Opinions
Julie Dorf’s column on Israel and Gaza was interesting, but disturbing
It’s a mistake to reject a two-state solution
Julie Dorf is co-chair of the Council on Global Equality (CGE). She says she wrote the position for CGE calling for a cease fire in Gaza. It is a well-crafted statement and I generally agree with it. It was written on Oct. 31 and called for negotiated release of all the hostages.
In Dorf’s piece in the Washington Blade, “The War in Gaza impacts all of us and democracy too,” she goes way beyond CGE’s position, and states her own views, not CGE’s. While I do agree with some of what Dorf writes, I found her going around in circles to get to her points. Yes, these are very complicated issues, especially for a Jew. What I got out of her column is she considers herself a progressive Jew, who doesn’t currently believe the State of Israel should remain an independent state as it is now.
I am not sure of her definition of a ‘progressive Jew.’ Does she use the word to associate herself with those who call themselves progressives in American politics? Those like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)? Today, progressive is a charged word in many ways, easy to use, but with potentially many definitions. Dorf apparently believes it is not important for the Jewish community to have the State of Israel, but rather there should be one state in the location, made up of both Palestinians and Jews, and anyone else who wants to be there. She clearly rejects the two-state solution, that many in the world aspire to see.
Even though she admits Hamas is a terrorist organization, she seems to see Hamas, and the Palestinian people, as one. She calls Oct. 7 “a major uprising by Palestinians.” I differ with that as I don’t see the Palestinian people as terrorists. I also would ask her how Israel could accept being in one state with Hamas whose stated mission is to see Israel wiped from the face of the earth. Dorf also seems to conveniently disregard the many surrounding states that have signed treaties with Israel, including the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, and Sudan, which joined Egypt and Jordan who have had long ties with Israel.
Dorf lost me a little when she began her column stating she was glued to Al Jazeera to get her news, and called Israel’s initial response to the Hamas attack on their people, vengeful. Then she goes on to claim pinkwashing as a reason to claim we should not support Israel. Interesting for a leader of an LGBTQ organization, though I know she isn’t the only one to do it, to attack a country for their support of the community. Then Dorf makes no more mention of the hostages still being held by Hamas, though she did mention them back on Oct. 31, when she wrote her cease fire position for CGE. Does she blame Hamas at all for not releasing them? She of course doesn’t mention how Hamas has hidden behind, and below, civilians in Gaza, a fact shown to the world. Some in the world are accusing Israel of genocide. But isn’t genocide the intent to do away with a people. Israel has not tried to do away with the Palestinian people. The world has not tried to do away with the Palestinian people. In fact, in 1948 they were offered a state of their own, a two-state solution, which they turned down. On the other hand, Hamas has said they want to do away with the Jewish people.
I am for the Palestinian people ridding themselves of Hamas, and the Israelis ridding themselves of the Netanyahu government. I am for getting rid of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. I believe the land they are on would be part of a Palestinian state, if we can move toward a two-state solution, which I believe in. If we can ever move toward that, the world must be ready to pour billions of dollars into a new Palestinian state. That money will be needed to set up a stable government, with a stable economy. A place where every family, every child, will have the ability to live in peace, and grow up to be anything, and everything, they want to be.
There is much to unpack in Dorf’s column, but based on the goal of the Council on Global Equality, I am not sure how a one-state solution would help LGBTQ people. Would that one state have laws in place as they are now in Israel, to protect the community, or would it have the laws now in place in most Arab nations?
She uses the term Zionist, for those who supported the founding of the State of Israel. The modern use of the term representing an organized nationalist movement, Zionism is generally considered to have been founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. But it is a term that goes back much earlier. Funny, I never considered myself a Zionist although I support the State of Israel. I see Israel as a democratic country. I was there between two wars, in 1970, visiting distant relatives who founded a Kibbutz there. I am a first generation American whose parents escaped from the Nazis, and whose grandparents, on my father’s side, were gassed in Auschwitz. I do understand how important Israel is for the Jewish people. Dorf admits there is a dramatic rise in anti-Semitism around the world, and to me that makes the survival of Israel even more important today, though she clearly doesn’t see that.
