On June 18 he was interviewed on the Knesset channel and said that gays should not be drafted into the IDF.

There’s a lot of buzz on the social networks, saying that Ariel and Michaeli’s statements are just an attempt to divert attention from the coalition’s bigger problems and crimes (the Ulpana neighborhood, Finance Minister Steinitz giving billions to the corporations, the South Sudanese deportation and much, much more).

But first of all, Ariel isn’t part of the coalition.

And second, I think that’s giving this government way too much credit. They’re not that savvy.

The bottom line is, this Knesset is full of ignorant, dark, primitive voices.

Today she was in a panel discussion in the Knesset, and somehow the topic of homosexuals came up. Michaeli had something to say [Heb], as Ynet reports:

Unfortunately I see on Channel 10 programs that show how nice it is to be gay. And they interview his mother, on how miserable she is, suffering, she divorced her husband and her child is gay… I think that most gays are guys that suffered very difficult experiences of sexual harassment at a very young age and it just gets worse.

Where does Channel 10 get the right to broadcast programs like this? Content that my kids watch, by chance. How fun it is to put on make up and wear skirts. So, there is a need to cooperate with those homosexuals, because they are miserable, those homosexuals. In the end they commit suicide when they reach the age of 40 and it’s those same guys that want to be women. I hope our awareness will rise too… this is a campaign that needs to be done with professionals, also with psychologists.

I wonder what the professional pinkwashers Ambassador Michael Oren and IDF Spokesperson have to say about this one?

Related:
Deputy ambassador to Ireland: Pro-Palestinian activists have sexual identity problems

The central plot revolved around the secrecy of gay life, but the film smoothly incorporated low-volume sub-plots that exposed the other sinister consequences: the exploitation and abuse of women, the alienation of parents from their children, the strange expressions of raging teenage hormones that appear when kids are pent up in a war zone, and untimely death.

Most of that subtlety, precision and more importantly, the desperately-needed critique of society, is lost in “Yossi‘s Story,” the recently-released sequel. Its director, Eytan Fox, has added a long string of excellent material to the Israeli screen (both silver and small), often delivering bold reflections of what’s wrong with the norm. Both his films and his social persona have largely set the tone for cultural portrayals of hipster urban Israel over roughly two decades.

So it was somewhat disappointing to find that “Yossi’s Story” doesn’t attempt to break new ground. Instead of shining a spotlight on any other aspect of hushed hypocrisy and repression in society – for example, he could have followed some of those vital sub-plots in “Yossi and Jagger” – he returns to the same old theme. But many of those earlier psycho-social barriers for gay people have diminished over the last decade – partly with Fox’s help – and he observes as much in this film. As a result, the theme has lost some of its urgency.There is no minimizing how complex life still is for gay people in Israel (and anywhere). But there myriad of related social ills in Israel that could speak to a wider audience are almost completely absent – as if the country could just solve the problems of gay people, and things would basically be fine.

Yossi is the film’s eponymous protagonist (Ohad Knoller). He is roughly ten years older, and has never recovered from the death of his young lover, Jagger, when they were soldiers in the first film.  Yossi is a doctor in the doldrums, and even if not raiding the medicine chest like his friend and colleague Moti (Lior Ashkenazi), he is deeply committed to his own depression.

There is a thinly veiled symbolism in the fact that he is now a heart surgeon, presumably spending his life trying to fix the hearts of others because his is irreparably broken. This is also the first hint of more clichés to come.

The other characters include Jagger’s parents (the mother is played by Israel’s grand dame of victimized, pathos-inducing characters, Orly Zilberschatz), and a doting nurse who revives the girl-soldier character from “Yossi and Jagger,” unwilling to admit that the object of her crush is gay.

