Connect with us

Opinions

Julie Dorf’s column on Israel and Gaza was interesting, but disturbing

It’s a mistake to reject a two-state solution

Published

on

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.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties

Inaccurate media reports create confusion but we stand with our colleagues

Published

on

A photo from inside the White House on Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Last week, President Trump announced his unconstitutional ban of CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House. Coincidentally, on Monday, it was the Washington Blade’s turn to serve as the print pool reporter on duty covering the president’s actions that day. This important responsibility is shared and rotated among the print members with each serving roughly once per month. The Blade is the only LGBTQ outlet with a seat in the briefing room, a slot in the pool rotation, and membership in the White House Correspondents’ Association, something we fought for decades to secure after enduring years of discrimination, ridicule, and resistance to openly queer journalists working inside the White House. We take our responsibilities there seriously. 

There are two pools that cover the president: broadcast and print. The other four members of the broadcast pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News — agreed to boycott their pool duties. There has been no boycott among the print pool, which is a separate entity. I called the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association on Monday to confirm that no outlets in the print pool were boycotting. 

A boycott by the Blade would set us back and lead to our expulsion from the pool and briefing room and our replacement by a right-wing outlet sympathetic to President Trump’s approach to attacking the media. The LGBTQ community is far better served with the Blade in the room than a far-right blogger taking our seat.

Let’s be clear: the Blade stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion and we stand for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. In solidarity with the broadcast pool, we made two important decisions on Monday — the first day anyone had to think about any of this. First, we refused to take or share any videos or still photos of the president, which would have undermined the broadcast boycott. Second, when Politico’s turn comes up for pool duty in mid-October, the Blade will not fill in and cover for them while they are banned. Politico must be readmitted and allowed to do their job. 

After a rough day navigating and reporting on all of this, the Advocate published a reckless and inaccurate story suggesting that the Blade had crossed a picket line. Not true, as there is no print pool boycott. They claimed that I wouldn’t talk to their reporter. Also not true. I called their reporter within 90 minutes of receiving his message and he didn’t take the call or call me back. Their story named me and our White House reporter, immediately exposing us to public criticism and worse. The environment in D.C. is so toxic and even violent these days that subjecting our staff to unfair and false accusations like this invites harassment, doxxing, and worse. To do that without even talking to us is next level irresponsible and the antithesis of journalism.

On Tuesday, I talked to two reporters and an editor at the Advocate but they refused to retract anything in their inaccurate story. If the reporter had returned my call, I could have explained all of this but they are more concerned with clickbait and sensational headlines, a dangerous practice in these troubled times. 

Back to the pool. The Blade was in the briefing room in the Reagan era, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes made jokes about AIDS and the reporters in the room laughed out loud. We endured all of that abuse and worse for decades, always standing in the back of the room and never being called on. The Blade’s journalists persevered. When President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Blade’s White House credentials were revoked amid an earlier press crackdown. Notably, no one boycotted or stood up for us. When Barack Obama won election in 2008, I received an email from his communications director informing me that effective midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, the Blade’s credentials would be restored. 

So we have had quite a ride navigating administrations and their changing requirements for gaining access but always playing the long game. As Barney Frank used to say, “If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.” The Blade is at the table and we do our best to ensure the LGBTQ community’s issues are addressed by both parties. 

Thanks for reading and supporting the Blade’s work. If you have questions about our approach, you can reach me at [email protected].  


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Young people should know history of the fight for human rights

Trump is working to erase contributions of marginalized people

Published

on

From left, Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y), Frank Kameny and Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.). (Photos of Abzug and Chisholm public domain; Washington Blade archive photo of Kameny)

When talking with otherwise really smart young people, I am amazed how little knowledge many of them have about the fight for human rights in the United States. Our country was founded by white men, who didn’t think about giving full rights to Black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community (what they knew of it, or called it). They wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that referred to all white men, and intentionally didn’t mention women. For 250 years, the country has been trying to make up for that, and making progress in fits and starts. We have yet to fully succeed. Today the felon, and his fascist aides, in the White House, are working daily to take us backwards. 

For that reason alone, it is important for younger generations to understand the fight for human rights, know who was fighting for those rights, and understand it is an ongoing fight. Often, when listening to some millennials speak, one would think the world began with them. They either forgot, or never learned, about all those who fought for the rights they now have. I realize this was true for previous generations as well. In 2016 I co-hosted a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg during his run for president. He is an undeniably brilliant guy. Yet when he spoke of marriage equality, he just thanked Justice Kennedy for it. I reminded him after he spoke, while it’s nice to thank Kennedy for his vote, it shouldn’t be done without acknowledging the many activists who worked for decades, to get to the point that allowed Kennedy to cast that vote. In the same way it was clear to me during the Hillary Clinton campaign for president, many young women didn’t understand the work many of their own mothers had done, to fight for their right to control their own healthcare, and women’s rights in general. They took for granted the rights they had. Now, after losing some of them, many will realize the fight for their rights is never-ending. 

When I speak to younger members of the LGBTQ community, I am amazed how many don’t know the history of the AIDS epidemic, many thinking it was always a disease you could deal with by taking medication. They don’t understand the work so many activists did to bring attention to this devastating disease, and get the healthcare so many needed. Those like Cleve Jones, Larry Kramer, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and so many others. Recently, I realized how many young women don’t know the names of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Bella Abzug — women who fought for their rights. And this is just recent history, no less knowing about the Suffragettes, the strong women who fought for their right to vote. I’ve met young women who don’t know what the ERA is, and others who think it passed. Many don’t know the nation couldn’t get 38 states to approve an amendment to include them in the Constitution. The same for young members of the LGBTQ community who don’t know what the Equality Act is. Others think it passed, and are shocked when told it didn’t and in 27 states, they can be married on Sunday, and kicked out of their home, and fired from their job, on Monday. They don’t know names like Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Barney Frank, or the history of the Mattachine Society, or the Stonewall Riots.

