USA – Page 3 – We The People

Illegal Immigration- 11.1 Million Lives in Limbo

There were 11.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States in 2014 according to the Pew Research Center. They made up 3.5% of the U.S. population and one-fourth of the US immigrant population. Since 2009, the population of undocumented immigrants has stabilized, meaning that the percentage of the US population that are undocumented immigrants has stayed the same (or very close to it). Therefore, the most important question in immigration policy today is what should the United States do with the undocumented immigrants already here.

Undocumented immigrants are problematic for various reasons. They often have to commit crimes like using a counterfeit driver’s license because they have no social security number. They also haven’t gone through the screenings that legal immigrants in our country have. Another problem is that employers could potentially take advantage of their vulnerability—they may be put in unsafe conditions and paid less than minimum wage, but they can’t report their employer to the authorities because they risk deportation. This is obviously a problem for the immigrants, but it also means documented immigrants and American citizens can’t compete for these jobs. Undocumented immigrants live in fear they will be deported which means they are less likely to work with the police and other authorities.

There are two solutions to this issue: deport all of these undocumented immigrants or give them a path to citizenship. Recently, the Trump administration has endorsed the idea of mass deportation. Marielena Hincapie, an immigration advocate, told NPR:

In my many years of practicing immigration law, I have not seen a mass deportation blueprint like this one. Trump is saying that everyone is now a priority. He is governing by fear, not by what’s best for the American people or for aspiring Americans.

As she points out, Trump’s new plan targets basically all undocumented immigrants, not just criminals. He has already looked at adding 15,000 officers to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and blocking federal funding from sanctuary cities.

Sixty percent of undocumented immigrants have been in the US for more than ten years, which gives reason to assume that they have become integrated into their community. In fact, one-third of illegal immigrants over age 15 live with a child who is a US citizen. CNN reported the story of Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant with two American children, who was deported February 8, 2017. Her deportation sparked protests as her children spoke against it. She was checking in with ICE when she got deported. A few years before, she had been caught using a fake Social Security number and lost her case. Since she was not a priority to be deported, instead of deporting her, ICE just did check-ins. She went to seven meetings with ICE and followed all the instructions they gave her. There did not seem to be any reason to deport her but, as the lawyer of another woman in the same situation stated, “When you have a blanket deportation policy you don’t need to have specific reasons, you just say no.” Garcia De Rayos’s situation is a common one, and now that Trump is in charge, all of these people who weren’t in danger of being deported because they were not a priority are now in danger of being deported. Critics say this policy does more to rip families apart than to keep America safe. The government is supposed to work to make American’s lives better, but deporting parents of US citizens is working against that goal. These children, who are US citizens, may be put in the care of an older sibling, sent to an unsafe or impoverished country, or landed in foster care.

Some children were not born in the United States, but were brought here at a young age as undocumented immigrants by their parents. Obviously, they had not been the ones to decide that their family would move to the US, but they have grown up knowing the United States as their only home. DACA stands for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It is an executive order signed by President Obama to grant undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children (dubbed “dreamers”) amnesty and work permits. Roughly 750,000 undocumented immigrants are protected under the program. These are people who were taken to the US before they turned 16. Some don’t even remember their native country. Even Trump has sympathy for their case; he has promised to keep DACA in place and says “it’s a very, very tough subject” because “you have some absolutely, incredible kids.” However, his word can’t be trusted. While he may be hesitant to undo the order due to fear of political backlash, he could just stop issuing work permits or deport people based on misdemeanors or find another way around the order. Kamal Essaheb from the National Immigration Law Center told CNN:

We cannot at this time offer a confident assessment of whether anyone—including those with DACA—are protected from enforcement.

Sadly, Trump definitely holds the power to deport the “dreamers” if he really desired to do so. This just seems cruel, especially since DACA only applies to law-abiding undocumented immigrants brought to America as children.

