Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Norway's Holocaust inverters [View all]Shaktimaan
(5,397 posts)112. That was not what Ken gave as his argument.
In fact, Israel's position on LGBT rights is often held up as a jusfitication for Israeli denial of most human rights to Palestinians...the relatively good position of Israeli LGBT's, it is essentially argued, means that it doesn't matter what that country does to people in the West Bank.
To rephrase this... Denying the Palestinians most of their human rights is warranted by Israel's treatment of their LGBTs. It doesn't matter how badly the Palestinians are treated. Israel has every right to treat them however it wants, without any regard for their human rights, because Israel has given a different group far reaching rights.
The argument you reproduced here (incorrectly btw), essentially said that anyone who supports the creation of a Palestinian state (under Palestinian rule), without concerning themselves with the rights of the Palestinian LGBT community; someone who is apparently willing to trade away the rights of a minority group of Palestinian citizens in the service of Palestinian independence is revealing that they are someone who is less concerned with the issue of human rights than they are with the issue of Palestinian self-determination.
Horse trading of that sort can out a person who always insisted that their interest in the I/P conflict centered on human rights and equality as really having some other, unspoken reason for being into the subject. Or even of being less liberal than they had previously declared. Any "solution" that condemns an innocent minority group to renewed oppression and possibly even death is probably not going to be an acceptable one for many liberals.
So the argument goes - and by a process of deduction, true liberals support the occupation of Palestine by Israel.
No. The argument would be that true liberals would refuse to support the installation of any proposed Palestinian government that itself refused to grant its citizens basic human rights. The argument is NOT that true liberals must support the occupation of Palestine... but that true liberals would not accept the installation of an extremist Muslim theocracy that oppresses women, gays and lesbians and so on, to be an acceptable solution.
Its a cynical exercise, and one that can only be maintained by ignoring the voices of gays and lesbians in the West Bank, most of whom realise that the only way to realise political progress there is for Palestine to have independence.
Which itself is a somewhat cynical exercise as merely obtaining independence is worthless unless it is accompanied by the requisite democratic institutions such as free speech, equal rights and an independent judiciary. For example, in Iran the nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to aid in the overthrow of the Shah and declare independence, only to then be executed by the tens of thousands immediately afterwards. According to your argument those Iranian Marxists probably knew that the only chance for their movement to grow in popularity hinged on gaining independence for Iran first. And there is certainly some truth to that idea. On the other hand, one gets the impression that they might have acted differently had they any idea what kinds of effects that revolution would have on Iran, or considered how it might lead to far greater oppression and violence than they ever knew under the Shah, or somehow imagined that it would impel Saddam to invade and slaughter nearly a million Iranians.
In short, both you and Ken are both wrong. No one here at DU (or anywhere probably), makes either of the ridiculous, straw man arguments you've shown me. Ken, your charge is one that has been asserted by anti-Zionist factions as a reaction to Israel's promotion of their extremely liberal LGBT policies as their existence disrupt their narrative of Israel being the antithesis of liberal ideals, having embraced theocracy, oppression, supremacy ideology and apartheid. Since it seems unlikely that Israel would be all of those things while ALSO being one of the most enlightened nations on the planet regarding LGBT it called into question their entire narrative's foundation. So this absurd "pinkwashing" conspiracy theory was made up to explain why their model is still reliable... ie: "Israel isn't REALLY liberal, they're just ACTING that way to trick you!"
To rephrase this... Denying the Palestinians most of their human rights is warranted by Israel's treatment of their LGBTs. It doesn't matter how badly the Palestinians are treated. Israel has every right to treat them however it wants, without any regard for their human rights, because Israel has given a different group far reaching rights.
The argument you reproduced here (incorrectly btw), essentially said that anyone who supports the creation of a Palestinian state (under Palestinian rule), without concerning themselves with the rights of the Palestinian LGBT community; someone who is apparently willing to trade away the rights of a minority group of Palestinian citizens in the service of Palestinian independence is revealing that they are someone who is less concerned with the issue of human rights than they are with the issue of Palestinian self-determination.
Horse trading of that sort can out a person who always insisted that their interest in the I/P conflict centered on human rights and equality as really having some other, unspoken reason for being into the subject. Or even of being less liberal than they had previously declared. Any "solution" that condemns an innocent minority group to renewed oppression and possibly even death is probably not going to be an acceptable one for many liberals.
