This weeks reading dealt with how
Israel hijacks gay activism to cover up the Palestinian territory
issues. Specifically by showing support when violent acts of
homophobia rise, Israelis present “it as an exception to the
otherwise peaceful, tolerant, and liberal nature of Israeli society”
(494). Hochberg analyses the exclusion of Palestinians from homo
nationalism in Israel's gay rights discourse. Hochberg explains the
cultural boarders between Palestine and Israel are often explained in
simple terms are secularism versus religious fundamentalism which is
what creates the idea that Israel is the forward-thinking side.
Hochberg looks at QUIT!, a gay organization that claims that
supporting israel is the right thing to do for the better of queer
culture. Hochberg then looks at what it means to be a gay Arab and
finds that people like Fanon, an anti colonial thinker, reject
homosexuality as a lifestyle because it is a western idea. We see
that Arab culture defines sexuality around sexual roles and to come
out as gay means becoming something completely different. “first,
his sexual desires will be unfulfilled because he will no longer have
access to his previously available sexual object choice and second he
will fall victim to legal and police prosecution”(507). This turns
into violence because gays are often linked with informers and vise
versa, “becomes falsely identified with a threatening Israelization
of the Palestinian sociocultural setting” (508). Palestinian LGBTQ
work to break this pattern of thinking but palestinians do not join
the fight against homophobia using Israeli territory conflict while
Israel exhausts it's gay support in order to paint a positive image
of itself.
The following is a link to Chic Point Fashion, Hochberg mentions in "Visiting the Local Queer Scenes". It part of an artist who created this fashion show as a comment on Israeli check points that target Palestinians.
http://www.digitalartlab.org.il/ArchiveVideo.asp?id=325
"The fast paced catwalk is the setting for denuding the loaded politics of the gaze and the stark reality of imposed closures. Waked puts together two contradictory worlds in a powerful reflection on aesthetics, the body, humiliation, surveillance and freedom"(Waked, 2003). I loved this link that you attached to your blog. It really exposed the unfair treatment of Palestinians by Israeli check points with fashion ideas to make this targeting easier to deal with were shown on the runway. It is interesting that Hochberg explains how the cultural borders are explained as the forward-thinking Israel and the backwards Palestine. This fashion show and the fact that QUIT! claims supporting Israel is the right thing to do to better queer culture counteracts this idea that Palestinians are not forward-thinking. Their ideas are very progressive, but it is hard to break such deep conflict.
ReplyDeleteNice summary. You mention how Israel looks "to paint a positive image of itself" and in the other essay, I think Richtie argues a similar belief of Israel which he claims seeks to present itself as a modern and liberal nation-state. Richtie analyzes the politics of visibility, victimization and the violence and exclusionary practices of the (metaphorical) checkpoint that determines "who belongs in this gay/Israeli space and who doesn't." In this framework, (out) Queer Palestinians are only considered visible through their status as "socially injured," helpless victims, which mainstream liberal lg/queer Israeli activists and non-activists contend is a result of their repressive and homophobic Arab/Islamic cultures. Richtie further argues how their visibility is contingent on them disowning their "Palestinianness," because it works to the advantage of Israel as it reinforces their, (Queer Palestinians) victim status and simultaneously perpetuates Orientalist notions of Arab/Islamic backwardness/otherness. Furthermore, Richtie claims how this works in the favor of the Israeli-state because it emphasizes ideas of Israeli modernity, superiority and portrays them as the "compassionate protector of the injured (Palestinian) queers" who are gay friendly.
ReplyDeleteHector, this is a welll written summary on this weeks articles, Queer Activism and the Politics of Visibility in Israel-Palestine and Israelis, Palestinians, Queers: Points of Departure. After reading, the article Queer Activism and the Politics
ReplyDeleteof Visibility in Israel-Palestine, I was intrigued to dsicover the ways in which gay Israeli-Palestanian operate under specific conditions in relation to who is able to enter gay bars, cluns, etc. As stated, "the entrance to the bar was a sort of checkpoint, like so many others queer Palestinians regularly face', thus implying the discrimination some queer Palestanian experience as Israeli agents decide who is able to enter the gay or queer Israeli space. Moreso, I find it quite unfair for Israeli to mistreat Palestanians on the basis of their race/ethnicity.
This was a great articulation of some of the main points that Hochberg and Ritchie bring up in their articles. I found interesting the contrast between the Western "closet" and the "checkpoints" were discussed within these readings. How Israel posits itself as a progressive, modern country by appropriating gay rights into its agenda bears a lot of similarities with the rhetoric that the US used with the Abu Ghraib case we talked about last week. Thanks again for finding the link for Chic Point from Hochberg's article, it really helped to visualize and connect to the readings!
ReplyDeleteWhile queerness often appears as marginal or irrelevant in the context of understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both Hochberg and Ritchie in this weeks readings argue that queerness in fact plays a crucial role in “facilitating and transgressing the current hostile and oppressive relationship between Israelis and Palestinians” (497) that has been and is still seen today. YM I really liked your summary of Ritchie’s main argument. I found it really interesting within Jason Ritchie’s piece was his discussion of Yossi Halevi’s article “War on Terror” in the New Republic and the connections that can you can make to last weeks readings about Raphael Patai’s The Arab Mind. Both rely on Orientalist tropes in positioning Arabs/Palestinians as the negation of Western values (559). However, the concept of homonoationalism lies implicitly at the heart of Halevi’s argument. By representing Israel as a gay friendly and a refuge for gay Palestinians, Israel is both able to show this new contemporary marker of modernity (promoter of gay rights) through the positioning of Palestinian society as the “Other” and creating a ‘missionary’ project to save Palestinian queers from their own society (568). Furthermore, by Israel’s creation of this victim/savior narrative they by its very nature set the terms in which that narrative is vocalized. In this case that is through neoliberal conceptions of queer identity, which have no historical tie to Palestinians and are highlighted by the metaphors of “visibility” and “coming out of the closet”.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Hector, thank you! My understanding from the article about the group QUIT! was that they were a LGBTQ group pushing for Palestinian liberation, not supporting Israel because it is 'gay-friendly'. Hochberg's article spoke of a woman who felt she had to support Israel because they support gay rights (Hochberg 502). I think both the readings really made me question what sexual identity had to do with governmental structures as well as politics and policies. A person’s identity is always indicative of their surroundings. Refusal to acknowledge this emphasizes the difference between western identities around gender and sexuality and ‘other’ or ‘Eastern’ identities that do not revolve around these aspects of life. I felt that both the articles really put how and why individuals identify certain ways, and why these ways when they remain unquestioned can be problematic.
ReplyDeleteGreat summary! It was interesting to compare the articles with this weeks readings and the film Jihad for Love. We see those of the LGBT having similar issues in the Eastern word specifically in the Middle East. It's also interesting to see the contrast between Iran and Israel in their treatment of those they see as gay/lesbian, while Iran seems to be publicly condeming them and throwing them into jails and prisons, Israel, wanting to keep this identity of being a place in which people would be embraced, they aren't.
ReplyDelete