5 Ways You Can Support the Black Lives Matter Movement

Image: Eater

Since the May 25th killing of George Floyd by 5 police officers in Minneapolis, much has transpired. Protests have erupted across the country (even with a handful in other places around the world), cries to defund police departments have recieved national attention, multiple memorials for George Floyd have occured in different cities, four of the police officers involved in Floyd’s killing are facing third- and second-degree murder charges, and the UN has even agreed to discuss racism and police brutality in the United States.

Although a lot of progress has been made, there is still so much more to be done. Sadly, many unfortunate events have also occurred in the past weeks. Police brutality is far from solved, but many feel exhausted by the constant “Justice for [name]” posts that have flooded all forms of social media. Robert Fuller was found hanged in Palmdale, California on June 8th. On June 12th, Rayshard Brooks had been shot and killed in an interaction with the police in response to a call regarding a man sleeping in his car at a Wendy’s drive-thru outside Atlanta. Officers have been caught using police brutality in confrontation with protesters fighting back against the exact behavior that the police continue to use.

As protests don’t show any signs of winding down any time soon, many people still feel unsure of what they can do to get involved. Here are some surefire ways to help the Black Lives Matter movement.

Register to vote… and then vote

If you at least 18 years-old or will be turning 18 by Election Day (November 3rd), then the most important thing you can do is register to vote (and then, of course, show up). Plenty of arguments have been made about the importance of voting, but if you want to see the impassioned case made by the brother of George Floyd himself against the use of violent riots and encouraging everybody to get out and vote, take a look:

If you have not before registered to vote or have changed your address since the last election, it is essential that you register to vote before the election in November. To register in your state, click here.

In order to find your polling place, click here.

Once you are registered and know where to vote, it is just as important to learn about the candidates running for office in your hometown. Use this great tool to get educated on every race and candidate before you head to your polling place by clicking here.

Support programs and organizations that fight for racial justice and equality

Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 after the killing of Trayvon Martin, is a great place to turn to support the cause. For years, they have been one of the biggest advocates for racial justice and against police brutality. They have organized many protests in the past seven years, including the protests and demonstrations in Ferguson after the killing of Michael Brown in 2014. Both money and action are helpful and always welcomed. Visit here to donate, and look around to find out more about how else you can contribute and make a difference.

The Equal Justice Initiative, another great group to support, works to provide legal defenses to those facing wrongful convictions. Money is greatly appreciated in order to pay for attorneys and legal fees. Click here to donate!

Find peaceful protests and demonstrations to attend

Before attending any protests, remember these things:

  • You have rights as a protester, but there are also limits. Read more about what you can and cannot do under the law.
  • Many protests are organized with the knowledge and support of local city councils and law enforcement authorities.
  • We’re still in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, so it’s best to protect yourself by wearing a face mask, bringing hand sanitizer and refraining any and all physical contact.
  • Some areas have imposed a curfew, though these seem to be easing. Be aware of your local laws before you attend the protests at night.

Your local news source is an obvious option, making it a great first place to look — however, some protests are not as widespread or publicized. If nothing is found there, it does not mean that all hope is lost.

Many protests are organized through Facebook, so a great place to find upcoming protests to seek justice for George Floyd would be under the events tab on Facebook. You can even organize events and protests near you by cause, making it a great place to find gatherings.

Organizers often turn to Twitter to spread word of upcoming protests. One way to find protests near you would be to search the name of your city as a hashtag. For example, Atlanta residents could search #Atlanta.

If you live in a bigger metro area, there is a likely chance that you have your own Black Lives Matter chapter. Reaching out to see if there are any ways you could get involved or attend a demonstration could never hurt. Click here to see a list of Black Lives Matter chapters.

Donate to bail funds and other assistance for protesters

Thousands of protesters across the country have been detained, and bail funds carry a heavy burden. Bail funds, such as the Minnesota Freedom Fund, have seen considerable spikes in donations — and they are actually encouraging donors to look elsewhere to funds that are in more dire need of help. Here, you can find a list of bail funds across the country which could all use your help. For other national bail funds, take a look at the National Bail Out and The Bail Project.

Support and patronize black-owned businesses

This year, black businesses have had trouble with loans and the federal aid programs created to help small businesses throughout the pandemic. The Global Strategy Group, on May 13th, released the results of an online survey they conducted regarding financial aid distribution to minority-owned businesses. Their report found that, from a pool of 500 respondents, only 12% of the African-American- or Latinx-owned businesses received the full assistance they requested — and approximately two-thirds of the same businesses did not receive any aid.

There are plenty of other ways you are able to help support the Black Lives Matter movement in the wake of the George Floyd protests. Spreading awareness, having difficult conversations on race with others, and educating both yourself and others are all great and worthwhile things you can (and should) do whenever possible. For more information on what else you can do, visit Teen Vogue’s article on other ways you can help in both your public and private life.

