Opinions
Pinkwashing & Israeli occupation – not so complicated
LGBT delegation missed chance to meet gay Palestinians
BY Pauline Park
“The concept of ‘pinkwashing’ emerged as a hot topic throughout the week,” Kevin Naff wrote of his participation as part of “a delegation of nine LGBT leaders from the United States” to Israel in November (“Israel as ‘gay heaven’? It’s complicated,” Times of Israel, Nov. 10). The delegation tour was sponsored by Project Interchange, a program of the American Jewish Committee, which is aggressive in its defense of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Naff quotes a speaker who addressed the group, Gal Uchovsky, as telling the delegates “that we had arrived in ‘gay heaven’” and that Israel is “the best LGBT country in the world” whose “LGBT residents face no serious problems that he could identify.” My Israeli friends would certainly contest Uchovsky’s absurd claim that LGBT Israelis “face no serious problems.” Fortuntely, Naff was able to recognize Uchovsky’s propaganda for what it was.
One would get a very different impression speaking primarily or exclusively with wealthy gay Jewish Israeli men in North Tel Aviv — as Naff and his fellow delegates seem to have done — than if one spoke with LGBT Israelis from more marginalized communities, including lesbians and bisexuals, who often feel marginalized by gay men in Tel Aviv and elsewhere in Israel; transgendered women, who face police harassment and brutality in Tel Aviv and other cities in Israel just as they do in New York and other U.S. cities; Israelis who face discrimination because of their of Mizrahi (Sephardic) Jewish ethnic origins; or refugees from Africa and elsewhere who may be LGBT (though not necessarily openly so) but who have no right to remain in Israel, because the state of Israel does not recognize non-Jewish economic refugees or those fleeing political persecution — regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
And that’s not even to mention the pervasive discrimination that Palestinians with Israeli citizenship face. As Prof. David Lloyd argued persuasively in a December 2013 analysis for the Electronic Intifada, the crucial distinction between “citizenship” (ezrahut) and “nationality” (le’um) in Israeli law privileges Jewish Israelis over Palestinians living in Israel because “citizenship” is in effect a second-class citizenship without nationality status.
“Some critics claim the country’s embrace of LGBT rights is merely a propaganda effort to claim the mantle of modernity and establish a stark contrast to homophobic regimes in the West Bank, Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East,” Naff writes. In doing so, Naff is in fact rearticulating the very discourse in which Uchovsky was engaging in when describing Israel as a gay paradise — the attempt to use Israel’s record on gay rights (supposedly better than that of its Arab and Muslim neighbors) as a justification for an Israeli occupation that is illegal under international law, or at the very least as a means to distract attention from it.
Naff’s delegation appears to have met with only one Palestinian — “a scholar and Fatah and PLO adviser,” Abu Zayyad. But meeting with a single official with the Palestinian Authority — widely viewed by many West Bank Palestinians as little more than a tool of the Israeli occupation — hardly constitutes balance when the rest of the tour was devoted to meeting with LGBT Israelis and Israeli officials.
“The focus of the visit — LGBT issues — was often overshadowed by the frustrating stalemate of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Why can’t the two sides come to an agreement on a two-state solution? It’s complicated,” Naff writes. And yet, is the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine really that complicated? For all of the complications and complexities of the situation, it is at root quite simple: the indigenous people who have lived in Palestine for centuries are being systematically dispossessed of their land and their rights by a foreign military occupation that is illegal under international law and that even the United States does not recognize as legitimate. And that occupation makes no exception for Palestinians who might be LGBT/queer, who face the same restrictions and daily humiliations living under Israeli occupation as non-LGBT Palestinians. And contrary to propaganda in circulation, Israel is not and cannot be a haven or a refuge for LGBT Palestinians because there is no such thing as refugee status for non-Jews in Israel, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Rather than hearing pinkwashing propaganda from the likes of Gal Uchovsky, Naff and his colleagues would have learned far more if they had met with Palestinian villagers and farmers under siege from Israeli settlers and the Israeli military in the West Bank, as I have. I participated in the first U.S. LGBTQ delegation tour of Palestine in January 2012 and met with many Palestinians — both LGBT and non-LGBT — throughout the West Bank, from Nablus in the north to Hebron in the south and Ramallah in between. Staying two nights with a Palestinian family in Dheishe in Bethelem, one of the largest refugee camps in the West Bank, I had the opportunity to speak at length with Palestinians about conditions in the occupied territories.