Our current president is trying to wipe out all this history, and reverse any progress that has been made. Knowing this, it makes it even more important for school systems across the nation to fight to educate our children. We should ensure no child can graduate high school, without taking a course called “The 250-year fight for human rights in the United States.” They need to understand the history, and learn about the people who fought for their rights. They need to know how far we have come in 250 years, and understand, as we begin the next 250, how far we still have to go, to ensure real, full equality, for all.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

How emerging drone tech can support LGBTQ workplace inclusion

Employers should establish clear policies governing data access

Published

on

(Photo by kadmy/Bigstock)

Workplace inclusion is increasingly becoming part of a broader conversation about employee safety, dignity, and equal access to secure working environments. For LGBTQ employees, an inclusive workplace is not simply one that communicates supportive values it is one where policies, infrastructure, and technology work together to help people feel protected and respected.

As organizations explore emerging technologies to strengthen workplace operations, drones are becoming a valuable tool for improving physical safety, situational awareness, and emergency preparedness. When deployed responsibly and with appropriate privacy safeguards, drone technology can contribute to safer workplaces without singling out employees based on identity.

Key Benefits of Drone Technology for Safety 

  • Reduced Employee Exposure to Hazards: Drones can inspect difficult or potentially dangerous areas without unnecessarily placing employees at risk.
  • Faster Emergency Awareness: Aerial visibility can help safety teams assess incidents and make informed decisions more quickly.
  • More Consistent Safety Coverage: Drones can support inspections across large workplaces, campuses, warehouses, and remote facilities.
  • Safer, More Inclusive Environments: Technology can help organizations improve physical safety measures that protect employees equally, including LGBTQ team members.
  • Privacy-Conscious Safety Practices: With responsible policies, drones can support workplace security without profiling individuals based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics.

Improving Physical Workplace Safety

A clear application of drone technology lies in the inspection of facilities and infrastructure. Inspection of rooftops, industrial machines, construction zones, warehouses, remote locations, and other risky areas can be achieved using drones fitted with cameras and other sensors.

Such use of drone technology may help in reducing the risk of forcing employees to access such risky areas unnecessarily. Moreover, any technological advances in terms of improving workplace safety are equally beneficial to all workers irrespective of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

Supporting Emergency Preparedness and Response

An emergency can reveal flaws in your workplace safety program. In big settings like industrial campuses, warehouses, or outdoor workplaces, it might take security personnel longer to respond. Drones might supply better aerial visibility in several types of incidents. They make it possible to see circumstances rapidly, locate blocked paths, examine out- of-the-way or damaged areas and direct needed aid. 

Enhanced situational awareness provides better answers while limiting exposure to risks. In a perfect safety world, all employees are served with dignity and attention while emergency actions are created with diversity in mind.

Creating Safer Shared Environments

Workplace safety also involves creating physical environments where employees can move through facilities confidently. Drone-based inspections can help organizations identify infrastructure concerns such as damaged lighting, inaccessible areas, perimeter issues, or other physical conditions that could create safety risks.

The technology does not need to identify who an employee is to provide value. Instead, organizations can use drones to evaluate spaces and infrastructure while maintaining clear boundaries around personal privacy.

This distinction is particularly important when discussing LGBTQ workplace inclusion. Technology designed for safety should protect employees rather than create an environment in which individuals feel watched, profiled, or treated differently.

Privacy Must Remain a Priority

The potential benefits of drones also come with important responsibilities. Cameras, sensors, and data collection capabilities can raise legitimate privacy concerns if organizations deploy them without transparent rules.

Employers considering workplace drone programs should establish clear policies governing where drones may operate, what information may be collected, who can access that information, and how long data is retained. Employees should also understand the purpose and boundaries of workplace drone operations.

Drone technology should never be used to infer, monitor, or profile an employee’s sexual orientation, gender identity, personal relationships, or other sensitive characteristics. Inclusion depends on trust, and responsible technology policies are essential to preserving that trust.

Technology Is Only Part of an Inclusive Workplace

No drone platform can create an inclusive workplace on its own. Meaningful LGBTQ inclusion still depends on organizational culture, anti-discrimination policies, fair employment practices, accessible reporting channels, employee education, and leadership accountability.

Technology can support these efforts by improving the physical conditions in which employees work. For example, drones may help reduce exposure to hazardous tasks or improve visibility during emergencies, while organizational policies ensure that these benefits are available fairly and respectfully.

Building Safety and Inclusion Together

As drone technologies continue to develop, there is a chance for businesses to expand their minds on what innovation should seek to achieve. Efficiency and increased operational intelligence are vital, but technology can equally play a part in creating safe and inclusive environments that show dignity to employees.

When it comes to LGBTQ employees, along with the workforce in general, the most effective approach to technology is one that enhances safety without threatening privacy and equality. Consequently, the future of workplace innovation should take into account not only what technology is capable of but also how wisely it is applied. By combining cutting-edge technologies like drones with responsible business practices, businesses can make strides in both areas at once.


Andrew Mabry is a technology researcher and analyst specializing in UAV and drone technology, AI, and emerging digital technologies.

Continue Reading

Popular