WTP EXCLUSIVE—Life Isn’t Often as Black and White as it Appears: Hard Questions with Rachel Dolezal

Ty:For the record, please state your full name and any titles or affiliations that you would like to have listed.

Rachel: Publicly, I go by Rachel Dolezal and I am an artist, activist, and author.

Ty: Thank you for that information. Jumping straight into it, a few years ago you caught national attention for identifying as a Black woman. In November 2017, the Theta Iota chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Inc., the Harvard University Black Student’s Association, and I hosted an event at Harvard University that covered womanism. Womanism is a school of thought that was born out of the idea that traditional feminism was not fully inclusive of the interests of the Black woman and that nobody would ever advocate for those interests better than a Black woman herself. Opening from a place where you see yourself as a Black woman, what is the essence of Blackness to you? What are the defining characteristics and what life experiences have informed your idea of Blackness? On the flipside, what is the essence of Whiteness to you? What are those characteristics?

Rachel: I taught a course at Eastern Washington University titled, “The Black Woman’s Struggle,” and featured textbooks such as “Words of Fire,” “Assata,” “Joys of Motherhood,” and “Women, Race & Class,” and I would describe myself as a Womanist more than a Feminist because I agree that race/class/gender are intersectional. I see Blackness as consciousness and commitment in the struggle for equity and justice; Blackness is not always skin color but is a philosophy and a political stance on issues affecting justice, or as Dick Gregory said, “a state of mind” that is Afrocentric or Pan-African in emphasis. Blackness fights relentlessly against the oppressive forces of colonialism, racism and White supremacy, seeking to free all those who are oppressed historically or contemporaneously and build a more inclusive and equitable society. Blackness acknowledges that we all come from a Black Mother in Africa—aka we are all members of the [Black] human race, and Africa is not only the birthplace of the human family but also the birthplace of civilization, religion, and community. Conversely, Whiteness is a state of mind and a stance that is Eurocentric, with the view that western culture, ideas, and aesthetics are superior and should be dominant. I see Whiteness as oppressive, repressive, and suppressive of others, seeking domination and subjugating others to the goals of capitalism, patriarchy, and imperialism.

Ty: When you look at the world we live in, it can be argued that you would have been better situated as an ally to Black and brown communities by identifying as a White woman and using the privilege that comes with that designation to take your passion for community advocacy past the glass ceiling that many Black and brown women face every day on their fight for social justice. Discuss your approach to it all. Was there a point where you felt like you had to embed yourself within the African-American community in the way you did to affect the most change?

Rachel: There are White allies and Black leaders in the struggle for social justice. I was seen as each of these for a decade in the past twenty years of my life. I identified as a White ally before I read Audrey Smedley’s book, “Race in North America: Origin & Evolution of a Worldview” and went on to read other books by Black women about the fiction of race, such as “Fatal Invention,” “The Nature of Race,” and “Chosen Exile,” by Dorothy Roberts, Ann Morning, and Allyson Hobbs. During the time that I felt I was “fated” to being a White ally—or White in general—when I believed race to be a biological reality, I was constantly having people argue with me that I was “really part Black” and just “passing for White” due to the neighborhood I lived in, my dexterity with braiding and doing Black hairstyles for women, and my intense passion for championing social justice causes in ways that were specifically empowering to Black youth and families. Similarly, when I shed the myth of race and embraced that Blackness really described my state of mind more than Whiteness—and I had already essentially exiled myself from “the White community” at this point—I had some people arguing that because I looked mixed or was light-skinned, I wasn’t Black enough for diversity photo ops or to lead social justice causes. One thing always remained constant, to this day: White supremacists have always hated me no matter whether I was functioning as a White ally or a light-skinned Black leader. I definitely feel there were fewer barriers to accomplishing the work I intended to do for the community, for the ten years I was seen as Black. Although the hatred of racist groups soared, I was constantly harassed by cops, and I received 50% of the pay of my White male and White female predecessors in a job (aka there was definitely a cost in terms of social discrimination), there was a place of belonging for me, a space where I could relax and be myself in the Black community. I wasn’t looked at with suspicion or made to prove I was safe as an ally; people didn’t clean up their houses before I came over or go out of their way as if I was a stranger; I was family and that felt good to have a home. I was definitely able to affect much more change being true to my core essence and fitting into the community, being seen for who I am inside and not being kept on the fringe of the movement due to my White parents. Anyone looking at my resume and accomplishments can see that my leadership flourished from 2005 to 2015.

Ty:You have stated before that you felt inherently tied to the Black community from as early as childhood. There are critics who would say that this contradicts your lawsuit against Howard University on the basis of racial discrimination because the litigation was seemingly a very definitive statement in favor of declaring your Whiteness. How do you respond to those critics?

