A foolish op-ed published yesterday in the New York Times illustrates well the approaching failures of the latest trends in Israel advocacy.
“Pinkwashing” may be an unfamiliar term to most, but it’s been the hip new expression in anti-Israelist Western circles for years now. It refers to the efforts by the state of Israel and Israel advocacy organizations to promote Israel’s liberal treatment of its gay population, which is certainly the freest, by an extreme long shot, in its region and perhaps in the entire Western world, where even San Francisco may not be as welcoming to gays as Tel Aviv.
The attractiveness of this kind of argument is easy to see. Because Israel is seen most harshly in the West by the left, it is the “progressive” case for Israel that must be made. (Evangelicals and conservatives, presumably, will go on loving the Jewish state no matter how large or, shall we say, exuberant, the Tel Aviv gay pride parade becomes.) Since the left today reflexively voices its concern over gay rights, the thinking goes, highlight sexual freedom in Israel. A similar thought process is behind efforts to promote Israel’s environmentalist credentials. Nowhere in the world of Israel advocacy are these kinds of efforts more attractive than on the college campus, where defining oneself as a believer in gay rights and an environmentalist are two of the chief assumptions that govern intellectual life.
The Times pinkwashing op-ed reflects the related problems of this kind of advocacy. While it may have an important effect on the center of opinion, it will do nothing to dent the anti-Israelism of the intelligentsia. Most importantly, by eliding the fundamental question at the heart of the conflict, namely whether or not Jews have a right to self-determination in their homeland, advocacy on this score may win small victories but still find itself continuing to lose the war.
It also is, seen in a certain light, a specie of the traditional Jewish accommodationist political strategy. Rather than demanding acknowledgement of their rights on their own terms (as most peoples do), Jewish Israel advocacy, even when promoted by the state of Israel itself, continues to fall back on ways to make itself appealing to the governing proclivities of the day. Yesterday’s order was nationalism, so Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl, and their followers cast the Jewish national project in line with it. Today’s tendencies lean in other directions, so Jews find themselves pitching their arguments along those lines. All will find themselves forever flummoxed by the ferocity of anti-Jewish politics until they come to understand it is a hatred that cannot be appeased.
The alternative is a robust attack on those ideologues governed by a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to self-determination that underlies our present international order, driven by the conviction in thought, word, and deed that Jewish rights are not a topic up for debate.
We may of course still fail to diminish the potency of the West’s current anti-Israelist madness. At least in this way we would give ourselves a fighting chance.
Making arguments with a person who maintains that what is good is bad or vice versa, thus defying the rules of Aristotelian, or any other logic that I am familiar with, as Sarah Schulman does in New York Times Op-Ed today, is impossible. She writes that fair Israeli attitude to gay and lesbian tourists, who according to her are pro Palestinian, proves that struggles attempts unfairly to keep the occupation of Palestinian land. n nI can provide her with more ammunition for statements of the kind she is making today. According to a recent poll, majority of Arab inhabitants of pre-67 Jordanian Jerusalem, prefer living under Israeli rule to living in any Arab country. Forty percent of them said that if Jerusalem is divided between Israel and Palestine, and consequently their residence could become Palestinian, they would like to move to the Israeli side. Three quarters said that they will not enjoy the same freedom of speech and expression in Palestine as they have it now. The results of this poll, by the logic of Ms. Schulman or lack of it, prove once again that Israel is in Ms. Schulman's view is a fascist apartheid country.
I agree that it would be foolish to use "pinkwashing" and other similar strategies as an alternative to arguments that highlight the Jews' historical, legal and moral rights to self-determination in Israel. But why must it be one or the other? n nThere are millions of people who are unwilling to put in the time and effort to understand the historical context of the Arab-Israeli conflict but who care deeply about issues such as gay rights, womens' rights, religious freedom and environmentalism. If supporters of Israel have the luxury (as they, indeed, do) of deploying multiple arguments in favor of the Jewish State, why shouldn't they? n nYes, our resources are limited, but let's not lose sight of the fact that different messages resonate with different people. We need all the friends we can get.
I think the author is right. anti-Semitism is not a hatred that one can "recover" from. it is the rare son-of-Hamas kind of individual who can break away from a lifetime of indoctrination and see Jews as people. n nas for the Left, they're just enraged that the Israelis won't commit national suicide. Obama is beside himself that he can't give his precious UNESCO any money right now. and he HATES that he may have to veto the "Palestinians'" UN shenanigans. poor Lefties! it would be so much easier for you all if those stiff-necked Jews would just roll over and give up, wouldn't it?
Bringing Israel's liberal treatment of minorities to the forefront may not convince those who have vested interest in anti-Israelism or even those have been wrongly educated in the issues surrounding the conflict, but it may convince those with an open minded disposition to take a second look. n nIsrael needs to take a multifaceted approach to advocacy that avoids religious assertions in favor of logical and historical ones that highlight the historicity of the Israeli state, supported by evidence. If the treatment of it's women, religious minorities and LGBT citizens helps even a small number of people come to the side of Israel, then it's worth the effort. The argument for Israeli self-determination is the main focus, and it can be made while still highlighting desirable aspects of an Israeli state over an Islamic one. It's not a matter of competing strategies, but of complementary ones. n nThe existence of a predominantly Jewish state in Israel that supports the just treatment of all it's people is certainly preferable to a barbarous Muslim theocracy that won't even allow women to leave their homes without a male escort, that regularly kills its gay citizens in horrific ways, and tortures non-Muslims and political opponents to silence dissent.