There are a few points that I'd like to explore in this week's discussion response.
1. The first is the criticism that Israel "pinkwashes", or flaunts and exaggerates its LGBTQ-friendly legislation and national attitude in order to garner the support and admiration of other nations and liberal citizens of the United States, especially.
2. The second is the criticism that Israel is violating basic tenets of human rights (under international law).
3. The third is the perplexing fact that, after the acknowledgement of the obvious fact that yes, Israel is guilty of human rights abuses, pro-Palestinian activists and others on the far left side of the political spectrum (which is where I myself stand) still fail to acknowledge or recognize the multitude of other human rights crises around the world that are exponentially worse than that of the residents of the West Bank & Gaza.
1. Yep. It does. It uses the face of its LGBT population as a diplomatic tool. It tries to make it seem as if Israel is 100% LGBT-friendly when it in fact is not. Israel, just like the United States, still denies LGBT couples the respect they deserve by barring them from marriage and the entire list of rights and privileges that come along with marriage. However, the claims made on promotional postcards or internet banners advertising Israel as an LGBT haven are that it is a beacon of hope for LGBT acceptance in the Middle East and that members of the LGBT community can live among society just as anyone else would and that there is a vibrant LGBT community thriving within Israel while just miles away in other Middle Eastern countries people do not dare to come out for fear of losing their jobs, licenses, families, friends, and even their lives. These claims are as true as they are in the United states and Israel has every right to be waving them around like oversized rainbow flags at the Jerusalem Pride Parade each year. People who fixate on Israel's pink washing are just distracting from the more urgent issues of homophobia in surrounding countries and in the Palestinian territories. Perhaps this is because they care more about the issues of Palestinians than they do about the issues of the LGBT community, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Everyone has their priorities, but it's important to gain perspective and not attack those who are making strides in your issue-area while others are centuries behind the times.
2. Yep. It absolutely is. Just to use one example, it's tight grip of the transport of goods and people across borders in Gaza and the West Bank is damaging and unacceptable, even in the face of the radically decreased instances of Palestinian terrorism. Israel doesn't treat the Palestinians the way they should be treated--beginning and end of story.
3. Is this because of the activist's devotion to the region? Are they purely and solely concerned with what goes on in Israel and the territories and do they not really care about things that happen elsewhere in the world? If so, then fantastic. It's great that these people are dedicated to this one area and their one cause and they know what they want and how they feel and why and they're living in ways that are meaningful to them by championing this one cause. However, I do not believe that this is the case for the majority of pro-Palestinian activists today, especially not the American activists. American pro-Palestinian activists don't seem to acknowledge that there is not a single democracy in existence that is free of discrimination and mistreatment of marginalized populations, and that there are regions in the world where imperial legacies or corrupt ruling parties have created exponentially more hideous examples of human rights abuses (the Congo, North Korea, Russia, etc). Have these activists just given up on the issue of US abuses of Native Americans that continue still today? Are these activists blind to the killing of black youth and the funneling of them into prisons that is perpetuated by egregious US laws and deeply engrained prejudice? I have never received a satisfying answer to these question--does anyone have any insight?
In reference to your third point here, I totally agree and have noticed that. I have also noticed it in relation to other human rights issues as well in which people only focus on the one specific thing they have attached themselves to and ignore all other human rights abuses in other parts of the world. I agree that it's great for someone to feel so strongly about one issue and dedicate their lives to pursuing a solution. But I also think that part of being an activist is recognizing all injustice and acknowledging it when you see it. It's hypocritical to focus on one issue only and then not care at all about anything else, as that is exactly the type of behavior activists fight against. This is not to suggest that these activists don't care or don't recognize human rights abuses, but it definitely shows that the scope of their focus needs to be widened to understand what's going on in other parts of the world.
ReplyDeleteAn example that I've personally experienced is a girl I know who cares very much about issues surrounding feminism and the LGBTQ community (I told you about her at Stauf's). It's great that she wants to focus on these things, but in the mean time, she completely ignores the male component of the LGBTQ community. She forgets that feminism relates to equality for everyone, not raising women "above" men. The type of things she posts on social media and the way she interacts with people is completely offensive to men and women alike. It's the focus on only one issue that narrows her way of thinking and gives feminism a terrible name. While trying to fight for one cause, she's hampering the efforts of other causes and it's really disappointing for those who may, under other circumstances, agree with some of what she has to say. She alienates other groups of people by not recognizing that many men also encounter issues pertaining to simply being men (for example, men who feel that they have to be "masculine" or heterosexual to be accepted by society).
That is a slightly different analogy, but it's still along the same vein of what you're describing. It's the focus on one issue without exploring others that's completely mind-boggling. I don't see how someone could focus on the issue of Darfur but not feel equally as moved when thinking about Somalia. Of course no one can stretch themselves so thin as to try to do something for all of these communities, but they do need to recognize, when presented with the information, the horrors of what happens all over the world and what's right in front of them. A lot of activists don't do that. I have found what you're describing in various activism groups, perhaps because their focus is that group. And again, people can't always focus on such a wide range of things to which they want to dedicate their lives and narrowing down one's focus is necessary, but narrowing recognition of human rights is completely unnecessary and hampers the efforts of human rights activists everywhere.
