Gay Rights in Israel?

No, it wouldn't. But Canada is ALLOWED to do bad things like massacre its indigenous population, fight wars and discriminate against people. Iran is allowed to HANG gay people. Get with the program! It's only Israel from which perfection is demanded.

The highest perfection is demanded of the biggest hypocrites. Wrapping yourself in righteousness as you oppress people always deserves special censor.  Being an apologist for a racist state is not my cup of tea.  

The Star Spangled banner is a symbol of oppression in every corner of the world and Israel is the empire's 'mad dog."  Armed to the teeth by the empire and capable of striking at any neighbour at any time. Has Iran invaded its neighbours? No only the racist Israeli state.  I also love the way you can bring yourself to condemn Iran but not Saudi Arabia or Egypt. Your concern appears biased based on a countries relationship to the evil empire.  

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

No, it wouldn't. But Canada is ALLOWED to do bad things like massacre its indigenous population, fight wars and discriminate against people. Iran is allowed to HANG gay people. Get with the program! It's only Israel from which perfection is demanded.

Wrong.  In this forum the people who speak out against Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians(btw, thanks for admitting that Palestinians ARE the indigenous people of Palestine)speak out against ALL of the above.  And you know it.  You are way out of line.

I admitted no such thing. Jews have lived in Israel continuously. Unlike British and French people in the land that's now Canada.

And, yes, we all condemn all of those other things but start very few threads about them. You know damn well that if the deputy mayor of Helsinki, Finland, was protesting a gay pride parade, nobody would give a shit. But any opportunity to attack Israel just can't be resisted...no matter how spurious the attack...

Maysie wrote:

Moving to the LGBTQ forum.

Frankly I don't see why, it will almost inevitably turn into nothing more than another pissing contest between Israeli apologists and anti-Zionists scoring points off of each other. Apart from the original posting, I doubt there will be many references made to the LGBT communities. I likewise doubt that there will be any substantial and new information presented on the actual situation of the LGBT communities on the ground in Israel itself or in the occupied territories (although I would wager lots of "everyone knows" kind of assertions will be bandied about - trite generalizations by and large). I further doubt that many of the postings will in any way reflect an informed LGB or T perspective on the matter. Of course I could be wrong, but I wouldn't wager any substantial amounts on it.

Are we going to have a thread in the FF about women's status in Israel?

How about a thread in Labour and Consumption about trade union struggles there?

I think I'm with SSC on this one (in a perverse way, of course). Who gives a shit how Israel, as opposed to any of the hundreds of other countries, treats queers? I don't. And putting this ridiculous thread (sorry, milo) in the LGBTQ forum does not change the truth one iota.

Once we've established that Israel and its craven apologists have launched a worldwide campaign to exploit the LGBTQ struggle to "pinkwash" Israeli crimes, whose interests exactly are served by engaging in this debate?

My problem with Israel is its aggression, warmongering, and genocide against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, and its obedient service as a lapdog of Western imperialism in the region. Not how it treats queers or workers or women. I know it sounds harsh, but those things are the business of the people of that region, not ours. Our business is to isolate and expose Israel for the murderous unlawful pariah state that it is, and not get sucked into its gigantic propaganda machine.

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

 Jews have lived in Israel continuously.

As have Arabs.  Both groups are indigenous, so the "this is our land, NOT yours' ethos of Zionism was always wrong.

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I admitted no such thing. Jews have lived in Israel continuously. Unlike British and French people in the land that's now Canada.

This a bit problematic.

First, the majority of 'Jews' living in Isreal, are not indigenous to said area, so yes, they are colonizers, on that point you are correct. However, then you slide into equating "Jews" with  peoples of countries, I.e. Britian and France. The only common point Jews have is their religion and only in a broad way. So one can not really compare them with peoples from a country of origin.

Secondly, it would seem you are appearing to believe that because some Jews, a minority, have lived there continuously, that all Jews have the right to said land, as if it was being held for them.

Now this leads us back to a belief held that Jews have the right, to relieve those of their lands who are not Jewish and who have lived there,  in the majority, continuously. They never came from anywhere else.

