#we cannot have queer liberation without palestinian liberation

[thirdmagic]

the thing is that like. queer rights shouldnt even be the hot topic that they are in any of these discussions, because they are rarely ever relevant in the context they are brought up in. as far as social issues go we all live in glass houses no matter which culture we're from. not a single one of our societies, that any of us live in, has solved the issue of homophobia, or sexism, or any discrimination. none. none of us get to tell the other 'your society is worse than mine' and have that be anything but condescending posturing. absolutely none.

and no, there is not a single person who deserves death or is culpable for the crimes of their society just by virtue of being born in it. i should hope that goes without saying but the past month and a half have proven otherwise. every single innocent person deserves to be free of the horrible cycle of violence we're caught in. no state crimes, no amount of human rights violations, make the death of unrelated innocents justifiable, in any context, and i mean in any context.

but do you know why this gets brought up. because of you fucking westerners who keep projecting this idea that israel embodies every single colonialist evil you can think of, but it's the colonialist evils of your countries and your societies that you have guilt about, that you are familiar with personally. and you project every single social cause that you personally are invested in onto the palestinian cause instead of listening to them, instead of actually trying to understand what work is required to actually help them and what they actually need, because you project this idea of the socialist queer liberators that you want to be onto every single movement that is remotely anti-western or anti-american. and it's honestly really embarrassing but also shows your ignorance about those societies.

and i frankly think that bringing up homophobia in either gaza or the west bank (for purposes that aren't raising awareness, which, it usually isn't) as a gotcha is both extremely tasteless and totally irrelevant most of the time and just serves to delay the conversation and also, again, is not a judgement any of us from the outside get to make, and doesn't make their deaths any less tragic or any more deserved. and i would say the same about the homophobia in israeli society that i am well familiar with, as a queer person who lives here and is stuck in the more conservative parts of the country. but it gets brought up as a counter to the false narrative coming from westerners and constantly spread around- this narrative that this is a fight between one society that's a perfect haven of queer liberation and one society that is nothing but homophobic evils, and that the society that's full of homophobic evils has no innocents in it. because it is not true. not for any of us.

we are not a cartoon bad kingdom and a cartoon good kingdom. we are two equally complex, versatile societies with their own complex histories and things to work through, and your dichotomic thinking simply cannot seem to process this idea. that's why the arguments on queer rights in either of these countries get drawn in. to point out what what you are presenting simply is not factually true and is a simplification of a much more complex reality, which is kind of the pattern in this discourse in general.

i just don't think it's an argument worth having because it's besides the point in the first place, and the point is that none of us deserve violence, none of us deserve to die, and none of us are culpable for the governments playing power games between each other at our expense.

#טאג פוליטי לפוליטיקה

[the-rainbow-lesbian]

The trends, behaviors, and beliefs that led to the disastrous Iranian Revolution threaten to repeat themselves today in the West. We have already begun to see early glimpses. The most prominent example is the ongoing wave of mass anti-Israel and/or pro-Hamas protests following the Oct 7th attacks. Not only has Hamas been a disaster for women, LGBT people, and their own civilians, but the Palestinian “one state” solution would result in a country as unfree as Iran — and one equally antithetical to left-aligned values. Other warning signs include the case of Hamtramck, Michigan, where a progressive-backed Muslim-majority town council voted to ban Pride flags, or the spate of young TikTokers siding with Osama bin Laden’s 21-year-old “Letter to America.” This goes beyond Islamism. Segments of the far-left and Christian far-right are more than willing to team up, as we’ve seen in recent years with European populist movements, the opposition to defending Ukraine from Russian conquest, and radical lefties voting for Donald Trump to “let the empire burn.” The question is: why?