Naff expresses his disappointment with the decision of alQaws and Aswat to decline the invitation to meet with his delegation. AlQaws and Aswat, two of the leading Palestinian LGBT groups, are doing vital work on behalf of queer Palestinians under extremely difficult circumstances that no U.S.-based LGBT organization has to face. The 16 members of my delegation met with members of both alQaws and Aswat for extensive discussions about the impact of the occupation on LGBT Palestinians, and those discussions were productive and enlightening. It seems to me that Naff’s group of relatively privileged LGBT Americans should have recognized how problematic it was to demand that LGBT/queer Palestinians either facing pervasive discrimination within Israel or living under a crushing foreign military occupation in the West Bank engage them in dialogue, which is the privilege of the powerful. True dialogue is simply not possible when one party is holding a gun to the other’s head, which is what “dialogue” with a people living under a brutal and illegal military occupation represents.
I might add that members of Naff’s delegation could have found opportunities to engage with LGBT/queer Palestinians even before leaving the U.S. and could do so now that they are back from their tour; they can also feel free to engage members of New York City Queers Against Israeli Apartheid if they wish to hear our views on Palestinians and the Israeli occupation.
The conclusion I have come to is that pinkwashing does nothing for queer Palestinians and arguably makes things worse by generating more support for Israel and the occupation in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. The liberation of queer Palestinians is inseparable from that of Palestinian society as a whole; whatever privileges wealthy gay Jewish Israeli men may enjoy in the affluent districts of North Tel Aviv do nothing for queer Palestinians being crushed by a brutal and illegal foreign military occupation that is daily dispossessing more and more Palestinians of their lands and their homes.
Given the intransigence of the government of Binyamin Netanyahu — the most right-wing prime minister in Israeli history — and his determination to move forward with the ethnic cleansing of East Jerusalem and the de facto annexation of the West Bank, it seems to me that only boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against apartheid Israel will advance the cause of the peaceful resolution of the impasse that the Israeli government itself has created with its endless occupation of Palestine and construction of an apartheid regime.
Pauline Park is a member of New York City Queers Against Israeli Apartheid, founded in 2011. She was a member of the first U.S. LGBTQ delegation to Palestine in January 2012.
(Kevin Naff responds: After members of our LGBT delegation expressed concerns that we were not given access to more of the Palestinian perspective, Project Interchange arranged a follow-up conference call in November with Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy & Survey Research. I shared Pauline Park’s concerns over pinkwashing, but Project Interchange worked hard to present a balanced itinerary, which included visits to the West Bank, Ramallah and the edge of the Gaza Strip. I welcome Park’s invitation to learn more about NYCQAIA and will follow up with her.)
Opinions
Project 2025: A threat to LGBTQ elders and inclusive America
We must fight for a diverse country that protects all its citizens
In recent months, Project 2025, a conservative roadmap for a potential second Trump administration, has gained significant attention. While its proponents claim it will bring efficiency and reform to governmental operations, a more in-depth read of the document reveals a disturbing agenda that threatens the progress made across various sectors in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with particularly harmful implications for LGBTQ+ elders.
Project 2025 proposes a radical overhaul of federal agencies, with a specific focus on dismantling DEI programs. The plan views these initiatives as forms of “affirmative discrimination” and seeks to replace them with what it perceives as merit-based practices. This stance ignores the real-world benefits of DEI programs in creating more inclusive and equitable workplaces, particularly for marginalized communities like LGBTQ+ elders.
The proposal goes beyond merely eliminating DEI initiatives. It advocates for stripping workplace protections related to sexual orientation and gender identity from federal rules. This regressive move would leave LGBTQ+ individuals, especially older adults, vulnerable to discrimination in employment, healthcare, and housing – areas where they already face significant challenges.