Rachel:Online critics clearly haven’t taken the time to read my book or give full consideration to the context of that singular situation. I went to Howard eighteen years ago and had not yet become conscious of the nature of the race worldview being a social construct, so at the time of my application I did not identify as “Black” but there actually was no “race” category on the application at the time I applied. I sued to regain my scholarship on the basis of pregnancy discrimination, gender discrimination, and race discrimination in the original claim only because the person who removed my scholarship (while I had a 4.0 and was 7 months pregnant) was retaliating against me for refusing his sexual advances, and he referenced pregnancy, gender, and race in his reasons for pulling my scholarship. I love Howard and always will; it was the only graduate school I applied for because it was my dream school. However, as I explain in my book, living in DC isn’t cheap and with my Black husband and almost-born child depending on my financial aid, I had no other option but to fight to keep my spot for my last year of graduate school. It was a justice issue, and I trusted the only attorney I could find who would do pro-bono to handle the case with his legal expertise. I am a proud alumnus of Howard and a donor and am grateful that the Howard University Magazine featured my memoir on the Bison Bookshelf.

Ty:Did any of the harsh criticisms voiced ever cause you to consider that any of what you had done was wrong or have you always believed that in your heart you were doing the right thing with the way you have chosen to live your life?

Rachel: Most of the “criticism” was fueled by what my biological parents said on tv (and what they said was based on their goal of shutting down my Black sister’s sexual harassment case against our older White brother (I was her key witness, and sadly the vitriol and hate of so many people resulted in her case getting shut down and she never got her day in court) and what people heard from other biased sources. The critics didn’t wait to hear my whole story or take time to try to understand how both things could be true—aka I was born categorized as White but identify as Black. A lot of the anger was based on either ignorance or bias against me that was connected to racial pain in America. I regret that this situation was used to poke the pain of Black women specifically because if it would have been presented in a fair and positive way I think it would have had the opposite effect. It could have been presented as my life being an extreme act of solidarity, or as “imitation is the most sincere form of flattery,” or to copy another is to compliment, etc. But in our very reactive culture online, people rushed to throw me under the bus—and back up the bus and throw me under it again—and again—and still. I don’t think most people even know how I actually live my life, still to this day, so their opinions matter less to me than the positive outcomes I work toward for my children.

Ty:Very briefly, describe your thoughts on the Trump presidency thus far.

Rachel:Disgust. Frustration. Anger. I don’t know where to begin. Time is up for sexism, racism, classism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. It’s time for equity and justice; it’s time for reparations; it’s time for inclusivity in all respects of identity; it’s time to build a brighter future for our children, and #45 is not contributing anything toward these goals. I hope #46 along with collective action of The People can overcome the damaging effects of this presidency and this becomes fuel to propel a lot of great political and social action.

Ty: With all of the controversy around you being taken into consideration, I don’t genuinely believe you to be a bad person. I never have. If anything, I may have felt that you were confused, misunderstood, or some combination of those two. Nonetheless, from an objective standpoint, it is very apparent that you have a passion for community advocacy and you seem to be very genuinely invested in promoting advances in social justice. In a world full of negativity, such an energy can be harnessed to yield exponential positivity if employed right. Rachel A. Dolezal, what can we expect from you in 2018? How will you continue to be an ally in the years to come?

Rachel: I will never quit and am no less committed to The Cause or the community than I was in May 2015. I’m the same person and will continue to fight for justice locally, nationally, and globally whenever and wherever I have an opportunity. My involvement has been hindered the past three years due to ongoing unemployment (amid weekly job applications) and the perpetuation of negativity online and in the media. I have been in survival mode trying to provide for my three sons and my sister. I am not a liar. I am not a fraud. Scientists say that by 2050 the majority of this country will be mixed, and we are not doing much to prepare for that future. I hope we can unite together to undo racism and push for equity and justice for future generations. I’m ready.

Ty: Thank you very much for your time. It was a pleasure to be able to hear your perspective and a privilege to be able to interview you.

Terror in Barcelona

Image: Gone Fishing

Fifteen people have been killed in a terror attack on Las Ramblas avenue in Barcelona on the 17th of August. Over 80 others were injured. An attacker drove a large white van down Las Ramblas Avenue, a pedestrian street packed with tourists and Barcelonians, plowing through crowds of people, killing and injuring many while causing mass chaos and a mini stampede. The attack happened before 5 pm Central European Time (11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and the Police acted quickly, evacuating the area and closing nearby Metro and train stations while getting aid to the victims.

The attackers reportedly had fled on foot. Four men were arrested for their alleged involvement in the attack. Also, police found another van they believe was going to be used as a getaway vehicle and found Moroccan passports. Driss Oukabir, one of the arrested suspects, claims his documents were stolen to rent the vans. Adding to the confusion, a hostage situation was reported by the media, but it is unclear whether it actually happened. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack, but this does not mean that the attackers have any direct ties with ISIS. Furthermore, an explosion the day before that killed one person and injured 6 has been linked to the attack. Our hearts are with Barcelona, the victims of this callous and unwarranted attack, and the law enforcement and medical staff dealing with its fallout.