As such, I am not sure that you did not say any such thing. It would seem you are.  As well as stating, or attempting to, that "Jewish" is a nationality, when it is not.

SCC, my family came to NA long ago now, on my father's side to escape the pogroms of Europe. On my mother's side after the sundering, though in their case they had long been stopping by NFLD, actually for millenia, before they fled there for their lives.

But saying they had a better connection to this land, so they had/have a right to take it over is preposterous.

Just because you say prayers about a land, does not mean you have ownership ties to it, if one did, then all Christians would be flocking to Isreal as owners too. As they too can claim "better connection" if you use that false baseline.

Now, as to immigration, I have long held the realization, and have stated so here, that Canada should NOT be allowing immigration to it. For the most part Canada is stolen land and the powers that be have no right to put more people on said land.

When the Indigenous people have the land back that is theirs, they can decide to let more people in, or not. 

And yes, moving to Israel, is beyond the pale...

This thread is not about who lived in Israel first, or the rights of indigenous people (or about proving bagkitty right). It's about Israel's usage of queer politics to pinkwash its war crimes. Please start a new thread if you'd like to discuss a mulberry topic.

remind wrote:

Now, as to immigration, I have long held the realization, and have stated so here, that Canada should NOT be allowing immigration to it.

But I take it you're staying put, right?

Caissa wrote:

Moving to Israel is indeed beyond the Pale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_of_Settlement

Surely you mean beyond the Pale since the use of the expression in English precedes the establishment of the Pale of Settlement.

Catchfire wrote:

This thread is not about who lived in Israel first, or the rights of indigenous people (or about proving bagkitty right). It's about Israel's usage of queer politics to pinkwash its war crimes. Please start a new thread if you'd like to discuss a mulberry topic.

Well it may not "be about" proving me right, but then again it is proving me right.

Since the thread is obviously already in full-fledged drift mode (well, with the possible exception of Kropotkin's post, hope he will forgive me for lumping him in with the rest), I can't really resist the temptation to broaden the discussion just a little bit more... So what is it with people using the designation Queer in here. My current tally sheet has the communities identifying as LGBTTIQQ2SA (well Canadian usage anyway, I do have serious questions about how many individuals identify as 2S within the confines of the Middle East) - why is it that the most nebulous, most poorly defined letter out of the acronym becomes the default point of reference for so many? I know that it hasn't been discussed in the LGBTQ forum itself (cause even I have been here longer than the forum has been in existence), perhaps babblers of longer standing can enlighten me as to where in the (functionally unsearchable) archives the discussion took place that enshrined Q as the default point of reference.

Caissa wrote:

Bagkitty wrote:

Surely you mean beyond the Pale since the use of the expression in English precedes the establishment of the Pale of Settlement.

Caissa agrees, yet the example Caissa chose better fit the discussion.

[ETA: bagkitty didn't realize it was speak in the third person day yet again. It seems to happen earlier and earlier every year.]

@ Caissa

Not to get caught up in a vicious cycle of pedantry, but if we're using a colonial analogy Israel would be The Pale itself, therefore moving there would be "within the Pale", no?

But whatever the origin, it is commonly understood as a racist term that implies that Irish people are a bunch of uncivilized, backward people.

(edit) ...a friendly reminder, of course, as I do like wordplay myself.

@ bagkitty

I can think of a couple of reasons why. I'll wait for the thread, though.

bagkitty wrote:

... why is it that the most nebulous, most poorly defined letter out of the acronym becomes the default point of reference for so many?

My reason was [b]Queers[/b] Against Israeli Apartheid.

Maybe, given the thread topic, you should be asking [i]them[/i] why they picked this "nebulous" "poorly defined" term?

Or would that be off topic?

And why "gay" rights in the topic? Is that better?

bagkitty wrote:

... perhaps babblers of longer standing can enlighten me as to where in the (functionally unsearchable) archives the discussion took place that enshrined Q as the default point of reference.

The archives are perfectly searchable. If you don't know how, why not ask?

Sorry.  I hadn't read it for several hours.