LGBTQ+ older adults are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of proposed changes in Project 2025’s anti-DEI stance. This population already faces unique challenges, including higher rates of social isolation, poverty, and health disparities compared to their non-LGBTQ+ counterparts. The removal of protections and DEI initiatives could exacerbate these issues significantly, leading to increased discrimination in healthcare settings and potentially poorer health outcomes. Furthermore, the elimination of programs promoting inclusivity and social interaction could deepen the isolation experienced by LGBTQ+ elders, who are more likely to live alone and have fewer avenues of family support.
The economic and housing implications of Project 2025’s stance are equally concerning for LGBTQ+ older adults. With fewer workplace protections, they may face increased employment discrimination, potentially worsening their already precarious economic situations. This reduction in economic security could have far-reaching effects on their quality of life and ability to access necessary resources. Additionally, the potential reduction in support for LGBTQ+-inclusive housing initiatives could make it substantially more difficult for elders to find safe, affordable, and LGBTQ+-friendly housing options, further compounding the challenges they face in their daily lives.
The potential negative impact of Project 2025 extends far beyond LGBTQ+ elders, threatening to create a less tolerant and less inclusive society overall. By attempting to erase the progress made in recognizing and addressing structural inequalities, Project 2025 risks turning back the clock on civil rights and social justice initiatives. This regression could have profound implications for marginalized communities across the board, undoing decades of hard-fought progress in creating a more equitable society.
As we face this looming threat to LGBTQ+ elders and DEI initiatives, it’s crucial that we take decisive action. This includes raising awareness by educating others about the potential impacts of Project 2025 on vulnerable populations, advocating by supporting organizations fighting to defend LGBTQ+ rights and DEI initiatives, and exercising our right to vote to ensure that our elected officials support policies that protect marginalized communities. Additionally, we must continue to promote inclusivity in our workplaces and communities by championing DEI efforts and creating welcoming spaces for all. By taking these steps, we can work together to counteract the potential harm of Project 2025 and maintain the progress we’ve made toward a more just and equitable society.
Project 2025 represents a significant threat to the progress we’ve made in creating a more conscientious society. Its anti-DEI stance would disproportionately harm LGBTQ+ elders, a group already facing numerous challenges. We must stand against these regressive proposals and continue to fight for a diverse, inclusive America that values and protects all its citizens, regardless of age, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Kylie Madhav is Senior Director of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of SAGE.
Opinions
Progressive LGBTQ community should not throw conservative siblings under the bus
Queer people are not just Democrats
I have been an LGBTQ activist for almost 10 years, but I’ve never really felt like I’m a part of the LGBTQ community.
I remember how I was thinking about it when the idea of this article came to my mind: I was at a sex-positive queer event in a local library, at a book launch about neurodiversity and inclusion. It should be “my” topic: I’m a transgender autistic person after all. The event was amazing, wasn’t it? It was.
Only why did I feel so lonely, so out of place?
The folks around me felt like a community; most of them were so obviously gender non-conforming, obviously queer, and obviously leftists. They shared the same aesthetic, the same culture. But I was silently scrolling through my social media feeds, reading about the Chechen liberation movement’s history, weapons, and political news and my mind wandered. I was thinking about how I told my Chechen Salafi friend that I wanted to have a big family with eight kids and live in a village when I was a 4-year-old.
At four, I already knew that I’m not a girl, even if I didn’t have words for describing my condition. I have never heard about other trans* people. I was a trans* child without knowing it.
Then I became a trans* teenager in denial: A messy one, depressed, Christian fundamentalist teenager who compulsively read everything about the Cold War. An anti-leftist teenager who shared Henry Kissinger’s views on international politics and Ayn Rand’s view on the economy.
In my teenage years, I saw other trans* folks, but only on a TV screen. In mass culture, the trans* community is all about cross-dressing and drag queen parties in the worst case, and about being part of leftist social movement in the best. So, I couldn’t be trans*, couldn’t I? One of the reasons why it was so difficult for me to accept myself as a trans* was that I believed that if you are trans*, you should instinctively accept mainstream LGBTQ subculture.
