Comments on: Where LGBT rights and nationalism meet

By: max

max — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:50:23 +0000

Aeyal, I suspect that the lack of understanding you describe is due to a view in which it makes no sense to avoid an opportunity to bash Israel for the sake of an academic point. This is quite a common attitude amongst people who hate.
.
A topic conceptually similar to the one you bring is that of smoking and the Nazis: while they had an advanced research proving the harm of smoking, it took the world years and millions of deaths to re-build this body of knowledge, since re-using Nazi research was “morally” impossible.
.
Israel has more open LGBT regulations and acceptance in society because it is a democracy with open press and information exchange. Denying its openness or comparing it with possible other less democratic aspects is pure hypocrisy.
.
It’s also hypocrisy to claim that Israel shouldn’t use this fact when trying to point out the duplicity of people pretending to care about human rights, focusing on Israel but ignoring the general regulations and attitude to LGBT in the Arab world. The point there isn’t only that the messenger is dishonest, but mostly that the image formed by such one-sidedness is deceitful.
Human rights “ranking” are, and have always been, a matter of comparison, and Israel’s are orders of magnitude higher than its neighbors’.
==> If it’s OK to mention occupation in the context of LGBT, why isn’t it OK to mention LGBT in the context of occupation?

By: Aeyal Gross

Aeyal Gross — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:20:17 +0000

Belated reply to Peter: yes, the risk from the version of the criticism which I talked about is not a risk from armies or states. Still it’s a risk from a silencing power and chilling effect. See the example I brought of the way my talk was portrayed. See the example I brought of the discussion on the Belgian refugee march. See the discussion of Israeli groups who attempted to help Palestinian refugees. In all of these cases saying something about gay rights is considered as being involved in the homonationalist discourse. There is a chilling effect now that any thing you will say will be accused of being racist etc. The other day I friend pointed on twitter to an article on how there is more acceptance of orthodox religious Jewish gays in Israel now. He introduced his tweet with an apology “that I am not trying to pinkwash”, that’s one step from not talking/writing/pointing to it because you will be accused of that. The threat is IMHO real and here. I have more examples from real life.

By: Daniel ben Dov

Daniel ben Dov — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:04:43 +0000

Readers of this article may be interested in the following article posted on the British-based Oy Va Goy blog:

http://www.oyvagoy.com/2011/04/23/guest-post-flying-the-flag/

Although it is not mentioned anywhere in the artcile, the author, Jonathan Sacerdoti, is Director of Public Affairs at the Zionist Federation. The ZF, although nominally representing the full range of Zionist opinion, has moved markedly to the right in recent years.

One of the commentators on the article, Jonathan Hoffman, is vice-chair of the Zionist Federation. The two are very close allies. Hoffman is widely known in Britain as “the anti-Zionists’ favourite Zionist”.

By: Rabbi Tony Jutner

Rabbi Tony Jutner — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 03:03:50 +0000

The struggle of the Palestinian people comes FIRST. Gays can aid their fight for tolerance by assisting in the end of zionism, at which point, gay rights can be better addressed in the Middle East. Only when we can show to Iran and Hamas that we take their concerns seriously can we expect tolerance on their part

By: Peter Drucker

Peter Drucker — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 16:33:26 +0000

Like Aeyal Gross, I attended the Sexual Nationalisms conference in Amsterdam; in fact I was sitting near him in the closing plenary, and I was the participant who asked Didier Eribon the question he mentions. I share some of Gross’s concerns; in any event, I don’t believe that criticisms of sexual oppression (whoever perpetrates it) should be silenced by fears of fueling or being complicit in Islamophobia, homonationalism or anything else. That said, I think that Gross and even more Eribon are exaggerating the danger of “policing of thought”, in a way that could tend to evade legitimate and important criticism. The people who warn of Islamophobia and homonationalism in Europe and Israel today do not command armies or police forces; as Gross of course knows from his own experience, we are a small minority, faced by an increasing hostile establishment and public opinion. So I think the risk is on balance far greater of our being ignored or marginalized than of our silencing others.
To cite one example: in Eribon’s response to my question at the Sexual Nationalisms conference (which he later incorporated into his comments on his site), he said that he had taken part in a demonstration against the war in Iraq – until people near him began chanting “Death to the Jews”. Now, I have no doubt that there were manifestations of anti-Semitism in that antiwar movement; they should have been combated and condemned. But the relevance of Eribon’s mentioning this in the context he did was at best unclear. In the absence of any explanation (or time for further clarification), it seemed to me to somehow suggest some association between anti-Semitism in the antiwar movement and criticisms of homonationalism at the conference – an association that, as far as I know, was unwarranted by anything that critics of homonationalism said at the conference or anywhere else. I’m afraid Eribon’s response was more likely to provoke people needlessly or throw the discussion off track than to help move it forward.
So let the discussion continue, without any reticence to criticize sexual oppression or anti-Semitism or Islamophobia or homonationalism – but also, please, with care and respect.