I agree with Dorf that we need a cease fire. But if Israel unilaterally calls a cease fire, which they should, what should we expect from Hamas? Dorf doesn’t deal with that. Again, I separate Hamas from the Palestinian people, which Dorf doesn’t. I want Israel to let food and medicines into Gaza now. I want them to allow NGOs into Gaza to rebuild the healthcare system. But in return I want Hamas to release the hostages, and if they expect Israel to willingly allow them to continue to exist, they must change their stated mission of wiping Israel off the face of the earth.
As Jews, we will continue to disagree on some of these issues, and the future of the State of Israel. We will disagree on whether the United States should continue to support Israel. I think they should. But we will agree, however it is accomplished, the Palestinian people must be allowed to live in peace and safety.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
Opinions
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America
Our endorsed candidates hold their affiliation as a badge of honor
D.C. is the place for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). We believe in a District where everyone can live a happy and dignified life. That means housing, healthcare, transit, education, and safety are treated as guarantees rather than privileges reserved for the wealthy and well-connected.
Our endorsed candidates do not hide what they believe. They engage in the democratic process openly, explain their politics clearly, and ask their fellow members to spend long nights and weekends doing the hard work of campaigning. And as the last six years of local elections have shown, including three successful D.C. Council campaigns and the overwhelming passage of Initiative 82, D.C. voters are often a great deal more interested in the endorsement of Metro DC DSA than in the handwringing of the Washington Post editorial board.
That is what makes Peter Rosenstein’s April 2 op-ed in the Blade so revealing. His piece was not just wrong. It was smug, unserious, and politically disconnected from the actual lives of queer people in this city. Worse, he used the platform of our local LGBTQ outlet to disregard Palestinian humanity while scolding democratic socialists for refusing to join him in that moral failure. Put plainly, Rosenstein has been publishing crank op-eds for years, and this one was no exception.
My name is Hayden Gise. I am a transgender, lesbian, Jewish, Democratic Socialist, and I am a union organizer. I do not speak on behalf of the national DSA organization, the local chapter, or any campaign. But I will not sit quietly while Rosenstein wraps himself in the mantle of queer Jewishness to sell the lie that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
He packages that lie in the same kind of pinkwashing rhetoric used by Benjamin Netanyahu, who mocked solidarity with Palestinians by saying, “Some of these protesters hold up signs proclaiming ‘Gays for Gaza.’ They might as well hold up signs saying ‘Chickens for KFC.’” Rosenstein’s liberal Zionism is not thoughtful, brave, or nuanced. It is just a more polished way of telling Palestinians their lives matter less and telling queer people we should be grateful for the empire so long as it flies a rainbow flag. Which, by the way, is showing itself to be a losing strategy.
The ongoing genocide in Gaza is not some tragic deviation from the history of an otherwise peaceful Israel. The Nakba was the mass expulsion and displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s establishment in 1947–49, when hundreds of thousands were driven from their homes. My Jewish values tell me that is wrong. Rosenstein’s politics treat anti-Zionist Jews like me as illegible. No serious person should treat that accusation as an argument.
But the deeper problem with Rosenstein’s piece is that he has no real understanding of why Democratic Socialism resonates here. For queer people in D.C., Democratic Socialism is not an abstract theory. It is rent that does not consume half your paycheck, a union on your job, childcare you can actually afford, public transit that works, and a city where working-class Black and brown queer people are not displaced so developers and donors can cash in. Queer politics is not only about recognition. It is also about whether ordinary people can afford to survive.
That is why D.C. is fertile ground for Democratic Socialism. In the race for mayor, one of the leading candidates is Kenyan McDuffie, whose campaign already looks like a focus-grouped merger of Andrew Cuomo’s slogan and Donald Trump’s graphic design instincts, backed by big business interests and the super PAC money that follows them. The other has the endorsement of the major labor unions in the District. Who has a cohesive vision to make D.C. more affordable and childcare universal. Who puts people over profit and human rights over political expediency. Our next mayor, and our first Democratic Socialist Mayor: Janeese Lewis George.