I have changed a lot since then, and became an open LGBTQ activist, but when I read about Jessica Watkins, a transgender hardcore Donald Trump supporter who was arrested after the Washington riot on Jan. 6, I felt like she is the person I needed to hear about when I was younger.
I’m so not like her.
Watkins is an Afghanistan war veteran and a member of the far-right group Oath Keepers, and I’ve always, even in my childhood, hated the far-right, and have never supported the American invasion of Afghanistan. I do not think that I would like Trump populism and anti-intellectualism, even in my youth. But as a young transgender person, I desperately needed to see some proof that I could be trans* without falling into some social movement, that it is possible to be a transgender without having to fit into a long list of criteria from the mainstream LGBTQ community, and that transgender people could be different, just like everyone else.
This is why I felt outraged when some American LGBTQ people in social media supported a transphobic decision to put Jessica Watkins in a male prison.
On the eve of the 2024 presidential election, the situation worsened. The American LGBTQ community is taking a dangerous turn on excluding their politically “unreliable” siblings, and by doing it, helping anti-queer bigots to push their agenda of dehumanization of queer people in general.
Queer as a doctrine
Many homophobes believe the LGBTQ movement had some kind of ideology beside promoting equal rights. This myth existed for decades. In the Western conspiracy theories, homosexuality, and transgenderism are considered to be connected to leftist political schools of thought. During the McCarthyism era, LGBTQ people were discriminated against and sometimes even incarcerated partly because they were considered to be potential Soviet spies. It is a peculiar idea, because at the same time homosexual people in the Soviet Union were considered to be Western sympathizers. Or maybe it is less weird as it looks — people are often prone to be seen as a threat to someone who belongs to a minority they do not understand.
This is why many modern-day conservatives believe that if a child came out as queer, it means that this child was groomed by “cultural Marxism.”
But there is something else. The media — both progressive and conservatives — are to blame for this misconception.
The most common image of a queer person in the media is an image of a politically left, secular, eco-friendly, pro-choice person who likes to speak about their sexual kinks, has bright colored hair, and votes for Democrats. But if you would think twice, you would realize that all those things have nothing to do with being gay, bisexual, or trans*. It’s just some trends in LGBTQ community.
Some gay people are conservatives: Get over it
There are actually a lot of Republican LGBTQ. Some of them are quite prominent, like Richard Grenell, the former U.S. ambassador to Germany who was also the first acting director of National Intelligence during the Trump presidency, which made him the first openly gay Cabinet-level official. He is quite a controversial figure for an LGBTQ community because of his anti-trans* sentiments and for criticizing the Equality Act, but it doesn’t make him less “gayish.”
Gay conservatives often have a complicated relationship with their sexuality, struggle to accept themselves. Former Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock had a long history of fighting inner homophobia before he managed to come out as a gay man, but it is more likely going to change for Zoomer and Alpha generations.
The list of modern-day LGBTQ Republicans is quite big, and there are even groups like Log Cabin Republicans, or The Rainbow Pro-life Alliance.
LGBTQ Donald Trump supporters host their own MAGA events, “Trump UNITY,” and basically have their own “LGBTQ culture,” separated from a mainstream LGBTQ movement for quite clear reasons.
Of course, not all LGBTQ Republicans are pro-Trump, and even not all LGBTQ conservatives are Republicans.
The fact that LGBTQ conservatives exist nowerdays is nothing unusual or new. Even in the 70’s when being LGBTQ was something far away from the acceptable norm, there were some openly right-wing queers and queer rights supporters in America. Actually there is a big difference between being socially conservative authoritarian who sometimes even economically-left, and economically conservative libertarians, because those movements often hate each other.
American economic conservatives, libertarian-right politicians and thinkers, like Ralph Raico, speak up for LGBTQ rights, and this is the reason why some LGBTQ became libertarian-right.
As for a social conservative authoritarian right, there were gay people even among members of an openly Nazi organization, National Socialism League.
The times are changing, and there will be more conservative people, including Republicans, who would accept themselves like gay, trans* or bi.
As Neil J. Young, author of “Coming Out Republican: A History of the Gay Rights,” noted in one of his interviews, “the proliferation of more people who identify as LGBTQ will mean a growth of people who identify as gay Republicans.”