By: Dannecker

Dannecker — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 03:17:13 +0000

I met Rabbi Jutner at a conference at SOAS in London. He is very eloquent and erudite, and thus a major embarassment for the psuedo-progressives that inhabit this website. His viewpoints echo those of Professor Butler of UC Berkeley, which I endorse as well

By: Piotr Berman

Piotr Berman — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:07:32 +0000

I think that Israel should also get kudos for not discriminating against albinos, like it happens in East Africa, and for persecuting native villagers in much more gentle manner (although much more systematic) than in Darfur.

Perhaps we should rewrite Geneva Conventions about the rules of war and occupations to make explicit exemptions tied to achievements in arts, science, culture and gay rights. This is the main fault of Human Rights approach: not caring enough about the rights of Nice People and too much about the rights of Ugly People. Once we understand how much nicer Israel is then Sudan, we will not be appalled by random killings of Sudanese by Israel etc.

By: Moe

Moe — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:59:20 +0000

For the record, there’s no such person as
“Rabbi Tony Jutner.” He’s been called out on various websites and blogs over the past year. When asked to provide any proof of his existence, he promptly disappears. If anyone ANYWHERE has met this person, please let us know. Until then, I assume “he” is a propaganda alias of someone sitting in Tehran or Damascus especially given such laughable nonsense as this: “While the plight of gays is obviously a burning issue, the plight of the Palestinians comes first.” Yes, Rabbi, basic human rights should be sidelined for one, extremely partisan political cause. Did you learn that in Mishnah? (look it up)

By: Ben Israel

Ben Israel — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 06:30:55 +0000

Jutner-I am glad you succinctly stated the view of modern “progressives” which until recently I have failed to understand. What you are expressing is the new “Purification” ideology which is described by Prof. Ernest Sternberg in the article at this link:

http://spme.net/library/pdf/PurifyingtheWorld.pdf

I have a friend who was some sort of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist in the 1960′s. He said it would have been unthinkable for someone in his camp to think that radical Islamists were “progressive” and that they had common cause with his group. Even if they were anti-Zionist, they would say that Israel is objectively more “Progressive” than a state like Khomeiniest Iran is. They would not participate in “Red-Green-Brown” rallies against Israel (alliance of Communists-Marxists [the Reds], Radical Islamists-radical environmentalists [the Greens] and Neo-Fascists-Neo-Nazis [the Browns]). His group would have tried to force the Browns out of the rally, because they would not cooperate with Fascists.
But as Judt and Butler define it, the very ESSENCE of “progressivism” is anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The world can not exist and reach redemption until Zionism and by extension, Judaism are eradicated, according to Purificationist ideology. The reason the homosexuals ally themselves with the radical Islamists is because Judaism opposes homosexuality and other causes dear to the heart of “progressives”, and since Israel is perceived by most people as the Jewish state, it is the embodyment of opposition to these “progressive” values. As Judt points out, it makes no difference if Israel is OBJECTIVELLY more liberal in its attitude to homosexuals, the very fact of its existence hangs a dark cloud over their heads and all “progressives”. Thus, it must be eradicated at all costs. This is the number one item on the agenda for these purificationist-”progressives”.
So why the alliance with objectively anti-progressive forces like the radical Islamists (the Greens) and the neo-Nazis (the Browns?). Because Britain, Norway and Sweden, no matter how “progressive” the regime in power there is, is not going drop the A-bomb on Israel and eradicate this threat to the Purificationnist-Progressives. The cannon fodder that is going to do they fighting and DYING are the radical Islamists. Butler and Judt will stand on the sidelines cheering them on, hoping the Iranians will drop the big one, but they and their “progressive” fans will be at a safe distance, outside the kill-radius.

By: Rabbi Tony Jutner

Rabbi Tony Jutner — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 03:11:43 +0000

comment was removed