FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Osama bin Bambi on March 17, 2012, 11:01:57 pm
-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017771557_israeligays17m.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017771557_israeligays17m.html)
Bowing to pressure from some gays outraged by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, the city of Seattle commission that represents gays canceled a Friday reception at City Hall for a visiting delegation of Israeli gay leaders.
At a heated commission meeting Thursday, a small, vocal group spoke out against the Jewish nation, saying Israel is masking what some call its poor treatment of Palestinians by promoting its positive record on gay rights — a phenomenon that has become known as "pinkwashing."
I get the whole "Israel has a shitty human rights record" thing, but this is the dumbest shit to come out of Seattle that I've ever seen.
-
Wykked Witch... are you me? Because we seem to agree all the time, we're both Jews living in Washington State...
-
Um...
What do Israeli Gay Rights activists have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, other than simply being Israeli?
That's stupid and discriminatory and I expected better out of you, Seattle Gay Activists.
-
I don't see what the problem is.
Zachski, as Wykked quoted, Aguda has been accused of 'pinkwashing', and thereby support the occupation of Palestine by emphasising that LGBT and so on people have it worse off in Palestine than in Israel (in regards to how their sexuality is regarded).
-
I don't see what the problem is.
Zachski, as Wykked quoted, Aguda has been accused of 'pinkwashing', and thereby support the occupation of Palestine by emphasising that LGBT and so on people have it worse off in Palestine than in Israel (in regards to how their sexuality is regarded).
Depends. Are they using it to say "Israel is right to slaughter Palestinians because we treat gays better" or say "hey, we're not total monsters! We treat gays better than anyone else on the bloody continent!"
-
I don't see what the problem is.
Zachski, as Wykked quoted, Aguda has been accused of 'pinkwashing', and thereby support the occupation of Palestine by emphasising that LGBT and so on people have it worse off in Palestine than in Israel (in regards to how their sexuality is regarded).
Nowhere in this article did it say that any of the delegates (I don't think they even mentioned Aguda by name) supported the occupation of Palestine. Unless Israeli = Complete Monster now, or did I miss the memo?
This was not supposed to be a forum about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it was supposed to be a forum about how to advance gay rights. Just because they're accused of "pinkwashing" doesn't make it true, and just because Israel has a shitty human rights record doesn't mean that it's suddenly bad to talk about their LGBT rights. Frankly improving either would be a step in the right direction.
But the organizers didn't like the possibility that a vocal minority was going to turn the convention into something it was not (a discussion about Palestine), so they turned the Israeli leaders away.
I'm sorry but that's just discrimination based on nationality. There's "supporting the Palestinians" and then there's just "hating Israelis" and painting them with a broad brush. The latter definitely happened here.
Seriously what was the purpose of this action? Does it benefit the Palestinians in any way? Does it benefit anyone in any way? Or is it just stirring shit for the sake of stirring shit?
-
...What Wykked and Meshakhad said.
-
It is pinkwashing. By pushing the fact that Israel treats it gays and lesbians better than the rest of the Arab world, it hides the fact that queers had to fight for their rights in Israel, that oppression is still institutionalised. It tries to hide the fact that orthodox Jews are quite homophobic and that the West Bank decriminalised sodomy in the 1950s.
Groups turned away South African sports teams and cultural groups during their Apartheid era, what is so different about this?
-
Gee. I dunno.
What's wrong with discriminating based on nation? Could it be... bigotry?
Also, I find it funny that you mention that last part. I didn't know about that. And you're right, it isn't any different. They're both stupid as fuck.
-
Gee. I dunno.
What's wrong with discriminating based on nation? Could it be... bigotry?
Also, I find it funny that you mention that last part. I didn't know about that. And you're right, it isn't any different. They're both stupid as fuck.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
-
Gee. I dunno.
What's wrong with discriminating based on nation? Could it be... bigotry?
Also, I find it funny that you mention that last part. I didn't know about that. And you're right, it isn't any different. They're both stupid as fuck.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
If largeham didn't bring it up I would have. The only real difference is that South Africa officially had international sanctions against it. Citizens of South Africa were treated as global pariahs because of those sanctions. Israel however does not even get minor slaps on the wrist, let alone the sanctions it deserves. Perhaps if the Israeli people were treated like the social pariahs South Africans were treated as would help them hold their government to task and actually bring about the peace everyone wants. It could work, however, with Israel acting like the spoiled little brother of America who will veto any sanctions against Israel just like they vetoed the Palestinian recognition bid, it will never happen.
That said, given how LGBT people are still fighting for actual equality and recognition in all nations, denying the delegates from attending seems completely counterproductive to any cause. The LGBT minority have even less power in Israel than they do in America when it comes to changing politicians minds, but at the least some form of LGBT support could have been worked out. Honestly I don't really see how a conference between the two nations would really help as the member of both countries face different localized issues of discrimination.