Many politicians and famous people tweeted their support. President Macron of France, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and many other world leaders also issued statements or tweets expressing their solidarity with Barcelona, including our own President, Trump. Trump originally told Barcelona to “be tough & strong, we love you” in a kind, heartfelt tweet of solidarity, but then proceeded to tweet a bizarre statement mentioning a claim he made on the campaign trail about an American General in the Philippines during the early 1900’s dipping bullets in Pig’s blood before shooting 49 captured terrorists and sending the 50th back to report what had happened. Trump said it stopped terrorism for 35 years in his tweet. First of all, this piece of made up “history” has been debunked, and second of all, let me recount a bit of history to explain how truly atrocious and dehumanizing this urban legend is. When America invaded the Philippines, there were protests against it in America with supporters saying the invasion was cruel and unfair and supporters saying that we had to bring order and civilization to a “barbaric race,” in the words of a United States Senator at the time. The Muslims we were fighting against were the native Filipinos who were trying to protect their country. We were the terrorists. We put people into “reconcentration camps” and killed somewhere between 200,000 and a million civilians in a war that only killed 16000 Filipino soldiers. It is possible Trump’s story is true, except we weren’t killing terrorists, we were committing an atrocity against a country and race based on racist stereotypes. The answer to Islamic extremism is not to make the West seem barbaric or aggressive towards Islamism or people in general. Trump has been inadvertently helping ISIS recruit with his aggression and insulting speeches towards all Islam (and humanity) instead of violent Islam, even having been featured in ISIS recruitment video.

Refocusing on the attack, this is the ninth vehicle attack in Europe. Seven previous vehicle attacks were committed by ISIS affiliated attackers and one was committed by an extremist who drove into a group of people outside of mosque saying “I want to kill all Muslims.” There was also a vehicle attack on the home front in Charlottesville just this Saturday. White Supremacists had gathered for a rally protesting the taking down of a Robert E. Lee statue, their chants and messages couldn’t possibly be misconstrued as not hateful, with chants like “Jews will not replace us” as they held Hitler signs. Counter-protesters formed a line in front of them, refusing to let them pass. The protesters violently charged through them, and the two groups broke out into fighting. Luckily, police were there to disperse the two groups. While the governor of Charlottesville called it a state of emergency. Nobody had yet gotten killed or seriously injured and both groups were leaving. Then, a white nationalist drove a car into a group of counter-demonstrators, killing one and injuring nineteen. When the attack happened, the groups of protesters and counter-protesters had already split up, there was no violence or skirmishes going on between those groups at the time of the attack. In a statement after the attacks, our President refused to condemn the White Supremacists, even when asked direct questions about his view of them, instead, he blamed violence on “many sides.” Two days later, Trump claimed that he didn’t support the KKK or White Supremacist groups in a scripted speach, however, on Tuesday, he had undone the comments that he had made on Monday by going as far as defending the white supremacists. By any account, his statement of condemnation came too late and was too ambiguous. White Supremacists took his failure to condemn them as support, and it seemed a lot like support to everyone else as well.

As a nation, and as a world we are left with these facts; vehicles are easy to get and large groups of innocent people are easy to find. Having one group of crazy extremists inspired by ISIS to attack people was scary enough, but now because of the amount of xenophobia, fear and hate that has been caused by ISIS and how our countries have handled ISIS, anti-Muslim extremists and white supremacists are also attacking innocent people in their twisted war on people who are different.

There is no sign this is going to get any better. The leader of the KKK said of the attack in Charlottesville “we’re going to see more stuff like this happening at white-nationalist events.” He could absolutely be right. As more terrorist attacks happen, charged by different groups all of whom are growing and possibly becoming more violent, we need a leader who’s going to condemn all people who kill innocent civilians or attempt to whether they are White Supremacists, Muslim extremists or anti-Muslim extremists, without insulting any groups who did not kill innocent civilians. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has demonstrated how he is completely incapable of confronting many of his base supporters.

A New Journey: The Free and Open Exchange of Ideas

Image: Life Hacker

Now, more than ever, the importance of a free, fair, and open press is essential to a functioning democracy. We cannot provide ammunition to anyone’s goal that is to silence a critical or free press, especially when it comes from a publication promoting itself as a magazine that is “The first social justice platform that directly caters to teens, while also addressing many significant issues that are often overlooked” and “The new cool way for teens to not only read about important news but also have their own thoughts heard loud and clear.”

Imagine my excitement when I, at the age of fourteen, was offered a position as not only a writer but the political editor at Affinity Magazine. I, of course, accepted this offer and worked very hard to perform all tasks and responsibilities to the best of my ability. Of course, I may have made mistakes here and there, missing a grammatical error or a spelling error, but who hasn’t? Either way, to say that I was elated about to be a part of this affiliation would be an understatement. That was until I had a disturbing interaction with the editor-in-chief, Evelyn that deflated my idealization of their publication. Despite conversations with two other editors and a plan to publish my article, Why I Have Recently Chosen to Disavow the Black Lives Matter Movement, I was informed by Evelyn that she would not publish my article. She rejected the article herself, stating that it was not my place to disavow this movement.