Logistically, a mass deportation just doesn’t make sense. The American Action Forum found removing all the undocumented immigrants in America would cost between $100 billion and $300 billion dollars, take 20 years, and shrink the GDP by $1.6 trillion. According to National Farm Workers Ministry, six out of ten farm workers are undocumented immigrants. If all those workers are deported, food prices in America might skyrocket as employers struggle to fill those positions and have to pay workers more. A shrinking GDP and higher food prices create difficulties for all Americans, and, remember, this is all to deport people who aren’t dangerous or causing problems.

Deportation is not as easy [or cheap] as it may sound. Some people are hard to deport. Only about half of the undocumented immigrants in America are from Mexico. 268,000 are from China, one of the twenty-three countries that do not cooperate with deportations, which means there is literally nowhere to deport these people. Deporting people from other countries like India, Korea or even El Salvador can be costly because they would have to be flown back to their countries of origin.

Now let’s consider the other solution, giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This plan would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship and would probably include temporary amnesty as they go through the process. It would mean safety for the families currently in danger of being ripped apart and the “dreamers” and every other undocumented immigrant who now has their life here and hasn’t broken any major laws. A change in administration would no longer decide whether parents can stay with their children or whether someone is shipped off to a country they haven’t seen since they were five, and if there are fewer people too afraid of deportation to report their bosses, employers in America would have to comply with American safety and minimum wage laws. Money would still have to be spent on border control and removing dangerous criminals, but less would be spent on deporting people. Some people claim giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship would encourage more people to come to America illegally. There is no data to back up this claim and logically the possibility, after living in America illegally for years, that you might get amnesty and begin the process to become a citizen is a weak pull factor when compared to the other push and pull factors involved with illegal immigration. These people are leaving their countries to escape extreme poverty, violence and in some cases oppressive governments. They come to America to get a steady income to support their families and a safe place to live. Simply giving these people a path to citizenship seems to be the best option regarding most of the undocumented immigrant population in America. For now 11.1 million people’s lives hang in the balance while the Trump administration tries to decide what to do with them.

Another Atrocity In Syria

Image: VOA News via AP Images

On the fourth of April, the Assad regime attacked civilian targets in Syria. A doctor in a hospital near the attack told CNN, “Today around 7:30 a.m., about 125 … arrived to our hospital. Twenty-five of them were already dead, 70% to 80% of the wounded people were kids and women.” He went on to describe symptoms indicative of a sarin gas attack. More than eighty-six people died in the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, a small town in Syria. The main hospital in Khan Sheikhoun was bombed as well. Neither of the attacks seemed to have any counter-terrorism purpose. In response, Trump fired fifty-nine missiles at the air base responsible for much of Assad’s bombing in Syria.

In 2013, a similar attack by Assad happened with very different results. Over a thousand people were killed in a sarin attack by the Assad regime in 2013. The attack was investigated by the United Nations and was a human rights scandal even though Assad had attacked his citizens with chemical agents before in much smaller attacks. In Syria’s six-year civil war, Assad’s regime has been accused of torture, sieging cities and starving innocent citizens, chemical warfare and other war crimes. Assad’s government is in a fight against rebel groups that include ISIS but is also an oppressive regime that has repeatedly targeted civilians instead of rebel groups and terrorists. Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, even conceded that Assad’s regime used chemical warfare. America’s previous policy did include removing Assad from office, but Trump’s air strike was the first American attack on the Assad regime.

Because it is backed by Russia and stands between ISIS and complete control of Syria, attacking the Assad regime could lead to a disastrous international fallout. This is why Assad has been able to use chemical warfare on civilians without fear of being attacked by a superpower. By attacking Assad, Trump attacked an ally in the fight against ISIS. America has supported rebel troops trying to overthrow Assad while Russia has supported Assad claiming that ISIS will take over Syria without his leadership. Opponents of Russia’s viewpoint claim ISIS has taken over much of Syria because the Assad regime was not stable enough to fight back well. If America continues to attack and possibly overthrow Assad, it would be up to the rest of the world to create a stable government fast enough to stop ISIS from taking over. It is also worth noting that citizens may be less likely to join ISIS or Al-Qaeda if they feel the West is doing something to stop the bombing and terror that comes with daily life in Syria.