There is a particular strain within leftist thought that often exhibits a fascination with revolution and a drive to dismantle and disrupt, sometimes indiscriminately. Young (and some not-so-young) radicals see the problems that exist today, and with no appreciation for how far we’ve come, pronounce society to be irredeemably flawed. The only solution is to tear it all down. Whatever rises from the ashes, this dubious logic goes, cannot help but be better than the status quo. This perspective, while rooted in a desire for human betterment, usually leads to the precise opposite. Such revolutionary zeal is not just a desire for change, but an impulse to break the existing order, often “by any means necessary”, as so many recent anti-Israel protest signs can attest. This includes allying with any group or ideology that opposes the current power structures. This “enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach leads to alliances that are, at best, ideologically inconsistent, and at worst, counterproductive to the values that many leftists traditionally uphold.

In their pursuit of anti-establishment goals, many leftist factions find common ground with Islamist movements, not because of shared values, but because of a shared opposition to perceived imperialist or colonialist forces. The fact that Islamic fundamentalists oppose women’s rights, secular governance, and basic freedoms; the fact that they criminalize homosexuality and bisexuality in every society they control, is willfully overlooked by the far-left in the pursuit of a common adversary. But the blanket romanticizing of perceived underdogs, often without a critical assessment of their values or intentions, risks empowering forces that, given requisite power, could establish regimes far more oppressive than those they replace. In their quest for a radical overhaul, they’re willing to discard tangible progress in the pursuit of an idealized, hypothetical future. In Iran, decades of progress in economic development and women’s rights were thrown away in the revolution. The West today, which is so much further along, has even more to lose.

The Western world as we know it has been sculpted by liberal ideals such as democracy, individual freedom, LGBT rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, secularism, and the rule of law. Two hundred years ago, three-quarters of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, this figure has decreased to less than 10%. Over this same span, life expectancy has soared in parallel with the expansion of liberal democracies.

There's a misconception that our current state of well-being is a permanent, fixed baseline that we can take for granted. Instead, progress can be fragile and temporary. The rights and freedoms we enjoy today are not guaranteed tomorrow. They are recent gifts of history, not immutable laws of nature. The potential to regress is real. While the champions of illiberal ideas fight tooth and nail for their beliefs, the guardians of liberal values seem to slumber. They need a wake-up call.

Despite facing myriad external adversaries, the greatest threat to liberal values comes from within. In their misguided quest to dismantle the liberal order, radical elements can act as a Trojan horse, surreptitiously opening the gates to any destructive force that aligns with their anti-liberal agenda. The unholy alliance between the Western left and the Islamist right has happened before. Let’s learn the lessons of history.

[orc-apologist]

The reason I'm so adamant about not calling everything that's to do with hate, genocide and such fascist is because it seeks the wrong culprit. Fascism was one of many societal systems that employ these tactics to justify its existence. These are not unique to it, nor were they even necessarily a fundamental part of it. Fascism was a mass movement of the petty bourgeoisie, funded by the bourgeoisie, to smash the working class struggle. That is what the purpose of fascism was.

Things like othering, racism and other forms of oppression, dictatorship and genocide are not uniquely fascist and I need people to understand that. They existed long before fascism and will continue to exist until class society ceases to exist. These are things ANY class society utilizes in some way. The only societies in which you will not find these, or at least to a much, much smaller degree, are the handful left that still live in primitive communism; the state of society before economic classes arose.

Things like calling certain things degenerate are also not uniquely fascist. Sure, this language comes from rhetoric that fascist Germany used to justify itself, but the idea of racial purity, of sexual purity, and so on existed long before that. They're not fascist, they're reactionary. Any reactionary ideology will make use of these sorts of things.