Believing that this was possibly the result of being an editor, I initially respected her opinion and asked if there could be a compromise. I asked if I could change the title and “tweak” the article so as not to vehemently “insult” anyone, although to be clear, this was never my intention. My only goal was to express my view backed by facts and encourage introspection and discussion with my peers. Nevertheless, I was told that I could not publish it as the magazine’s official stance is “anti-Zionist.” Immediately, this made me uncomfortable. Not only do I consider myself a proud Jew, but living in a region of the country where I am in a significant minority, I believe it is essential that I stand up for my beliefs. As John Milton said:

Truth will rise to the top through a free and open exchange in the marketplace of ideas.

At first, I attempted to rationalize the decision and tried to move on, but I just could not get this uncomfortable feeling to go away. As a result of the way I was raised by my parents, and in part from the underpinnings of the tenants of my religion which promotes questioning, argument, and discussion in the context of the learning process, I attempted to find a resolution. I asked if I could submit the article under the Op-ed category, thereby, presenting the article as an editorial in opposition to the magazine’s official stance, in hopes of facilitating education and discussion. Unfortunately, this suggestion did not go anywhere. Again, it was rejected, stating that it would just not “fit the magazine.” I continued to try and make sense of this response but struggled with the internal and ethical conflict I now felt about the affiliation. I didn’t understand why it wouldn’t be published if their very own website said, “We accept all ideas!” I found this to conflict with not only many ethical standards that I hold for myself but even their own handbook.

My views are different from the other writers I don’t know if I can write mine [sic]

Okay, still write it [sic]

Even their Write For Us page had been contradicted in the most blatant way imaginable:

You can write about anything you want!

I was now faced with an ethical struggle. I wanted to keep writing and editing, but I felt conflicted about working for a publication that did not allow for expression of all points of view. This became even more challenging as I continued to edit and publish anti-Zionist articles. I knew that I would not be able to do this for long without another outlet where I could express my thoughts and views that differed from those of the magazine. I had been unfair to myself by putting myself in an environment where I was targeted. I wanted to stay, but I felt like I had disavowed the Black Lives Matter Movement for being anti-Zionist, though I was not holding my place of work to the same standard.

At first, I was devastated but quickly realized this conflict provided me a great opportunity. In the rejection of my article, they had actually provided me with an excellent gift. As a result, I was able to reflect on the situation and realize that there was a need for space for young adults to have an open, free, and respectful exchange of ideas. I reached out to members of my temple’s youth group to discuss the idea. We felt there was a great need for a publication where different ideas and views could be published, a space where all points of view on any issue could be expressed and debated.

This lead to the birth of WTP Magazine. At WTP Magazine, we do not have specific stances on issues. It is a format for the open discussion and exchange of ideas for politically active, socially minded millennials. The opportunity to have an open debate and opposing views backed by facts is essential to healing the political divide and educating ourselves on issues.

As Max Andrews says:

We need to have substantive dialogue and allow reasonable room for dissent. There is no room for monologue in a genuine pursuit for the truth. We need to have our beliefs be accounted for by others. We need to have a desire for the truth and not be so dogmatic that what we currently believe is all there is. In the words of Augustine, we must “hear the other side.”

Unfortunately, not even twenty-four hours passed before I was contacted and told that this was a conflict of interest. I explained that I did not believe that there was a conflict of interest as the goal of WTP is to present and be open to hearing a point of view that is different from their own. They just did not see what I saw in WTP.

As a result of my experience, I have been able to identify a significant need for teens and young adults who are often overlooked when it comes to expressing their political, social, or cultural views. Free expression and open debate are methods that we can and should use to pursue the truth. Academic freedom and discussion are of the utmost importance in our education as well as social media, and they are the means by which we will achieve social justice and find common ground with others.

Our goal is to develop a space for public discourse, dialogue, and debate, based on a foundation of mutual respect leading towards civic knowledge, responsibility, and the common good. Unfortunately, the structures of contemporary society frequently limit and even prevent discourse of this nature. The “sound-bite” world of the media, the need for immediate gratification and the rapid flow of information on the Internet, are calibrated for immediacy, not sustained conversation. The emergence of Google, Twitter, Facebook, and the “blogosphere” have sadly lead to intellectual cocooning or narrowcasting that tailors much of the information we receive from our own interests. Our individualist tendencies to turn inward, while comfortable at times, prevent us from engaging different perspectives, learning and connecting with others. Wael Ghonim, one of the fathers of the Arab spring, dubbed the social media revolution, now says:

The same medium that so effectively transmits a howling message of change also appears to undermine the ability to make it. Social media amplifies the human tendency to bind with one’s own kind. It tends to reduce complex social challenges to mobilizing slogans that reverberate in echo chambers of the like-minded rather than engage in persuasion, dialogue, and the reach for consensus. Hate speech and untruths appear alongside good intentions and truths.