Russia has already responded to the attack on its ally in a joint statement with Iran that says, “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.” This means if America attacks the Assad Regime again it might start a war with Russia and Iran. Once again the world may be teetering on the edge of a world war. But at the same time, how can America and the rest of the free world continue to allow a brutal and repressive government to abuse its people?

Trump added more frightening dimensions to the story by not getting congress’s approval before issuing the air strikes. This could be illegal and shows he is willing to attack countries without going through the necessary diplomatic steps. When Obama considered bombing Assad in 2013, he got congress’s approval, yet Trump neglected to go through the fundamental procedure. Trump has been criticized for his flippant statement on nuclear weapons while on the campaign trail; he even asked why we were making nukes if we weren’t going to use them, demonstrated minimal to no knowledge of the nuclear triad, and refused to promise not to nuke Europe. He also said we had to be unpredictable with nuclear power and said he was okay with countries such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia getting nuclear power. In some cases, he even encouraged it. He has also been criticized for suggesting that America should torture the families of terrorists and commit other war crimes. Because of these statements, it is especially worrying to see him bomb Assad without going through congress, in a move that can be seen as having little foresight. Next time, he may decide to drop a bomb on a city instead of an air base. Also, the decision has been criticized because it makes little sense strategically in that it did little more than anger Assad. Planes started taking off from the airbase America bombed less than 24 hours after it was bombed. Comedian John Oliver had made a joke, saying, “Delta passengers experience more significant delays on a daily basis.”
Thomas Friedman had said, speaking of the Syrian crisis, “If there were a good, easy solution it would have been found already.” The decision to fight Assad or let him do as he pleases without fear of retaliation is foreign policy at its most treacherous. Both choices have a very real human cost and a million repercussions, but to some extent, they also come down to how much Americans care about Syrians being slaughtered and living in terror. Enough to risk the lives of Americans? Enough to let them into our country? Enough to send money and aid?

As for the air strikes, many human rights advocates are just thankful a foreign power is finally standing up for the civilians of Syria. These people are being attacked by ISIS, other rebel groups and their own government in a brutal civil war. They face a perilous and often deadly journey to a refugee camp if they decide to leave. Whether you agree with Trump’s retaliation or not, keep the people of battle torn Syria in your thoughts.

What Goes Around Comes Around

We are living in turbulent times. Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear that we are a divided country. Hate crimes and antisemitism are on the rise and unfortunately, white nationalist and racist groups feel emboldened and supported to speak out publicly. This is only exacerbated with the ability to express these views through social media, in the comfort of your own home, without having to see the people you are harming face to face. This is a dangerous road to go down as it starts to normalize these thoughts, beliefs and actions. This can never be accepted or normalized. The only way to maintain our way of life and our democracy is through mutual respect, the free and open exchange of ideas based in fact and mutual respect. We need to acknowledge where we disagree and identify areas where we agree and can come together. Sadly, not all forums that promote themselves as a forum for free expression or open-mindedness have proven through their actions to fulfill this promise.

Living in the digital age, as we do today, you have to be careful about what you say, post, search and re-post on social media. When we are young, naive and/or impulsive, we have to remember that the things we write and post, on sites like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, that at times give us a false sense of anonymity, never go away. They reach real people, and when we least expect it, can come back to haunt you, at times with devastating consequences.

To help job-seekers better understand the role of social media in their job search, CareerBuilder.com conducted a survey in 2016 that asked hiring managers and human resource professionals how, and why they incorporate social media into their hiring process. Their survey found that 60% of employers use social networks to screen potential job candidates, up from 52% last year and 11% in 2006. With 49% of those hiring reporting that information found online had a negative impact on their hiring decision.