Sorry for the lengthy reply, but I wanted to respond to your thoughts on that because I've also seen it many times.
Thank you for your critical, well-reasoned, and interesting post. I enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that the United States and Israel both don’t treat LGBT individuals as 100% first-class citizens. In the US for instance, many states still outlaw same-sex marriage. In Israel, there IS no same –sex marriage. I also agree that Israel by far has a much better record on LGBT rights than surrounding countries. The lot of LGBT individuals in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia is just truly objectionable. I also agree that people would be stretching themselves quite thin in attempting to advocate on behalf of all the world’s worthy humanitarian causes—there are just too many, and the issues involved so complex and multidimensional. Understandably, some people choose to focus on just one or two issues in their advocacy efforts.
ReplyDeleteI think there’s a problem with the argument, though, that activists are being hypocritical and narrow-minded in only focusing on Israeli human rights abuses in the context of the Occupation when great strides are being made in the area of LGBT rights in Israel. Because this argument ignores the fact that many of the people arguing against Israel’s supposed pinkwashing are LGBT individuals themselves who might identify first as LGBT, and then view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through that lens. In this sense, I don’t think at all that they are being overly-narrow in their focus. In fact, it is they who are seeing connections between the struggle for LGBT rights and freedoms and the Palestinians’ fight against the Israeli occupation. I believe a lot of LGBT people view their struggle as being intimately intertwined with that of all oppressed people, including Palestinians living under occupation. For instance, see this quote by Hagai El-Ad—originally with Jerusalem Open House, and now Executive Director of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. On a visit by Ariel Sharon to meet a “gay delegation” in 2002:
Is this an achievement for our community, or an example of a lack of feeling, callousness and loss of direction?
... It would be unbearable to simply sit with the prime minister and, on behalf of our minority, ignore the human rights of others, including what's been happening here in relation to Palestine for the past year: roadblocks, prevention of access to medical care, assassinations, and implementation of an apartheid policy in the territories and in Israel.
The struggle for our rights is worthless if it's indifferent to what's happening to people a kilometre from here ...
All we get by holding the meeting with the prime minister is symbolic legitimacy for the community. What he gets for sitting down with us is the mantle of enlightenment and pluralism. (http://www.thegully.com/essays/israel/020220_gays_meet_sharon.html)
Regarding your second point: I’m certainly not disagreeing with your argument, but I’m curious to know if you’ve spoken about this issue with pro-Palestinian activists? I know some and personally haven’t asked them this yet, so I’m definitely curious to know. I think they might say any of several things: the first one might be that they have family living in the area, and so feel a personal connection to the issue. Others might say that it’s true that there are human rights abuses in other parts of the world, and that they have been vocal on those issues as well (for instance, I know there are many pro-Palestinian activists who are members of the International Socialist Organization and who have been active on anti-sweatshop campaigns, for example). I think there are also those who will make the argument that, at least with regard to the BDS movement, it was Palestinian civil society itself that issued a direct call for activism. If civil society in other parts of the world called for a similar movement, they might (hopefully) feel compelled to act as well. Just my thoughts, but I really appreciated your post!
Thank you both so much for the amazing comments!
ReplyDeleteI'll respond in two separate comments.
to Rachel:
I thought of that girl, too, when I was thinking about this. Alienation is just not the way to go in activism. I agree, neither is a narrow scope. You're right--you can't spread yourself too thin or else you won't be able to make meaningful change in the areas in which you're interested, but again as you said, it is important to also be aware of things that are happening outside everyone's individual realm of interest.
to Brian:
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your response, thanks! I agree with the connection you make by observing that some LGBT activists view the I-P conflict through this lens and associate the LGBT struggle with that of other historically oppressed peoples (I lead a Passover Seder every year at OSU Hillel called the "Rainbow Seder" that connects the story of the Jews' exodus from Egypt and persecution throughout history with that of the LGBT community--it rocks and you should totally come this year).
The quote you chose is also perfect for this topic--the practice of politicians using a variety of different minority populations as photo-ops and reputation-boosters is commonplace and NOT COOL. It is trivializing, it is fake and dishonest if those politicians don't support those populations with proper legislation, and it is ultimately, I believe, harmful to the future rights of those communities.
I have discussed this issue with most/all of my pro-Palestinian friends and their responses are similar to what you posted, but all of them evaded discussing the contradictions in their ideologies and practices(BDS for example, a movement with which I find a lot of fault) when I asked about them. It's something I definitely am still looking for answers to.
Thanks for your reply, Sophie! And that sounds really cool. Let's talk tomorrow about that, as I'd really like to attend!
ReplyDelete