Democracy demands active and thoughtful participation and a willingness to engage with each other. Meaningful social relationships built on trust that results from this kind of discourse are essential to education, personal growth, and developing and sustaining a healthy society, economy, and democratic polarity.

As we move forward with dignity and respect, we will find ways to discuss with and actually hear each other. We can respectfully disagree, presenting differences without killing each other. We will engage in the free and open exchange of ideas in search of social justice and common ground. I am genuinely excited about this new journey and welcome all who want to come along.

[What Goes Around Comes Around]

Why I have Recently Decided to Disavow the Black Lives Matters Movement

Image: Charisma News

Everybody has heard of Trayvon Martin walking home from the corner store when George Zimmerman began following him and shot and killed Trayvon only seventy yards from his home. We all remember the trial where he was found not guilty, claiming “self-defense.”

In 2013, after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin, #BlackLivesMatter began trending on Twitter. The official international activist movement was founded that same day.

In 2014 and beyond, there was a myriad of innocent, young, black citizens killed, frequently by police officers, resulting in media coverage, public outrage, and growing protests. The killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in New York City, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland are only a few examples of the victims of the violence and culture of prejudice and profiling. With each death, the public outrage grew—as did the protests. We frequently saw visions of the protests in cities across America on the evening news, and still, the number of deaths grew as did the protests, often becoming more violent or militaristic in nature. The Black Lives Matter movement grew and gained national recognition. The movement became more active over time, regularly holding protests against police violence, killing of black people, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.

Since its inception, the movement has expanded their mission to include issues unrelated to their primary goals, such as the 2016 United States Presidential Election and the Israel-Palestine conflict.

For as long as I can remember, I have been a steadfast supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement, but learning of the issues placed in the Black Lives Matter platform has led me to the conclusion that, in good conscience, I could no longer fully endorse them.

Before delving into my concerns, I want to state, once again, that I firmly believe in the movement to reduce police violence against the Black community, reduce racial profiling, and promote the transparency necessary in our police and government agencies. With the abolishment of slavery, the long and hard fight of the Civil Rights Movement, and the election of our first African-American president, we like to think that we have moved beyond the prejudice and discrimination of our past. Sadly, hate, prejudice, and fear of others different from ourselves are very much alive today. The need to reduce discrimination and excessive violence against the African American community today has prompted the need for the Black Lives Matter movement.

However, leaders of the movement made a decision to include in the platform, issues beyond its original goal, resulting in discrimination against those who have time-and-again been an ally and a great supporter of their cause: the Jewish community.

Historically, the American Jewish community has been active in the Civil Rights Movement. Cooperation between the two communities peaked after World War II. The Jewish community, through their newspapers and other media, started to draw parallels between the experience of African Americans in the South and the Jewish Exodus from Egypt. They focused on how both groups would benefit from a society free of religious, racial, and ethnic restrictions. The American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, and Anti-Defamation League all played significant roles in the movement against racial prejudice. They made substantial financial contributions to several organizations like the NAACP, made up approximately fifty percent of the civil rights lawyers in the south, and half of all the white protesters who went to Mississippi to challenge the Jim Crowe laws in 1964. In the landmark ruling of the infamous Brown v. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court accepted the research of two married, black sociologists named Kenneth Clark and Mamie Clark that found segregation gave black children the impression that they would always be inadequate. The Clarks’ study had been commissioned by the American Jewish Committee.

As a conservative (religiously, not politically) Jew in America, agreeing with the Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on education, criminal sentencing, policing, and many other issues, I am personally devastated by their beliefs about Israel. I don’t know How they could completely disregard the history of the country that has lived with constant threat and been under attack literally since the day it became a nation.

I don’t understand how it is even possible to pass judgment on the State of Israel without a full evaluation of the facts and understanding of the history. They still judge Israel even though it is exactly like how it is impossible to judge their own movement without understanding the prejudice and the challenges for the African-American community in America.

[Israel is] a state that practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades.

Why should this even be a part of their platform?

With such beliefs about Israel, a lack of understanding of the history, and the constant threat, violence, and attacks launched upon Israel and its people, I can no longer, in good conscience, put my full support behind the Black Lives Matter Movement because of my firm support of Israel.

Both sides of the argument at hand between Israel and Palestine are strongly influenced by religion. According to the Talmud and Eretz Yisrael, Israel was promised by God to the Children of Israel. In his 1896 manifesto, The Jewish State, Theodor Herzl who has commonly been referred to as “the founder of the Zionist movement,” repeatedly referred to the Biblical Promised Land concept.