Our online persona does not only have an effect on hiring decisions, but according to the same survey, more than a quarter of employers found information online that caused them to reprimand or fire an employee. As one of the 89% of job-seekers on social media or, or one of those already employed, you will want to make sure that you are careful online. Rosemary Haefner, the vice president of human resources at Career Builder says:

Social media is a primary vehicle of communication today, and because much of that communication is public, it’s no surprise some recruiters and hiring managers are tuning in.

This, of course, does not only apply to those looking and applying for jobs. This could affect anybody. It has been widely reported that a review of social media is frequently completed by College admissions boards as part of the admissions process. We have heard countless news stories of the chaos created over the Presidents infamous tweets. Now, several days ago this hit much closer to home.

Just days ago, several insensitive tweets resurfaced from the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Affinity Magazine. These were tweets she had posted (+/-) 5 years ago. She had been my past employer, when I was a writer and Political Editor at Affinity Magazine. I previously parted ways with the magazine due to differing opinions and discrimination I suffered during my tenure. It was made clear that my articles would not be published as they were in opposition with the beliefs of the Editor-in-Chief, nor would she allow me to publish them anywhere else, despite this being part of the magazine policy. When I learned of her behavior and her tweets, I was saddened by the horrific comments, ashamed to have been connected to the impertinent things she said, but unfortunately was not surprised.

I, personally, was disheartened to see these sort of awful things from a magazine that brands itself as “the first social justice platform that directly caters to teens, while also addressing many significant issues that are often overlooked.” It is devastating to read some of the offensive and hurtful old tweets that have resurfaced at a time when we are in great need of a social justice magazine that accepts all races, cultures, nationalities, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and points of view. The last thing we need is to perpetuate division and hatred. A place where all can be accepted, share information and exchange ideas based in fact and mutual respect is what we so desperately need.

Having friends who are going through issues of uncertainty related to gender identity, coupled with the recent policy changes making it more difficult for transgender people, and the fact that Affinity Magazine attempts to cater to this community, having an LGBT+ category on their website. The tweet defaming the LGBT+ community is particularly repulsive and ironic.

I was surprised to see how she went after just about every minority or group of people different from herself in these abhorrent tweets.

Using derogatory slurs and stereotypes, there were rude tweets about Asians.

Amongst this mess, there were insulting tweets about Mexicans, calling them poor, illegal, and “durty,” and

hurtful tweets about over weight people, body-shaming and using demeaning words to describe them with disdain.

As one who was silenced when I tried to publish an article defending my Jewish identity, some of the most hurtful comments to me were the anti-Semitic tweets.

I am not sharing these tweets to promote her horrific words, or with the goal of blaming the entire staff. I must state, that it does not appear that the views expressed in these tweets represent those of the writers as a whole, nor was it my personal experience while working there. These appear to be the thoughts and beliefs of the individual or individuals who wrote them. Unfortunately, the writer(s) of the tweets were the one(s) who were in control and yielded power over the publication. As one who worked at Affinity, these tweets never represented my views, and I feel sorry for those who were working for a magazine where there is now such scrutiny when they may have had no involvement in the horrible things that were said.

Late in the day, on the third of March, the editor-in-chief of Affinity Magazine, Evelyn A. Woodsen (AKA Evelyn Atieno & Evelyn V. Woodsen), released a public statement on Twitter concerning the crude tweets:

Many old tweets have come to light recently. I understand the outrage and I am very sorry and sickened by the tweets I made when I was around the age of 14. Age is no excuse at all. I was not educated at the time about many issues in the world, and that’s what inspired me to start Affinity. I turned my old personal Twitter to the Affinity Twitter. Since then, I have done community work advocating for both men and women. Those old tweets don’t reflect the person I am now, Affinity, or Affinity’s writers. They were disgusting and I am. They were from over 6 years ago. Life is about learning from the past and working to better yourself. I have bettered myself and that’s shown through all of the work I have done now. I hope you all forgive my immaturity that I displayed when I was younger. I am ashamed of the person I was, but I assure you that’s not who I am anymore. Affinity was started so I could better myself and learn about the word [sic] and not be as ignorant as I was before. Thank you.

