Gay Rights in Israel?

Yes.

come to think of it, it wouldn't be all that surprising.

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.

Moving to the LGBTQ forum.

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.  

Well, while there is a certain amount of cynicism in the way Stephen Harper claimed that Canada in order to defend our actions in Afghanistand "didn't have a history of colonialism" (a statement that was much criticized and condemned here on babble), there has been a concerted effort on the part of Israel to dress up its criminal occupation and addiction to war crimes in homonationalism--intentionally juxtaposing it with horror stories of LGBTQ communities in Muslim nations. Much like your sensational "HANGING gays" statement. Of course, you've probably already got the memo, SSC. I'm only repeating it for others' edification.

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.

The issue isn't which country is "perfect", the issue is what is right and just.  Israel is gay friendly when it suits those opportunists who are seeking support and recognition from gays/lesbians in the Jewish community as well as the community at large.  However, the underlying homophobia comes forth in actions such as those reported above in other posts.  It seems that there are some who are apologists for Israel right or wrong!  These people then accuse anyone who offers constructive criticism of being anti-semitic or of demanding "perfection".  Decency is what we demand and consistency, not hypocricy.  We demand this over every country in the world, not just Israel. 

By the way, it is divisive to send this thread to the LGBT thread or go off unto that thread as though this critical topic were not of unversal interest.  As if we need further division!

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...

First of all, I would definitely "give a shit" if the Dep. Mayor of Helsinki, Finland was prostesting a gay pride parade.  I have many relatives in Israel and friends.  This does not keep me, as a Jew, from demanding decency and accountability from Israel as well as all other countries of the world.  Some who post on rabble want to exempt Israel from the demands they make on other countries.  When Israel commits an atrocity, I will continue to be one of the people who says NOT IN MY NAME and who demands that homophobic and aggressive politicians do not represent the entire population of Israel. My close relatives in the Kitbbutz, who worked in orange groves and brought up their children there deserve better following all that hard and loyal work than being associated with racist, homophobic and brutish policy. 

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.

I hear you, bagkitty. I think Maysie moved the thread precisely in order to circumvent the exchange you so accurately predict. We'll try to keep it in that vein.

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.

I'm a hopeless optimist, bagkitty.

If people think this thread should be in international news I'm happy to move it there. It was in introductions, however, which is wrong no matter what.

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

The problem, Unionist, is that Israel is actively trying to colonize the experience of queers worldwide in an effort to buttress their warmongering efforts. That is very seriously a concern of queers in Canada and elsewhere (and a concern of those in solidarity with queer movements in Palestine and Israel). Indeed, the recent QuAIA threads are evidence of this. And, as a matter of fact, we do have threads about feminists in Afghanistan and our governments' attempts to colonize those movements to serve their imperialist interests.

The naviété of the OP should not take away from this reality.

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.

Star Spangled, you realize that most of the people who live in Israel were not born there either, they're from Europe, Canada, US, etc. Also plenty of immigrants to Israel are people who have converted so technically have no relation to the land there, even from ancient history.

and just because you lived there 3000 years ago doesn't mean you have the right to come back and run roughshod over everyone else who also lived there 3000 years ago just because they don't subscribe to your particular brand of religion.

Even the Rabbis they sent to check out the land before the creation of the state knew that, that's why they referred to the land as being "married to another man" i.e. already inhabited by humans beings.

Unionist, you don't think something like this even deserves to be brought to people's attention?  We can still oppose the occupation even if we read articles about other stuff.  There are threads here about peoples favorite bands, youtube clips etc...this is much more worthy of attention than any of that!

I just think it's very demonstrative that the country that always brings out the trump card of being a human rights respecting democracy has government officials that publicly spearhead counter demos to a gay rights parade and compare gay people to donkeys.  It actually reminded me of the famous "let them live like dogs" quote.

When did your family first come to Canada, remind? Most of mine came in the mid-1940s, roughly around the same time and under the same circumstances that the land of Israel experienced a massive influx of European Jewish immigrants.

My family is Jewish and no doubt had a much better sense of connection to the land of Israel, where there ancestors were from and which was mentioned in prayers that they said every day, than they did to Canada - which I doubt they'd ever even heard about in their little villages in Poland and Lithuania.

People are free to immigrate. Just like my grandparents did to Canada and just like some of my wife's family did to Israel. Nobody is insisting that my family leave Canada because they're not "indigenous" to the land (nor are most people living here today). But moving to Israel is beyond the pale? Give me a break...

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...

Moving to Israel is indeed beyond the Pale

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

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.

A few links to maybe help along a converstation.  

http://www.medindia.net/news/Tel-Avivs-Gay-Pride-Opposed-By-Israel-Minis...

http://www.gaelick.com/2009/08/tel-aviv-killings-where-hatred-bridges-the-religious-divide/3004/ [27]

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

SSC, don't post again off topic in this thread. You are stoking a personal battle. Stop it.

Surely you mean beyond the Pale [34] since the use of the expression in English precedes [35]the establishment of the Pale of Settlement.

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.

Bagkitty wrote
Surely you mean beyond the Pale since the use of the expression in English precedes [35]the establishment of the Pale of Settlement.
Caissa agrees, yet the example Caissa chose better fit the discussion.

I think you might want to look to papal Bull for indulgences, Bagkitty.

I am always up for a little wordplay.

@ 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.

I think that's a great question (I saw your post at enmasse asking the same thing) and one that certainly does not deserve to compete with the motley crew of topics on display here. I'd love it if you'd open a new thread about it, bagkitty. I have my own reasons, but it could use some more perspective, the "queerer" the better.

My reason was Queers Against Israeli Apartheid.

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

Or would that be off topic?

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

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

@ bagkitty

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