D.C. is exactly the kind of city where Democratic Socialism should grow: working-class, queer, tenant-heavy, union-minded, and tired of being told that dignity is too expensive. Which side are you on? I know what side the queer people of the District of Columbia will be on.
Hayden Gise is a union organizer in Washington, D.C.
For half a century, the arc of LGBTQ progress in America has bent—slowly, imperfectly—toward justice. We fought for visibility, for legal protections, for the right to marry, serve openly, and live with dignity. Each generation built on the courage of the last.
And yet today, that progress is in peril. Across the country, lawmakers are rolling back protections, demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain, and trying to erase us from public life.
Opponents of our equality are working to erase us from the Constitution, and indeed, public life. In moments like this, based on my personal involvement working with one of the most effective leaders for LGBTQ rights I find myself asking a simple question: What would Jeffrey do?
Jeffrey Montgomery—the focus of a new documentary “America You Kill Me” and a long time Michigan activist and founder of the Triangle Foundation—was never content with quiet advocacy or compromise. He was a rabble-rouser, a strategist, and a relentless thorn in the side of powerful bigots. When politicians tried to marginalize LGBTQ people, Jeffrey didn’t politely ask for scraps. He forced the issue.
Jeffrey Montgomery started with his own determined voice and turned it into a movement. His story is living proof that personal courage can spark national conversations about justice and inclusion.
At a moment when the LGBTQ movement again faces hostility and regression, Jeffrey’s playbook offers lessons we would be wise to remember.
First, Jeffrey understood the importance of punching above our weight. In the early days of LGBTQ organizing, our movement was small, underfunded, and politically marginalized. But Jeffrey refused to let opponents see us that way. Through visibility, media savvy, and relentless organizing, he made LGBTQ advocates appear larger, stronger, and more unified than our numbers alone might suggest.
That perception mattered. Political opponents think twice before attacking a movement that looks organized, energized, and capable of mobilizing public pressure. Jeffrey knew that power is partly about reality—but also about what your opponent believes your power to be.
Second, Jeffrey never compromised on the value of our lives. Movements make compromises all the time. Politics often requires it. But Jeffrey understood that some things are not negotiable. The basic humanity of LGBTQ people is one of them. You can’t put our basic rights on the ballot. You don’t tell people to wait their turn. There are no turns. It’s now. It’s always now.
Too often, our opponents frame equality as something to be bargained over—as if the dignity and safety of queer people were a policy preference rather than a fundamental right. Jeffrey rejected that premise entirely.
You can negotiate strategy. You can negotiate timelines. But you cannot negotiate the worth of human lives.
And finally, Jeffrey understood the power of coalition. Today, one of the most effective tactics used against marginalized communities is division. If LGBTQ people can be fractured—by identity, ideology, generation, or strategy—our collective strength weakens.
Jeffrey instinctively resisted that trap. He worked with civil rights groups, labor leaders, faith communities, civic leaders and allies across movements. He understood that the fight for LGBTQ equality was never isolated from the broader fight for justice.
When opponents try to divide us, the answer is not retreat into smaller camps. The answer is to build broader ones.
If Jeffrey Montgomery were here today, he would not be discouraged by the backlash we are seeing. He would recognize it for what it is: the predictable response of those who feel their power slipping away.
And he would remind us that progress has never been linear. It has always required courage, persistence, and a willingness to challenge power directly.
So, when the moment feels uncertain, when the political winds shift against us, and when our opponents try to make us feel small, the question remains a useful one: What would Jeffrey do?
If history is any guide, the answer would be simple. He would make some noise. And making noise, today, means refusing to let fear, fatigue, or false unity quiet us when our lives are on the line.
Sean Kosofsky was director of policy at the Triangle Foundation.
