Israel’s moral responsibility, allowing it to exploit the
hIgher sTandard situation and kill thousands, then blame it on Hamas by saying that they use human shields, despite Amnesty International finding no evidence of this to be true. There is no doubt that Hamas is an extremist organization that should not be supported, but the fact that Israel killed thousands of innocent civilians, opened fire on civilians, including four boys playing soccer at a city beach, and destroyed schools for little apparent reason, means that it must be held morally accountable for its actions. And, in fact, more than Hamas is. A terrorist group and a de facto government deeming itself to be “the only democracy in the Middle East” are not morally equivalent: States are expected to be in accordance with international laws and human rights; terrorist groups are not. And yet the fact remains that among the American public, Israel was seen to have the moral high ground simply because it is an ally of the US. The most vile human rights violations were committed by our ally and we didn’t condemn it, we applauded it, despite the remarks of its own Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked that included, “This is a war between two people. Who is the enemy? The Palestinian people.” Israel’s actions should not be supported. They should be condemned. How are we, the United States, to deem ourselves a nation of justice and democracy if we support countries while blindly ignoring their heinous actions? The answer is clear: we can’t. We must stand against Israel’s acts of injustice.
The Irrelevance
By Abhijit Ramaprasad Staff Writer From January 2 to February 11, Ammon Bundy’s Oregon militia was a persistent, if not necessarily important, part of the news cycle. Bundy and his militia attempted to occupy Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, as a sort of “revenge” for the sentencing of two ranchers for arson on federal land. Of course, they failed to get that revenge. If anything, the group was a joke, a footnote on daily events, but also a callback to previously similar, albeit more tragic, events—namely, the Ruby Ridge incident and the Waco siege. At Ruby Ridge in 1992, a standoff between white supremacist and criminal Randy Weaver and his family, and federal marshals, led to a siege and deaths on both sides of the conflict. In Waco in 1993, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms bungled the arrest of David Koresh, a cult leader with an extremely dangerous stash of firearms. The result: the death of ATF agents and a 51-day siege, concluding with a devastating fire that killed many of Koresh’s followers, including children. Seeing this history, it is unsurprising that the government kept its efforts in dealing with Bundy’s gang of thugs more low-key. Bundy and his militia were similar in their worldview to the criminals at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and the government has proved that, a little bit over 20 years later, they can now properly deal with these kinds of criminals. However, the nation also witnessed a very understated response to domestic terrorists, and fear of retaliation after the tragedies of the past has made dealing with these kinds
of The
of dangers a much more delicate proposition, and prevents the government from enforcing its laws. A perfect example can be found in Ammon Bundy’s father, Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher who has been illegally grazing his cows on government land and driving others to do the same for over twenty years. A thoroughly unsavory man who infamously lost much public support when he made racist statements about African-Americans, Bundy is the subject of a decadeslong attempt to be brought to justice. It is no longer safe for government employees to travel the federal lands around Bundy because of the danger of Bundy and his hooligans, who have, many times, shot at Bureau of Land Management agents and have convinced many of their fellows to do the same. When the BLM first tried to evict Bundy, they were forced to throttle down, as Waco and Ruby Ridge were very recent memories, and because of it, they have been unable to bring Bundy and his cohorts, to justice, allowing Bundy to spread his dangerous message and ruin the land he occupies. The issue here is how we deal with this unique variety of domestic terrorism. Rather than forcefully and efficiently dealing with these threats, the government acts passively because it fears these dangerous militias. It allows criminals to continue breaking the law for years; it was a miracle that Ammon Bundy was as incompetent as he was and failed to plan ahead. These incidents say a good deal about how the nation views terrorists based on race. White militants are seemingly coddled and their crimes are often diminished,
flInT: snyder By Sumeet Bansal Staff Writer The Flint water crisis recently came into the public eye amid large donations and short tweets from outraged celebrities. However, it’s been an ongoing issue for the city of Flint, Michigan, which has had to deal with contaminated water for over a year, and the prolonging of the crisis indicates a degree of ineptitude (or more likely, criminal negligence) that demands change within the administration that allowed the crisis to continue unchecked. Flint’s residents first noticed the poisoned water supply back in 2014 following the decision of local officials to switch water sources from the safer and more reliable Detroit Water Department to the cheaper Flint River. The trade-off for alleviating some of Flint’s financial distress was the loss of corrosion-control chemicals in the water, and the absence of these chemicals led to the corrosion of water pipes and the leaching of lead into the city’s water supply. Of course, the people of Flint were quick to notice—complaints about the colors and odors flooded in. But these went largely ignored. In fact, the authorities continued pushing the same message: that the water was fine, and if problems were to arise, citizens would be notified within 24 hours. It would take several months for city officials to actually declare that the water supply had been contaminated. And as if such negligence weren’t enough, it was later reported by an official task force designated
Is
Bundys
painting them as less than terrorists because they do not match the public stereotype of what terrorism is. While any other group who had the gall to do something like the Bundy’s did would face exponentially more public outcry and backlash and much harsher government retribution. The government should not sit idly by as these goons trash federal lands for their own profit and spread messages of hate and violence. Past mistakes should not force a different brand of inefficiency and passivity. The government has proven itself more than capable of dealing with much greater threats much more effectively—and it should do the same with trespassing militias, “sovereign citizens,” and terrorists.
responsIBle
to investigate the cause of the crisis that officials had actually suppressed separate findings on lead levels in both the water and the blood of diseased children. At that point, warnings and lead filters began to be passed around, but no definitive solution was formulated or even considered. In fact, it was only after a maelstrom of bad press that Governor Rick Snyder stepped in. Prior to significant media coverage, he had done absolutely nothing to help the struggling city and its nearly 100,000 residents. Even FEMA, the most obvious source of aid, wasn’t brought in to help until late January, nearly a year later. In dealing with the crisis, Snyder and his administration displayed a blatant disregard for the well-being of Flint’s citizens. Many have leveled accusations that the delayed response was a result of Flint’s demographics skewing poor and black, that officials ignored early warning signs in an unfair and discriminatory manner because of the predominantly black population. While such bias certainly exacerbates the issue, the fact that this crisis was ignored at all under Snyder’s watch points to negligence on his behalf. Flint native and outspoken critic Michael Moore tweeted earlier this month: “On Sat, I called Flint ‘Governor Snyder’s Katrina.’ Today he said he accepts that comparison. Except Bush didn’t cause the hurricane #Jail.” If anyone is to blame, it is Snyder and his administration, and if anyone is to take the fall, it should be him.