My personal opinion is that this was a stupid move, similar to cutting off your nose to spite the face. However, on a large scale, something like that as a protest could put the pressure on Israel to actually sit down and work something out with Palestine.
-
Gee. I dunno.
What's wrong with discriminating based on nation? Could it be... bigotry?
Also, I find it funny that you mention that last part. I didn't know about that. And you're right, it isn't any different. They're both stupid as fuck.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
Yeah, at the cost of being bigots.
"The ends justify the means" is never a good statement. Ever.
-
It is pinkwashing. By pushing the fact that Israel treats it gays and lesbians better than the rest of the Arab world, it hides the fact that queers had to fight for their rights in Israel, that oppression is still institutionalised.
Um, of course they had to fight for their rights. That's why there are delegates devoted to the cause.
Oppression is still institutionalized in a lot of places in America too, but you don't see American LGBT leaders getting turned away for that.
It tries to hide the fact that orthodox Jews are quite homophobic
This is common knowledge to anyone who knows about the various denominations of Judaism.
and that the West Bank decriminalised sodomy in the 1950s.
Well, mazel-fucking-tov. Good for them. But in the article, the delegates also explain how their organization helps not just Israeli teens, but Palestinian teens as well. It's almost as if maybe, just maybe, there are some Israelis actually care about Palestinians.
There is no evidence that
1) These delegation members support the occupation of Palestine or
2) That they are pushing for LGBT rights in Israel to cover it up.
Stop jumping to conclusions.
Pointing out Israel's accomplishments in LGBT rights does not make it immune from criticism of its other crimes. You, of all people, should understand this.
Groups turned away South African sports teams and cultural groups during their Apartheid era, what is so different about this?
Frankly, turning away the South African sports teams was wrong. It's okay to disagree with a country's foreign policy. However, it is not okay to discriminate against other people on account of them coming from that country. We do not know whether or not this delegates, if any, support the occupation. Jumping to the conclusion that Israeli = Machiavellian asshole is the same kind of bigotry that you have accused a lot of Zionists of.
That said, given how LGBT people are still fighting for actual equality and recognition in all nations, denying the delegates from attending seems completely counterproductive to any cause.
This.
-
Yeah, at the cost of being bigots.
"The ends justify the means" is never a good statement. Ever.
Just to note, no one has said that.
Israel has a rather impressive history of murdering, removing or simply ignoring civilians until they die. Is that right? Should it be ignored because of their record on other issues? Or should at least someone hold citizens of that nation accountable for the nation's actions?
This isn't bigotry, that involves unreasoning hatred, there are definitive and valid reasons behind it. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them on it, but it does mean they aren't bigots over it.
There are probably better places it could be done, but no one else has been willing to do it. Maybe if people pulled things like this on Americans more people would realize just how much shit our country has pulled, but it doesn't happen, so the don't/
-
Discriminating against someone because of where they come from is bigotry.
-
It's one thing to turn away an Israeli delegation that is well known for supporting the occupation of Palestine. It's another thing to pass that judgment on the entire group simply based on their nationality, when in reality there has been no indication whether they support the occupation or not.
-
Yeah, at the cost of being bigots.
"The ends justify the means" is never a good statement. Ever.
Just to note, no one has said that.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
I'm sorry, Distind, what was that?
Israel has a rather impressive history of murdering, removing or simply ignoring civilians until they die. Is that right? Should it be ignored because of their record on other issues? Or should at least someone hold citizens of that nation accountable for the nation's actions?
Or how about the proper thing and holding the government accountable for the nation's actions and not the citizens, many of whom actually protest the occupation?
The LGBT delegates have absolutely nothing to do with the occupation, other than being from the same country.
This isn't bigotry, that involves unreasoning hatred, there are definitive and valid reasons behind it. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them on it, but it does mean they aren't bigots over it.
Discriminating based on birthplace and living place is indeed bigotry.
Just because you agree with it doesn't make it not bigotry.
Seriously, this is the kinda shit I would expect to see on Rapture Ready talking about Islamic countries. Not otherwise well-reasoned members of FSTDT.
-
I don't see how this is bigotry, either. Looks more like a political statement.
-
I don't see how this is bigotry, either. Looks more like a political statement.
You say that as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.
You must be new here :D
-
I don't see how this is bigotry, either. Looks more like a political statement.
You say that as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.
You must be new here :D
No, I don't see it as bigoted because they have a legitimate issue with Israel, instead of some BS like Jews control the IMF or something. Doesn't look like anything other than a really, really toned down sanction or blockade to me.
-
I'm not going to respond to everything (my apologies Wykked, Zachski and Mesh), but give a general response.
I would like to say that yes, I am wrong. Had the delegation been made up of people who have vocally supported the occupation, then I believe I would have been right in POV. Until that happens, I will admit I was wrong (but not bigoted).
-
I'm not going to respond to everything (my apologies Wykked, Zachski and Mesh), but give a general response.
I would like to say that yes, I am wrong. Had the delegation been made up of people who have vocally supported the occupation, then I believe I would have been right in POV. Until that happens, I will admit I was wrong (but not bigoted).