These are almost the same character and plot devices as ten years ago. But back then, Fox was one of the first to open a crack in the deeply defensive and conformist armor of Israeli militarism, by critiquing the situation of the perfect Israeli male who happened to be homosexual. The sequel could have deepened the insights about militarism, or challenged other icons of the Israeli establishment.  But Fox seems mainly interested in addressing those problems that touch him personally.

That could explain why some of the most convincing moments deal with the intimacies and tribulations of gay life: the fast flings of online offering are not warm and fuzzy, but soulless and shallow. Hot party guy is mean to Yossi the sensitive doctor, who doesn’t keep his belly toned or his chest waxed; hot party guy makes him feel bad. Their brief encounter contains blade-twisting dialogue; yes it made me wince, but it’s not enlightening unless you inhabit that world and like seeing your situation on screen, or unless a glimpse into someone else’s ruthless sub-culture makes you feel cool. It’s a bit of a shame that the power (and rich aesthetics) of that scene wasn’t devoted to a more universal theme.

Another mainly-gay moment occurs poolside, recalling the famous mis-en-scène from Death in Venice. Coincidentally, our tragic protagonist (have I mentioned yet that he is tragic?) happens to be reading the very same book. How clever.

The second half of the film showcases the next generation of stylized, homoerotic young IDF recruits. Instructed by his superiors to take a vacation, Yossi ventures toward Sinai, and on the way meets four soldiers. He soon identifies the gay one – a pretty boy, not unlike his forever-young soldier-lover (or Tadzio). But Tom has a more “out” personality than Jagger, and seems unconcerned with keeping secrets.

After a frustratingly slow buildup of tension between Tom and Yossi, Tom eventually explains that it’s really quite simple for him to be out in the army. The realization is supposed to be poignant and ironic for Yossi, and it brings the narrative back to the film’s core message or theme; yet it occurs in a simple, unadorned conversation, absent of drama.

Further, that message seems incomplete. Why is the realization that being gay in the IDF is now okay so profound for Yossi, really? Could Jagger have been saved from the jaws of death if not for the cruel repression of homosexuality a decade ago? No – Jagger died in an enemy attack on the IDF base near Lebanon. Not social liberalism, but an end to military hostilities between Israel and its neighbors, is the only thing that might have saved Jagger.

But the film prefers to drop the thought rather than open up that thorny problem.

To be sure, Yossi’s ten-year sorrow perhaps could have been eased had he been able to share the fact of his relationship with, for example, Jagger’s family. But he also could have found any number of friends and confidantes in the prized Tel Aviv gay scene during those years – or at least a good therapist – who could have helped him rebuild his life.

Instead, the film basically implies that military culture (i.e., Israel in general) is now more accepting of homosexuality, and this is progress! Yippee. So more people can be in the IDF comfortably, occupy land, homes and roads, fire rubber or real bullets, interrogate and imprison little children, all while being openly gay (with apologies to Arlo).

It is certainly Mr. Fox’s right to make a niche film catering mainly to hipster-urban Tel Aviv Ashkenazi male homosexuals that paints military participation as the pinnacle of gay achievement, rather than a film about Israeli society and its problems more generally. But if that was his goal, this work pales in comparison to others. “A Single Man,” for example, has various plot similarities. But that film is a masterpiece, exuding exquisite grace and pain from minimalist characters of infinite dignity. By comparison, watching the newly-divorced Moti (Mr. Ashkenazi) doing a chick in the bathroom of a bar is mainly embarrassing (and significantly lowers Mr. Ashkenazi’s erstwhile sex appeal).

“Yossi’s Story” does create a compelling tale of one man’s pain, and despite its long, slow scenes, holds the attention of patient viewers. But the film smashes no idols, nor does it expose any of the maddeningly urgent social, political or economic problems that haunt and threaten the country today. It does not chip away at the establishment – it may even provide reinforcement.

