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.
There is no question that Jesse Louis Jackson, Sr. had a significant impact on the civil rights movement, Democratic Party politics and D.C.’s struggle for statehood. After I heard of his death, I took some time to reflect on how our lives had intersected although I met him only once in person.
During the 1970s, sickle cell disease was a celebrated cause in the African-American community. Rev. Jackson was in the vanguard of that advocacy because he had the sickle cell trait. My mother had sickle cell disease and I have the trait. I responded to Rev. Jackson’s exhortation to be involved with fighting the disease and was blessed to have worked for seven years at the Howard University Center for Sickle Disease in its community outreach program.
In 1983, the March on Washington for Jobs, Peace & Freedom was held to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington. Local organizing committees called Coalitions of Conscience were formed to get people involved with the march. I attended the first meeting in D.C. and introduced a resolution that the 20th anniversary program held on the National Mall include a speaker representing the LGBT community. The resolution passed unanimously but the response from the chief organizer of the march, Rev. Walter Fauntroy, was that no such speaker would be permitted. Fauntroy was also the District of Columbia delegate to Congress. Three days before the march, four gay men – all D.C. residents, three of whom were Black – went to meet with Del. Fauntroy to discuss his opposition to having a LGBT speaker on the day of the march. He refused to meet with them and had them arrested. I was one of those arrested.
Our arrests made local and national news. While we were in jail, a conference call was held consisting of representatives of most of the major national civil rights leaders in the nation to discuss having an LGBT speaker at the march. Among those on that call were Coretta Scott King, Ralph Abernathy, Mayor Marion Barry, Dorothy Height; Reverends Joseph Lowery, Walter Fauntroy and Jesse Jackson. The decision was made to give three minutes to a speaker representing the LGBT community. The speaker was Audre Lorde, the African-American lesbian writer, poet, professor and civil rights activist. Jesse Jackson’s presence on that call was critical to her being chosen as a speaker.
In 1984, I was a volunteer in the Jesse Jackson for president campaign in his quest for the Democratic Party nomination. I, along with dozens of volunteers, boarded the bus that left from Union Temple Baptist Church to journey to Alabama to campaign for Rev. Jackson in that state’s primary. My involvement with Jackson’s D.C. campaign led me to visit the Players Lounge for the first time in order to get signatures for Jackson’s D.C. presidential delegate slate and to do voter registration.
Jackson did not win the Democratic presidential nomination in either his 1984 or 1988 campaigns. But his efforts along with Congresswoman Shirley Chisolm’s and Rev. Al Sharpton’s presidential campaigns paved the way for Barack Obama’s historic nomination and victory for president in 2008.
In 1990, Jesse Jackson was elected to be one of D.C.’s United States Senators or what is known as a “shadow senator.” He made it clear that D.C.’s struggle for statehood is not just a political issue but a salient civil and human rights issue. His involvement helped make D.C. statehood a national issue.
I cannot remember the exact year that I finally met Jesse Jackson in person but it was around the turn of the millennium. There was an event taking place in the Panorama Room at Our Lady of Perpetual Help Roman Catholic Church. Rev. Jackson was standing alone on the hill taking in the breathtaking view of D.C. I walked over, introduced myself and thanked him for what he had done for the D.C. statehood, LGBT rights, and the Democratic Party. Even though he was a major celebrity he gave me a hug as if we were longtime friends. It was a brief conversation but we both agreed to keep praying for a cure for sickle cell disease. That hope is still being kept alive.
Philip Pannell is a longtime Ward 8 community activist. Reach him at [email protected].
When we’re out with friends, we ask a question that sometimes surprises people: Are you on PrEP?
PrEP is a medication that reduces the risk of getting HIV by about 99 percent when taken as prescribed. We’re both on it. And we both talk about it openly because too many people in our communities still haven’t heard of it, can’t access it, or have been made to feel like asking for it says something about who they are.
It doesn’t. Taking PrEP is about taking control of your health. It’s that simple.
But getting there wasn’t simple for either of us. Our paths to PrEP looked different.
Del. Martinez learned this firsthand. When he asked his primary care doctor about PrEP, the response wasn’t medical — it was judgment. Instead of a prescription, he got a lecture. He had to leave Maryland entirely and go to Whitman-Walker in D.C. just to get basic preventive care. He serves on the Health Committee and sits on the public health subcommittee. Even he couldn’t access HIV prevention in his own state. That reality was soul-crushing, not just for him, but because he immediately thought about every person in his community who doesn’t have the resources to find another way.
Phillip came to PrEP through his work at FreeState Justice, where he was learning about HIV transmission rates and the gap in PrEP access for queer people of color. Black Marylanders account for 65 percent of new HIV diagnoses but only about 35 percent of PrEP users. Latino Marylanders account for nearly 19 percent of new diagnoses but fewer than 8 percent of PrEP users.
Seeing those numbers, he had to ask himself why he wasn’t on it. When he walked into Chase Brexton’s HIV Prevention clinic in Baltimore, the experience was easy and affirming, exactly what it should be for everyone. No judgment, just care. That’s the kind of experience every Marylander deserves.
A proposed bill would make it the standard in Maryland. HB 1114 would let people walk into their neighborhood pharmacy and access PrEP without waiting months for a doctor’s appointment, remove insurance barriers that slow things down, and connect them to ongoing care.