This is not just a Western trend.
Amir Ohana, a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party, for example, is the first openly gay Knesset speaker in Israeli history
Hence, even such an openly anti-gay movement as the so-called Islamic State somehow had gay people among their members — of course, those people have never openly said that they are gay because the risk of being executed, but it is known even in the authoritarian apocalyptic Islamist cult there were LGBTQ people. And while “ordinary” ISIS members were sometimes slaughtered for the accusation of being homosexual, high-ranking ISIS fighters like Abu Zayd Al-Jazrawi, a prominent Saudi fighter and commanders, who was accused of same-sex activity, was flogged or received a less serious sentence.
So, LGBTQ conservatives, including conservatives in quite extreme ways, are literally everywhere. Then why didn’t we notice them?
A self-fulfilling prophecy
Let’s put aside cases such as the possibly gay ISIS member, and think closer to home.
The reason why most visible LGBTQ Americans are progressive is not just about actual politics of Democrats and Republicans on queer issues, but partly is a self-fulfilling prophecy: After a gay, bi, or a trans* a young person became estranged to their conservative family, this person allied themselves with the mainstream LGBTQ community, who could reject him if it didn’t share their ideas.
So, LGBTQ youth have to make a choice that cis hetero kids don’t have to even imagine being forced to make. You could be literally anyone and be cis-hetero, but for being accepted as a queer person you are often forced to be part of a subculture.
By denying conservative LGBTQ people the right to be themselves, progressive media and LGBTQ activists made conservative anti-queer conspiracy about “cultural Marxism grooming” look more reliable, despite the fact that Karl Marx wasn’t particularly interested in sexuality and gender identity issues, and have nothing to do with modern minority rights movements.
But for conspiracists, gender identity and sexual orientation are seen not as part of human diversity, but something ideological.
Why do we need to change it?
The LGBTQ community is about gays, bisexuals, and trans* people. It is not about being left or right, Republicans or Democrats. The LGBTQ movement is a human rights movement at its very core; it is about the idea that you should have the same civil rights as anyone else. If we continue to deny politically “inconvenient” LGBTQ people those rights, we basically rob ourselves of a core idea of the LGBTQ movement. I strongly believe that Q-Anons and MAGA supporters in general are guilty of the deaths of some LGBTQ youth, especially trans* kids who died by suicide, because of the influence that Q-Anon’s “grooming” rhetoric has on the Republican mainstream nowadays, bringing back ideas from 80th Satanic panic and anti-queer conspiracy theories.
But if we would deny LGBTQ people who support Donald Trump their rights to be part of the LGBTQ community, we would be no better than the most hardcore MAGA supporters.
Civil rights have to be universal or they don’t work at all.
Even if we are speaking about rapist and a serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who also happened to be a gay man, it’s more than fine to say that he should be locked in prison for the rest of their lives, but in any we have no rights to discriminate against him because of his sexual orientation, or try to erase their homosexual identity to made gay community to look more “decent.”
LGBTQ people are human, and if we deny them a quality to make wrong choices or even different choices, we are denying them part of essential human traits. If we would go into gatekeeping, the core idea of LGBTQ activism lost its meaning.
A September 2024 poll by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation found that 95 percent of LGBTQ+ adults in the U.S. are registered to vote. This startling statistic is in sharp contrast to the general population, where only 69 percent of U.S. citizens over 18 years of age are registered to vote, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Further, the Human Rights Campaign poll found that 93 percent of LGBTQ+ adults are motivated to vote in the November 2024 election.
This poll suggests that sexual minorities, as members of the LGBTQ+ community, represent a significant and powerful voting bloc. A 2022 Gallup poll found that 7.1 percent of the U.S. population identifies with the LGBTQ+ community, with higher shares among younger generations.
Voter registration, perhaps in part, stems from social activism. Queer people are no strangers to the fight for human and civil rights. Hard-fought advances have been made by supporting elected officials who recognize and protect the queer community and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. Based on our decades of research on cities and culture and LGBTQ+ studies, we suggest three reasons that the LGBTQ+ community is registered to vote at record levels and motivated to vote.
