In debate over ‘pinkwashing,’ both sides shoot for the wrong targets
Controversy around Out in Israel Month centered around a little portmanteau: “pinkwashing.” Though we are reluctant to use the term at all, it proves insidiously useful. That is, if what you need is a term that describes, as its linguistically innovative users see it, the practice of employing Israel’s good track record on LGBT rights to whitewash its less liberal-friendly policies in the West Bank and Gaza.
This debate is becoming yet another piece of the larger debate about Israel/Palestine on campus. An event at American University on Nov. 16 brought Israeli TV star Assi Azar to campus for a screening of his recent documentary about coming out, “Mom and Dad, I Have Something to Tell You.” Members of AU Students for Justice in Palestine accused AU Students for Israel, the event’s sponsor, of using Azar and the screening for pinkwashing.
Great. Because what we really needed was the opening of another front in the campus war over Israel/Palestine.
In this back-and-forth over Israel and the Palestinians, both sides cluelessly carry own with their own one-sided argument, for which the argument the other side is having is almost, but not quite, a match. The debate-within-a-debate around pinkwashing is a perfect case study of this. Both sides are talking about human rights. Israel’s boosters are talking about how great it is to be a member of the LGBT community in Israel, especially compared with neighboring countries. Meanwhile, Israel’s detractors are asking that Israel not rest on its gay-rights laurels and confront the problems that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
Yes, Israel’s boosters are right that it is easier to be gay in Israel than it is in many other countries. And yes, Israel’s detractors are right that Israel makes life exceedingly hard for the Palestinians in the Bank and the Strip. But no, neither of those facts is a reasonable argument against the importance of the other.
A Nov. 22 op-ed in The New York Times, “Israel and ‘Pinkwashing’” by College of Staten Island professor Sarah Schulman, made no mention of Out in Israel Month. But it did sum up the arguments of the anti-pinkwashing crowd aptly: “The long-sought realization of some rights for some gays should not blind us to the struggles against racism in Europe and the United States, or to the Palestinians’ insistence on a land to call home.”
At the same time, Schulman’s op-ed points out, pinkwashing leads to “the co-opting of white gay people by… anti-Muslim political forces in Western Europe and Israel,” while vilifying Palestinians as “homophobic fanatics.” It also ignores the role that some of Israel’s allies — such as fundamentalist Christians, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Jews — play in opposing LGBT rights in Israel and around the world.
A response to the Times op-ed was written by David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC). His piece, which appeared on the Huffington and Jerusalem posts, is called “‘Israel and “Pinkwashing”’: What was The New York Times thinking?” In it, he argues in circles around Schulman’s points, never landing to deliver any counter-arguments. In it, he trots out the old standbys of Israel’s many Nobel laureates and technology patents as though they bear some relevance. (Harris also accuses Schulman’s piece of not being “timely,” though he neglects to mention Out in Israel Month, of which his organization, the AJC, is a sponsor.)
A blog post at The Jewish Daily Forward by Jay Michaelson, the founding director of Nehirim — an American Jewish LGBT organization — takes on both sides. An exemplar of reason in the middle of this mess, Michaelson gets to the heart of the matter: “Yes, Israel has a stellar record on LGBT rights, and yes, all of its neighbors have abominable ones. But that doesn’t mean gay people should provide blanket support for all of Israel’s policies, especially those vis-à-vis the Palestinians.” He acknowledges that pinkwashing exists, but also that it’s legitimate for Israel to celebrate its diversity and promote tourism by advertising Tel Aviv as a gay vacation destination. Michaelson then takes Schulman to task for attempting to paint life for gay Palestinians as anything less than “hell.”
The organizers of Out in Israel Month are right that Israel is a good place to be gay. That is a good thing, without qualification. And those who have positioned themselves as opponents of pinkwashing are right that Israel’s human rights track record in Gaza isn’t too good. That is a bad thing, without qualification. But neither of those things are an argument against the other and both sides should stop pretending that they are. Both sides misappropriate the gay community as arguments against the other side.
“It’s a failed argument in either direction,” Rabbi Jill Jacobs, executive director of Rabbis for Human Rights – North America told New Voices. “Israel is a really good place to be LGBT.” On the other hand, Jacobs pointed out, “It’s also true that Israel does not have a good record of protecting the human rights of people under the occupation.”
So it’s a contradiction. We can celebrate the good and challenge the bad. At the same time, let’s try to make the discourse in America a little less polarized, less about endlessly reasserting our own positions and more about hearing what the other side is saying, especially when it comes to the ongoing petty campus shouting match. If the other side makes a point, let’s respond with a real counter-argument, rather than an unrelated point.
In short, let’s always be sure we’re talking about what we’re actually talking about.
New Voices Magazine editorials reflect the opinion of the New Voices editorial board.