Opinions
D.C. not the place for antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America
Candidates like Janeese Lewis George should reject its endorsement
D.C. is not the place for the antisemitic Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who advocate for the end of the State of Israel from the ‘river to the sea.’ The candidates they endorse agree to their platform, which includes not talking to any Zionist organizations. Being a Zionist simply means supporting the existence of the State of Israel. It does not mean supporting the war criminal who heads the government, or what he is doing, including murdering innocent Palestinians, or bombing civilians in Iran and Lebanon. As Ron Halber, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, wrote in a column in DC Jewish Week, the views of the DSA are totally unacceptable.
The Council is non-political, but I am not. I can say one candidate for mayor, Janeese Lewis George, has asked for, and received, the endorsement of the DSA, and by doing so agrees to its antisemitic platform. After her endorsement became public, George tried to ‘privately apologize’ saying she didn’t see the questionnaire submitted by her campaign, rather it was submitted by a staffer. Now George says she is both not antisemitic, and supports Palestinians. Well, that sounds good. But she, and anyone else who accepts the DSA endorsement, has to answer a series of questions: 1. Are you for a two-state solution and the continued existence of the State of Israel, contrary to the position of the DSA? 2. Do you support BDS? 3. What is your definition of a Zionist? 4. What is your acceptable definition of antisemitism? 5. Will you meet with Zionist groups in DC?
Then, we must recognize if one candidate, like George, can go after and accept an endorsement from an antisemitic organization, it gives tacit permission for others to do the same with organizations that might be Islamophobic, racist, homophobic, sexist, or anti-immigrant. All unacceptable. I urge D.C. voters to reject any candidate, for any office, who has the endorsement of the DSA. That is not what we want the leaders of our government to represent.
Thankfully, there are many choices in this year’s Democratic primary elections for every office. There is a race for mayor, congressional delegate, attorney general, Council chair, two D.C. Council at-large seats, additional Council seats, Democratic State Committee seats and ANCs. D.C. political leadership will look very different after this election.
I urge voters to whittle down their choices by first rejecting anyone endorsed by the DSA. The DSA’s platform, aside from being antisemitic, also includes suggestions to ‘Defund the Police.’ That is a slogan some of the candidates running adopted a few years ago, thinking the people wanted it. They quickly found the people of D.C. didn’t want fewer police, they wanted their police better trained, with better community oversight. They wanted to be sure the police were here to protect them, not to harass them. People should know the DSA at one point even withdrew its endorsement from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) as she wasn’t strident enough in her opposition to Israel and actually met with a Zionist organization. There are many Zionists like me — a gay, Jewish man — who support the existence of the State of Israel, yet want to see Netanyahu, a war criminal, a murderer, tried for his crimes and in jail, and his government replaced. Zionists who support Palestinians and want them to have their own free state.
As you decide who gets your vote, one way to find out about a candidate is looking at their website. I would suggest you reject any candidate who doesn’t have a strong issues section. The least you can expect of a candidate is to tell you in detail what they intend to do if you elect them. That includes our delegate to Congress, even if they won’t have a vote. If Democrats take back the House of Representatives, we can expect our delegate to once again get a vote in committee, and that can be very important.
In the next couple of weeks, I will make some endorsements and share them with you in the Blade, for anyone who might be interested. They will detail why I endorse a particular candidate. I will not suggest second, third, fourth, or fifth choices. That is for you to decide. No matter who you give your first vote to, even with ranked choice voting, you can still vote for only one person. If you decide to list more choices, make sure the views of your second, and other choices, coincide with those of your first choice.
So here is to an honest election season, one in which we end up with candidates winning who really care about our city, who have proven track records, and who will make us proud. Your job is to VOTE, and I hope everyone will.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
The White House5 days agoKristi Noem ‘devastated’ as husband’s alleged fetish spending surfaces
-
The White House4 days agoVIDEO: Gay journalist detained for booing Trumps at ‘Chicago’ opening night
-
Movies4 days agoTrans-driven ‘Serpent’s Skin’ delivers campy sapphic horror
-
U.S. Supreme Court5 days agoColo. activists condemn SCOTUS conversion therapy ruling