Our stories are not unusual. When we talk to friends about PrEP — and we do, regularly — we hear the same things. People who didn’t know about it. People who tried and gave up. People who assumed it wasn’t for them. People who couldn’t afford it or couldn’t find a provider. There’s still misinformation out there, and there’s still stigma. Among women in Maryland, most new HIV diagnoses come from heterosexual contact, but PrEP is still rarely part of the conversation from their doctors.
When we talk to our friends about PrEP, we lead with honesty. Here’s what it does, here’s what it costs, here’s where to go. We talk about the different options: daily pills or long-acting shots. Generic options are available, and in many cases, free. If you’re sexually active, it might be right for you. It’s not a morality question. It’s a health question.
We try to make it feel approachable, because it should be. We answer every question, because sometimes we’re the first person someone has had this conversation with. It’s a conversation between people who trust each other. And it works, but it can only go so far when the system itself is still in the way.
We have the medical tools to virtually end new HIV transmissions. What we need now are the policies to make sure everyone can reach them. At a time when the future of federal HIV prevention programs is under attack, Maryland has both the opportunity and the responsibility to lead.
We’re asking our friends to take charge of their health. We’re asking Maryland to make it possible.
If PrEP sounds right for you, talk to your provider. If you know someone who could benefit, share what you know. And if you want to see Maryland get this right, tell your legislators to support HB 1114.
State Del. Ashanti Martinez represents District 22 in Prince George’s County in the Maryland House of Delegates, where he serves as Majority Whip and sits on the Health Committee. Phillip Westry is the executive director of FreeState Justice, Maryland’s statewide LGBTQ+ advocacy organization.
Opinions
A dream: Democrats focus on candidates who can win
Defeating every Republican has to be the goal in 2026, 2028
I know this is just a dream, but I am a dreamer and continue to hope Democrats can get beyond Black or white, gay or straight, man or woman; to look at who can win in 2026, and then in 2028. It’s often said each election is the most consequential in our lifetime. The next two actually are.
The reality is without change; we face losing our democracy. We have a racist, sexist, homophobic, lying felon, in the White House. He has a Cabinet of vile incompetents, and a cadre of fascist advisers, controlling our government. They threaten our freedoms, and even our health. They think the military is theirs to use at will, without restrictions. Again, my dream for elections in 2026 and 2028, is we put our personal desires aside, for the good of the nation.
Everyone is being hurt by Trump. Black women being fired in huge numbers. Transgender people literally having their lives threatened. The LGBTQ community facing new threats. Civil rights are being undermined, and the Latino community across the country is targeted. Women are losing the right to control their bodies. Our voting rights are being threatened, and all this is happening with the consent of the Republican sycophants in Congress who are either in complete agreement with the felon, or threatened into submission by him, and his fascist cohorts. This is what we are facing in the next two election cycles as we try to take back our country. As the opposition party, we must first take back Congress in 2026. If we succeed, we must replicate that success as we work to reclaim the White House in 2028.
I believe we must all be represented in our elected officials. For years I felt comfortable looking at the equality issue in choosing a candidate, as even in the worst-case scenarios, when losing meant the election of the likes of a Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, I never believed my country’s existence was threatened. They, and others like them, may have been vile, but none professed wanting to be king. They didn’t go to court seeking full immunity for anything they did and getting it from judges they appointed.
I am a proud gay man but will not automatically vote for an LGBTQ candidate in the next elections. In 2024, I worked hard, and proudly, to see two strong Black women elected to the United States Senate. In the 2008 primary I was proud to stand with Hillary Clinton, then support Barack Obama when he won the nomination. In 2016, I again stood with Hillary. In 2020, I proudly supported Kamala Harris as vice president and then supported her for president in 2024.
Today, I am looking at the next two election cycles differently. I have written the only way to win back my country is to look at which Democrat can win in a particular race. I will support a Democrat committed to voting for the Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate, and in their state legislature, even if they don’t support fully everything I want. Because when Democrats win the leadership, they set the agenda. The Democratic platform has been about the same for many years. It stands for equality in every area. Have we accomplished all we stand for, clearly NO. Have we made progress, clearly YES.
In these upcoming elections each Democrat may win their race with a different set of issues at the forefront. I have suggested in the morning they go to the diners in their district, and in the evening to the bars, to find out what people are talking about, and concerned about. Then respond to that by running on those issues. If there is a primary, demand each candidate pledge to fully support the winner. Think about what is said about Democrats and Republicans, “Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.” Well in the next two election cycles, Democrats need to fall in line with every Democrat on the ballot in the general election willing to say, “if elected I will vote for, and support, the Democratic leadership.”
If we don’t commit to doing that in the next two election cycles, we may actually not have future elections. It is the only way we can stop the felon, and his fascist government, from winning. Defeating every Republican in 2026 and 2028, has to be the goal for all who care about our country, and moving on to the next 250 years. Not winning is not an option.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
-
Health4 days agoToo afraid to leave home: ICE’s toll on Latino HIV care
-
Movies4 days agoIntense doc offers transcendent treatment of queer fetish pioneer
-
The White House3 days agoTrump will refuse to sign voting bill without anti-trans provisions
-
Colombia4 days agoClaudia López wins primary in Colombian presidential race