Muslims also claim rights to the same land in accordance with the Quran. Contrary to the Jewish claim that this land was promised only to the descendants of Abraham’s younger son Isaac, they argue that the Land of Canaan was promised to whom they consider the elder son, Ishmael, from whom Arabs claim descent. Additionally, Muslims also revere many sites holy for Biblical Israelites, such as the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount. In the past 1,400 years, Muslims have erected Islamic landmarks on these ancient Israeli Jewish sites, such as the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. The site was where according to the Bible Abraham took his son Isaac, offering him as a sacrifice as ordered by God.

Christian Zionists often support the State of Israel because of the ancestral right of the Jews to the Holy Land, as suggested, for instance, by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans in the Bible. Christian Zionism teaches that the return of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ, also suggested from the Letter of Paul to the Romans, specifically chapter eleven, saying, “The Deliverer will come from Zion.”

The roots of the modern Arab–Israeli conflict lies in the rise of Zionism and the reactionary Arab nationalism that arose in response towards the end of the 19th century. Territory regarded by the Jewish people as their historical homeland is also regarded by the Pan-Arab movement as historically and presently belonging to the Palestinian Arabs. Before World War I, the Middle East, including Palestine (later Mandatory Palestine), had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for nearly 400 years. During the closing years of their empire, the Ottomans began to espouse their Turkish ethnic identity, asserting the primacy of Turks within the empire, leading to discrimination against the Arabs. The promise of liberation from the Ottomans led many Jews and Arabs to support the allied powers during World War I, leading to the emergence of widespread Arab nationalism. Both Arab nationalism and Zionism had their derivative beginning in Europe. The Zionist Congress was established in Switzerland in 1897, while the “Arab Club” was established in Paris in 1906.

In the late 19th century, European and Middle Eastern Jewish communities began to increasingly immigrate to Palestine and purchase land from the local Ottoman landlords. At that time, Jerusalem did not extend beyond the walled area and had a population of only a few tens of thousands. Collective farms, known as kibbutzim, were established, as was the first entirely Jewish city in modern times, Tel Aviv, when the Jews had been kicked out of Jaffa Port.

Eventually, the British Foreign Secretary proposed the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which addressed the link between the Jewish people to the land and the development of a homeland for the Jewish people in Mandate Palestine. After World War I, the British were given a Mandate for Palestine, and in 1937, the Peel Commission suggested partitioning British Mandate Palestine into two states, an Arab state and a Jewish state. This idea was rejected at that time as “unworkable” and is blamed for the renewal of the Arab Revolt. After World War II, in 1947, the British turned the issue over to the newly formed United Nations. The result was the passing of Resolution 181, the partition of British Mandate Palestine into two separate nations, an official Arab state and an official Jewish state with a different internal regime for the city of Jerusalem, on 29 November 1947. The vote result was thirty-three to thirteen with ten abstentions. This plan of partition passed but was rejected by the Arab nations. Despite the fact that there was a formation of two separate nations, with the Arab state slightly larger than the proposed Jewish state, the Arab Nations found it more important to deny the formation of Jewish State than to have a new Arab State.

On May 14, 1948, Israel, accepting the United Nations resolution of partition, declared its independence, forming the State of Israel. Within hours, the combined forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with some troops from Iraq, entered the newly formed nation and began an attack on Israeli forces and settlements with the declared intent to destroy the new country and, once again, kill or exile all Jews. The war went on for approximately ten months with periods of cease-fire. As a result of the attack on Israel, Israel retained the original land from Resolution 181 in addition to increasing their land area by almost 50%. Egypt, specifically the Gaza Strip, and Jordan, specifically the West Bank, took the rest of the Arab territories. On December 1, 1948, there was a Jericho Conference that called for the unification of Palestine and Transjordan as a step toward full Arab unity, but no Palestinian Arab state was ever formed. As a result, there was a dramatic change in the region. Approximately, 700,000 Palestinians fled from their homes in the area that became Israel, and are now called “Palestinian refugees,” because their Arab neighbors refused to take them in. Additionally, approximately 700,000 Jews were expelled from their countries of residence in the Middle East. They immigrated and became citizens of Israel. The people of Israel had no intention of attacking of removing anyone from their home. They were happy to exist as two separate nations, yet the Arab countries were the ones who could not live with this solution. The Palestinian people are the unfortunate victims of the war and conflict started by their ancestors and Arab neighbors, not Israel or being expelled from the land.

In 1948, an Egyptian activist told reporters, “We are fighting for an Arab Palestine. Whatever the outcome, the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they’d like. In areas where they predominate, they will have complete autonomy,” but the Arab League later contradicted this statement by saying that some Jews would have to be expelled from a Palestinian Arab State. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, possibly the most influential leader that ever rose from British Mandate Palestine said in that same year that the Palestinians “would continue to fight until the Zionists were Annihilated.” The entire conflict is sad and horrific, but blame cannot be placed wholly on the State of Israel. I don’t get how blame can be placed solely upon a group of people constantly under the threat of annihilation, and only act in self-defense?