So the argument goes - and by a process of deduction, true liberals support the occupation of Palestine by Israel.
No. The argument would be that true liberals would refuse to support the installation of any proposed Palestinian government that itself refused to grant its citizens basic human rights. The argument is NOT that true liberals must support the occupation of Palestine... but that true liberals would not accept the installation of an extremist Muslim theocracy that oppresses women, gays and lesbians and so on, to be an acceptable solution.
Its a cynical exercise, and one that can only be maintained by ignoring the voices of gays and lesbians in the West Bank, most of whom realise that the only way to realise political progress there is for Palestine to have independence.
Which itself is a somewhat cynical exercise as merely obtaining independence is worthless unless it is accompanied by the requisite democratic institutions such as free speech, equal rights and an independent judiciary. For example, in Iran the nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to aid in the overthrow of the Shah and declare independence, only to then be executed by the tens of thousands immediately afterwards. According to your argument those Iranian Marxists probably knew that the only chance for their movement to grow in popularity hinged on gaining independence for Iran first. And there is certainly some truth to that idea. On the other hand, one gets the impression that they might have acted differently had they any idea what kinds of effects that revolution would have on Iran, or considered how it might lead to far greater oppression and violence than they ever knew under the Shah, or somehow imagined that it would impel Saddam to invade and slaughter nearly a million Iranians.
In short, both you and Ken are both wrong. No one here at DU (or anywhere probably), makes either of the ridiculous, straw man arguments you've shown me. Ken, your charge is one that has been asserted by anti-Zionist factions as a reaction to Israel's promotion of their extremely liberal LGBT policies as their existence disrupt their narrative of Israel being the antithesis of liberal ideals, having embraced theocracy, oppression, supremacy ideology and apartheid. Since it seems unlikely that Israel would be all of those things while ALSO being one of the most enlightened nations on the planet regarding LGBT it called into question their entire narrative's foundation. So this absurd "pinkwashing" conspiracy theory was made up to explain why their model is still reliable... ie: "Israel isn't REALLY liberal, they're just ACTING that way to trick you!"
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
132 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
what was deceiving about the comment it seemed pretty straight forward to me eta
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#9
Thanks shira it shows how just because a country has liberal Gay Rights laws for its citizens
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#86
Norway is widely acknowledged for being liberal/progressive and #1 on the peace index...
shira
Jun 2012
#89
So I take you believe the US should keep its full military occupation of Iraq until it brings its
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#85
so no country that discriminates against minorities should be allowed to exist?
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#92
in addition what I meant by editing is that you started out with minorities and then
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#99
and so simply make more accusations of the same type if you support this then you also support that
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#40
claims about Abbas not allowing Palestinian refugees in Palestine are ridculous twaddle
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#66
Where have you ever read or heard that Abbas would grant citizenship to refugees...
shira
Jun 2012
#68
Nobody on this forum "supports Iran"(or, as you ACTUALLY MEANT, supports the Iranian government).
Ken Burch
Jun 2012
#52
"Pinkwashing", which is BS by the way, isn't remotely as bad as Team Palestine's loathing...
shira
Jun 2012
#17
so Ruby do you believe that the fact Gay Rights in the West Bank are not on par wiith Israel's
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#19
So then there's nothing 'progressive' pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel advocates would do...
shira
Jun 2012
#56
So what will you and your fellow advocates for Palestinian human rights do for Palestinians....
shira
Jun 2012
#65
On a side bar it may interest you to know that same sex acts were decriminalized
Dick Dastardly
Jun 2012
#42
So let's get this straight. You'll only oppose Israel, not Palestine WRT human rights violations...
shira
Jun 2012
#57
Norway: Jewish student is branded with a red-hot coin in anti-Semitic attack
King_David
Jun 2012
#28
Palestinians on hunger strike in Israel attract world’s attention; in Norway we just let them die
shira
Jun 2012
#109
seems you found a different source than your OP on this, why ever would you do that?
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#118
I think you found a rather biased and shrill piece that concentrates only on your claims
azurnoir
Jun 2012
#121
So you wouldn't have a problem with 38% of any population equating Hamas & PLO actions to Nazis? n/t
shira
Jun 2012
#111
Why are you asking me about specifics on something I already generally dismissed as spurious?
Alamuti Lotus
Jun 2012
#114