• The LGBTQ+ community is motivated to participate, engage, and act. Through a long track record of fighting for rights through protest, strategic lobbying and grassroots action, members of the LGBTQ+ community have fought many hard-won battles. Victories for LGBTQ+ people include federal legislation and U.S. Supreme Court actions that have expanded the legal rights of LGBTQ+ citizens in marriage equality, military service, and hate crime protection.
Though many rights have been gained by LGBTQ+ people, the status of these rights remains tenuous and under assault. Still elusive, for example, is equitable access to employer healthcare for same-sex couples and spouses and equal protections in workplaces; distressingly, it still remains legal for businesses to choose not to provide services to members of the LGBTQ+ population, which was re-affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2024. This license to discriminate perpetuates oppression against sexual minorities by setting up social boundaries.
• LGBTQ+ rights are threatened with assault, making the 2024 November elections urgent. Project 2025 threatens the societal well-being of individuals who identify as LGBTQ. Many members of the LGBTQ+ community are worried by the bellicose insinuations made in the Project 2025 policy platform published by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 would undoubtedly constitute an unofficial policy agenda if he is re-elected. Project 2025 threatens to strip away equal rights for many minority groups, including the LGBTQ+ population. The plan views sexual minorities and same-sex relationships as inconsistent with conservative family values, and it would seek to abolish, if not overturn, same-sex marriage.
Project 2025 is not only dangerous to those who lean left politically, it is dangerous for everyone as it undermines well-established law, practice, and precedent in our country. It is authored by a group seeking to circumvent the legal structure to set policy in a way that has never been done before in America. To further its radical agenda, Project 2025 proposes constitutional amendments and a revision of the way our government conducts business. Surprisingly, aside from serving as a talking point, Project 2025 remains largely unaddressed by the left, with the current administration taking no concrete action to address it.
• The LGBTQ+ community is motivated to vote in any election because LGBTQ rights are constantly under threat. With Project 2025, the upcoming November election becomes increasingly important to LGBTQ people, because Project 2025 squarely places LGBTQ+ rights under direct attack with the immediate threat of being rescinded or retrenched.
The LGBTQ+ community possesses meaningful experience fighting for equal treatment. For centuries gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer individuals have been scrutinized, harassed, and treated differently by heteronormative society. LGBTQ+ people have learned how to organize, how to band together for safety, and how to motivate communities into action.
If LGBTQ people formed their own political party, it would surely be a successful one. If the LGBTQ+ voting bloc were its own party, it would count an endless string of firsts among the elections of governors, senators, mayors, and scores of others. Democrats love LGBTQ people, because LGBTQ people vote for Democratic candidates more frequently. While some Democratic politicians have helped in the ongoing fight for LGBTQ rights, far too many have stood by silently while rights came under assault. Republicans sometimes surprise the LGBTQ community in providing support for LGBTQ individuals, but too often Republicans are swayed by a larger, wealthier, and more vocal constituency, the religious right. This dichotomy is often portrayed by the media as a simple tug-of-war between LGBTQ people and religious conservatives. However, like many issues, the nuance is less straightforward, and in fact, a fair number of LGBTQ individuals also define themselves as religious. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.
The fact is, LGBTQ individuals are routinely faced with a tough choice between the lesser of two poor choices, with no party willing to actively—and consistently—join the fight for LGBTQ rights. Regardless, the astonishingly high share of LGBTQ adults signaling enthusiasm to vote in our upcoming elections strongly suggests that the fight for civil and human rights is not finished, and that LGBTQ people will not rest until all sexual minorities have achieved full and unquestioned acceptance in society and have been granted undeniable equal rights and protections under the law.
Alex Bitterman is a professor in the Department of Architecture & Design at Alfred State University. Daniel B. Hess is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo.
-
Local4 days ago
Alsobrooks leads Hogan in Md. Senate race: polls
-
Politics4 days ago
Meet the LGBTQ candidates running in key races from U.S. Senate to state houses
-
Politics3 days ago
Gay members of Congress challenge Vance over the ‘normal gay guy vote’
-
District of Columbia4 days ago
D.C. police investigating anti-gay assault at 14th & U McDonald’s