Personally, I believe that this apology does not duly address the countless offensive things said. I believe that, though she claimed age was no excuse, there was no reason to mention her age unless it was to help vindicate her actions. While she may have evolved in some of her views, it is clear through her continued actions and behaviors that her disdain for those different from her or with opposing views remains firmly in place. I would love to believe that she is genuinely regretful and apologetic, but based on her behavior—such as laughing at her anti-Semitic comments only three hours after her public statement, her repetitive stifling of ideas with which she does not agree, and dismissing those writer from the magazine for made up reasons—it is impossible to believe that she feels badly about anything other than getting caught.

The day after the discriminatory tweets were exposed, two articles were published about the “tweets” published and Affinity Magazine in an attempt to save the publication and resurrect their reputation. One article was written by a new member of their staff. The second article was by Evelyn.

The article by the new staff member of the Affinity team, describes his first couple days at Affinity, and why he believes the writers at Affinity should not be judged for any of the tweets. I understand that sentiment: and for the most part agree that the writers are not responsible for what was said and therefore should not be blamed. I have sympathy for them, having to answer for things over which they had no control.

Evelyn Atieno does not represent us, and her tweets do not represent the values that we hold on the Affinity Team.

Moving on to Evelyn’s article, she began by describing her goals when she started Affinity magazine.

My goal for this magazine was for it to be a platform for other teens, not just myself.

She goes on to explain how being raised in a conservative town influenced the way she saw the world. She said she believes that her recognition of her past mistakes shows character development and how much she has changed. She discussed her activism and how much she gives back to her community.

The day after those two articles were published, one more article was published about the good things that Affinity Magazine has to offer.

Affinity is a new wave of journalism that has given a voice to teenagers.

This article talks about how Affinity is a group of writers with many different views, and therefore, they believe you should not generalize things written by one person to the views of another. She talks about how Affinity gives teens a place to be heard would not have one otherwise.

Sites like Affinity offer a voice to people who otherwise would not have one.

She talks about the need for a free press and other points of view. She says its okay to disagree, but not to insult or demean somebody because of it.

A democracy cannot exist without free press. The news needs to exist even if you disagree with the way it is presented. This is why we must stop demeaning our journalists, even amateur ones like on Affinity. It is okay to disagree, but it is not okay to insult or demean someone simply because you don’t like their opinions.

All of the quotes from this article make great points and in theory are true. We are in great need of a free press and a place for teens to express their thoughts and views free from anger and judgment. This free exchange of thoughts and ideas needs to be based in fact and done with respect. This is how we learn, grow and come together as a society. This helps us educate ourselves on all aspects of an issue, find areas of agreement and ways we can work together for the betterment of society. This is democracy in action. Unfortunately, all of this is in direct contradiction to the culture and policy at Affinity Magazine and my experience while working there. In fact, these quotes—about the need for a free press and how Affinity is full of people with different points of view, and gives everybody a voice—directly contradict the explanations I was given on why I could not publish my article and why I had to leave the magazine.

It is disheartening to see this publication try and highlight an image of all the best qualities of their publication, yet, the image they are presenting is not based in reality and, to be frank, are utterly false. There is an old saying I have heard many times: when people show you who they are, believe them. This is the case here: when Evelyn thought no one was looking, she apparently felt free to be “herself.” She never gave it a second thought that she was doing this in the public forum of social media. Tweet after tweet, she showed us who she is. We must believe her. Affinity Magazine is sadly just an extension of the closed minded, prejudice that is so prevalent in our society. It is not the platform of social justice it claims and is so badly needed for teens today.

Please contact me if any of the facts are wrong. I simply presented the facts as they were laid out before me.

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]