Thank you. And kudos for being able to admit that you were wrong on the Internet. Do you know how rarely this happens?
-
I don't see how this is bigotry, either. Looks more like a political statement.
You say that as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive.
You must be new here :D
No, I don't see it as bigoted because they have a legitimate issue with Israel, instead of some BS like Jews control the IMF or something. Doesn't look like anything other than a really, really toned down sanction or blockade to me.
...Yeah, and their legitimate issue with the Israel government has nothing to do with Israeli civilians, unless those civilians have shown vocal support for what the Israeli government is doing.
@largeham
Judge not a man by his mistakes, but how well he owns up to them :-)
-
It is not because they are Israeli. It's the pink-washing.
"We are less savage then the Palestinians" is the message they gave.
There are many pro-peace Israelis and groups run by them. To deny them because they are Israeli would be bigotry.
To deny a group for there platform is hardly bigotry.
I see no issue with this at all.
-
I'm not going to respond to everything (my apologies Wykked, Zachski and Mesh), but give a general response.
I would like to say that yes, I am wrong. Had the delegation been made up of people who have vocally supported the occupation, then I believe I would have been right in POV. Until that happens, I will admit I was wrong (but not bigoted).
Thank you. And kudos for being able to admit that you were wrong on the Internet. Do you know how rarely this happens?
I remember seeing it happen once when I was eight, but it was before the internet.
But seriously, unless they've explicitly supported the apartheid policies of Israel, I don't see why there's any reason to reject them. Just because you live under a government doesn't necessarily mean you support all of its policies.
-
Thank you. And kudos for being able to admit that you were wrong on the Internet. Do you know how rarely this happens?
@largeham
Judge not a man by his mistakes, but how well he owns up to them :-)
Well, we can thank GIFT for that.
DharmicDalek: the reason I retracted my statements was that this group neither openly supports the policies of the Israeli government nor is it attempting to pinkwash. If they did either of the above, then I would stand by my criticisms.
-
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
I'm sorry, Distind, what was that?
The sound of you twisting things to fit what you want to hear. Like many political gestures it's pretty stupid in practical terms, but in social terms it's one more method of expressing discontent with another nation's policies. Nothing about justification, just noting that it's pretty stupid, yet does some part.
-
I'm not going to respond to everything (my apologies Wykked, Zachski and Mesh), but give a general response.
I would like to say that yes, I am wrong. Had the delegation been made up of people who have vocally supported the occupation, then I believe I would have been right in POV. Until that happens, I will admit I was wrong (but not bigoted).
largeham gets a Fuck Yeah for having the balls to admit he's wrong on the internet.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
I'm sorry, Distind, what was that?
The sound of you twisting things to fit what you want to hear. Like many political gestures it's pretty stupid in practical terms, but in social terms it's one more method of expressing discontent with another nation's policies. Nothing about justification, just noting that it's pretty stupid, yet does some part.
I just don't think that this act will accomplish anything. Will Israeli political leaders read this story in the paper and think, "Well, some gay people in Seattle think that our nation's foreign policy is assholish. I guess we'll just have to stop all that stuff now." Discontent with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is quite well-known (but you wouldn't know it in America). I know some people who do support the occupation - like, they think they have the God-given right to be a shithead - and this action will not win any of them over to the other side. It will not even get them to doubt their stance. Resorting to meaningless bigotry is probably the least productive thing that could have taken place.
-
Gee. I dunno.
What's wrong with discriminating based on nation? Could it be... bigotry?
Also, I find it funny that you mention that last part. I didn't know about that. And you're right, it isn't any different. They're both stupid as fuck.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
Yeah, at the cost of being bigots.
"The ends justify the means" is never a good statement. Ever.
that depends on what the end is and what means you employ.
-
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
I'm sorry, Distind, what was that?
The sound of you twisting things to fit what you want to hear. Like many political gestures it's pretty stupid in practical terms, but in social terms it's one more method of expressing discontent with another nation's policies. Nothing about justification, just noting that it's pretty stupid, yet does some part.
Dunno, sounded like quite a bit of justification to me.
Essentially, it was a "Yeah, it was stupid, but it did its part, so why complain?"
Or, in other words, "it helped accomplished the end, so why bother about the means?"
Not to mention I think that Diamandahagan's most recent post just confirmed that, yes, it was a "The ends justify the means" post >_>
Gee. I dunno.
What's wrong with discriminating based on nation? Could it be... bigotry?
Also, I find it funny that you mention that last part. I didn't know about that. And you're right, it isn't any different. They're both stupid as fuck.
stupid as fuck maybe but it certainly helped in a very small way to bring apartheid down. it let south africa know directly how unimpressed the rest of the world was with them.
Yeah, at the cost of being bigots.
"The ends justify the means" is never a good statement. Ever.
that depends on what the end is and what means you employ.
No, it... really doesn't depend.