The first sign of the latest campaign was a surreal invitation to Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) to join Im Tirtzu in a demonstration against the horrific massacres in Syria. PHR was disgusted, and wrote back:

It’s very clear that you have  no intention of mounting an earnest protest of solidarity with the demonstrators in the Arab world, but rather, [you intend] to use our refusal to cooperate with you as an additional tool in the violent and hollow attack you are leading against the democratic space and human rights organizations in Israel.”

A group that has repeatedly earned itself the moniker “McCarthyite” might have considered that a campaign supporting human rights of Arabs would look disingenuous or even absurd. There can be only one possible explanation for the sudden attention to the human rights of those it perceives as enemies: Im Tirtzu apparently believes that the terrible crimes against people in the Arab world will give Zionism new life, which is, of course, its mission.

In the Haaretz piece, Ronen Shoval basically says exactly that: the murder of civilians must be manipulated to justify silencing dissent about Israel (I’ll leave aside for now the credibility of “Israel apartheid week,” which really isn’t the issue for Shoval – it’s just the outrage du jour for him).

There are various ways to deal with the lies being spread about us…The one way that has not yet been tried is in fact the right one: a political offensive against the true human rights violations in the Middle East.”

The article pumps itself up, and one can feel the author practically quivering with delight at the new gimmick. He marvels: they persecute homosexuals! They kill women for family honor! A long litany of human rights violations follows, while Shoval typically ignores when the same things happen in Israel, such as Palestinians refugees prohibited from voting in national elections. It’s embarrassingly shallow, but Shoval seems to believe that the “true” human rights violations he lists annul any other wrongs – like those committed every day in the name of Zionism, past and present.

On cue, he accuses the Israeli human rights organizations of silence about the massacres in Syria; blithely unconcerned with the fact that at least PHR, for example had already published its support for Syria’s victims in three languages. He definitely knows this, because PHR informed him in response to Im Tirtzu’s invitation to demonstrate. I wonder if Shoval read the response.

Bottom line: Shoval’s writing is pure desecration of the dead, turning the horror of the victims into a sickening source of putative vindication. After being tormented by their own leaders, the unspeakable pain of the victims is exploited gleefully by an Israeli nationalist to justify the occupation of the Palestinian people, by silencing its critics.

I’m sure the victims of the Assad regime are thrilled to have Im Tirtzu’s support.

Between Shoval’s thinking and Im Tirtzu’s actions, the “second Zionist revolution” is nothing more than a balloon into which they are desperately trying to blow air. The group’s infamous campaigns have been thinner than air – floated at random: First, the New Israel Fund was branded as the source of all evil, in the apparent belief that portraying former NIF President Naomi Chazan with a horn, would somehow revive Zionism.  Last year, a highly refined campaign of superior taste and tact was launched, called: “Nakba – Bullshit (or in Im Tirtzu’s English title – “The BS that is the Nakba,” although I could only find a Hebrew version). Personally I believe that if you have to use terms like “bullshit,” your ideas lack substance or, as Shlomo Avineri pointed out, they’re simply full of lies. Our very own Yossi Gurvitz made hash out of the long and shameless string of fallacies.

And now Arab and Muslim human rights violations are being rolled out like a new savior of the soul of Israel.

But when a balloon is filled with too much hot air, it explodes. And the noise sounds like this:

Human rights violations elsewhere provide no cover for the mutually and regionally destructive Israeli policy of occupying the Palestinian people. The failed attempt to manipulate people’s lives and deaths to cover a system of oppression, and silence those who speak against it, is naked cynicism.

Anyone, inside or outside Israel, has the right to express opinions. Intimidation is pathetic. This is not a joke, a gimmick or a hasbara (propaganda) battle.

Im Tirtzu will surely plead that the article was merely a response to rabid anti-Israel/anti-Semites, certainly not an attempt to silence legitimate critique of Israeli policy. Call me crazy, but working up blacklists of academics, blackmailing universities with demands to fire professors and going on a rampage against human rights organizations belies those inevitable remonstrations.

But hey – way to go on the Zionist revival.   Sahten.