If one looks closely at the history and the decisions that have been made concerning security, borders, and access in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they will see that the actions taken by Israel have all been tied to safety and are in response to terrorist attacks. I can’t wrap my head around how the leaders of the Black Lives Matter Movement can realistically expect anyone, especially an American ally, to live every single day with such threat of terror and take no action to protect themselves. How can they expect Israel to not defend themselves when, under less risk of attack, we are willing to take greater steps right here in our country?

The recent rise in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS) puts pressure to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel and Israeli companies. The movement’s goal frames Israel as an “apartheid state,” discriminating and oppressing the Palestinians, and wants these sanctions in place until Israel no longer exists. This, unfortunately, misconstrues history and makes the Palestinians look like victims of the Israelis, when really, they are the victims of the unfortunate conflict started so many years ago by the Arab nations because they would not accept the creation of a Jewish state. They, in reality, are anti-Semitic Arab protesters who chose not to create their own state because they would not accept the United Nation’s resolution due to the inclusion of the creation of a Jewish state. If they had accepted the resolution in 1947, today, there would be two nations, an Arab state and a Jewish state, and hopefully, there would be more peace in that region of the world.

Today, more than eleven organizers of the Black Lives Matter movement have signed the Black Solidarity with Palestine Statement—one of many statements from the African American community confirming their support that for the Palestinians—which states they support the Palestinians because:

Israel’s widespread use of detention and imprisonment against Palestinians evokes the mass incarceration of Black people in the US.

I find this statement to be incorrect, misguided, and offensive in so many different ways. The utter lack of correlation and logic of this premise escapes me. Taking this view is turning a blind eye to the long-standing terrorism perpetrated against the citizens of Israel, the constant attacks against civilians, specifically children, restaurants, buses, and ambulances. The constant rejection of peace offerings makes clear that the only acceptable resolution is the destruction of the State of Israel in the eyes of the Arab nations, leaving the government no other option but to act to protect its citizens. It negates the role the Jewish community has played in the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, shows a lack of respect and understanding of the history of Israel, and the devastation, torture, and genocide of the Jewish people over the years. To view the Palestinian people solely as victims when the Arab nations were, in fact, the aggressors is a “slap in the face” to history and facts. To blame everything Israel is simply ignorant. The Arab nations exiled the Jews from their countries and then would not accept the Palestinian people into their land.

This is all just a sad consequence of the fact that so many years have passed and most people have forgotten how the whole situation and conflict began.

I will admit that Israel is not perfect. I, personally, do not care for the Likkud, Benjamin Netanyahu, or many of the actions Israel has done to further themselves from any chance of finding peace. Personally, I believe some of the policies implemented by Netanyahu are hurting Israel. For instance, the party’s increase of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, an area where the Jews who have agreed are Palestinian territory, thereby violating an agreement made between Palestine and Israel, is helping movements such as BDS or BLM paint a picture of Israel making them as the aggressors in this conflict.

No nation is perfect. Look at America’s history: slavery was legal and integrated into our culture. Even after it was abolished we have a long history of segregation, discrimination, and inequality (a fight that continues today). The American government placed Japanese in internment camps across the United States after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and then, there was the St. Louis, a ship carrying 935 Jews escaping the Nazis and heading towards Cuba which was, controlled by the United States at the time, and how only 26 of the 935 passengers were allowed to disembark. Many of the passengers had already filed for visas and made arrangements, granting permission to stay in Cuba until they received their United States visas. When US-based Jewish organizations tried to negotiate with the Cuban government to let the rest of the passengers in, the United States, felt it was a “specific and internal matter of Cuba,” and didn’t feel any need to intercede on the refugees’ behalf, sending them back to Europe facing a certain death. Months before the incident with the St. Louis, the 76th United States Congress rejected legislation that, would have allowed 20,000 Jewish German children to come to the United States to seek refuge. After all of this, how can Americans hold Israel to a higher standard than themselves?

To this very day, African Americans, Muslims, Jews, Latinos, and countless other ethnicities, races, religions, and nationalities are targeted in America, however, these same Americans fight Israel’s right to exist.

To blame Israel for protecting itself from the constant attacks seems hypocritical, even worse it is unacceptable. The BLM knows they would not accept it for themselves, and therefore, why should they expect Israel to live under such conditions?

To sum it all up, I still question why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is included in the Black Lives Matters movement’s platform, especially when this is a movement based on issues that need attention and with the right impact could do tremendous good here in the United States—to free a country from racism, prejudice, and racial profiling. I support the ending of all of these things and will do all that is in my power to help end prejudice and racism, to educate and bring equality for all, but if their purpose is to end all discrimination and racism, this cannot be achieved through the furtherance of discrimination and prejudice of others.

As Martin Luther King Jr. said in response to one student’s question:

When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism.

As long as the Black Lives Matters Movement has included these misguided and offensive issues in their platform, I sadly can no longer endorse such a movement.

[A New Journey: The Free and Open Exchange of Ideas]