The culprit is not fascism, it's class society itself. In a class society, a minority rules over the rest. Under capitalism, this is the bourgeoisie, which uses the nation states to establish its own class interests over those of other classes, namely the working class (the proletariat), which has grown to a massive size throughout the capitalist monopolization process. Since the proletariat is so massive, the bourgeoisie could never stand a chance in an all-out class war (as we saw in Russia 1917, even though Russia had a small proletariat at the time, but also in Germany 1918 and 1923, France 1871 and France 1968, Cuba 1959, the Arab Springs, the Palestinian Intifadas, and Sri Lanka just last year and many more). Thus, the bourgeoisie, as well as any other previous ruling class like the nobility of feudalism and the slave owners of Rome and Greece, have to split the proletariat. This happens along lines of identity. Under capitalism, as a result of colonialism and slavery during the period of primitive capitalist accumulation (15th-18th century when feudalism and capitalism existed alongside each other), racism is an especially prominent way of doing so. However, all other forms of oppression serve the same purpose. Sexism, homophobia, transphobia, antisemitism, ableism, xenophobia, and even and especially national identities serve this purpose. This creates the illusion that the ruling class' and the non ruling classes' interests not only align but are one and the same, by stoking the reasonable fear of the unknown into things such as "great replacement", "pedophiles queering your children", and "islamization" (more of a European thing).

At the moment, we can see this most clearly in Israel, in which the Israeli state and therefore its bourgeoisie have erected a state based on the concept of a national identity for Jews. Its justification is to be an alleged safe haven for Jews to be free of antisemitism. This justification must continue and it must continue at all costs, because if this rouse is uncovered the Israeli proletariat will realize that it's all been a fabrication to turn them into an obedient work force. Therefore, the Israeli state will do everything to enforce the siege mentality of Israel, to enforce the fear of antisemitism from evil islamists. Israel cannot exist without the dehumanization, exploitation, abuse, and murder of not just Palestinians but Arabs as a whole. Without them, the Israeli state would lose its hold over the Israeli masses, the illusion broken. Yet Israel is not fascist. Israel is a liberal democracy. The genocide of Palestinians is a direct consequence of the rhetoric it uses to legitimize itself in the eyes of the Israeli working class, just how the Holocaust was a direct consequence of the rhetoric the Third Reich used to legitimize itself in the eyes of the German petty bourgeoisie.

None of these things were invented in the 1930s in Italy and Germany. Each and every single class society uses these and that includes the liberal democracy that we live in. The "bastions of democracy and freedom" of the West. So when you call people like Biden, Sunak, Scholz, even Trump and Netanyahu fascists you are making the wrong deduction, but you are so, so close to getting it. If we believe these people to be fascists - which none of them are, they are all (neo)liberals, closest thing to an actual fascist atm is Javier Milei - then the conclusion would be that we just need to elect someone different, someone who will go back to being real nicies.

That is not going to work. That has never existed, no POTUS has ever been real nicies. All of their predecessors were just like that. In a liberal democracy, the politicians of the state represent the interests of the bourgeoisie first and foremost. The democracy part is just there so the working class receives the illusion of control. In reality, we just get to cast a vote every couple years to vote for the lesser evil, the person who will harm us least. None of the things that are denounced as fascist are going to be eradicated in this system. None of them. They are too useful to the bourgeoisie.

If we want to eradicate them, we need to eradicate class. We need to build communism. Genuine, proper communism. A world society without states or borders, in which the excess of modernity is distributed according to everyone's needs: from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. To build a word like that, the fetters of capitalism need to be shed first and foremost, which must happen through a socialist revolution. The proletariat must overthrow the bourgeois state and build its own. A self-dissolving socialist state of public ownership, in which we no longer produce for trade but to fulfil the needs of society, in which all belongs to all, which will bring about the end of class as a concept. When all own all, no one owns anything, and ownership is foundation of all classes, and therefore all oppression.

[donveinot]

[comradekatara]

sexism in the fire nation?? I want more examples!!

Okay, I���m not sure exactly to which post you’re referring, but you should know I have made a post expounding on this topic in the past. I do wish to speak on it further, though, because there seems to be this widespread belief among the fandom that the Fire Nation is the least sexist of all four nations during Aang’s time—and this bothers me for a number of reasons…

7 more paragraphs under the cut because it seems I have no self control???

The Fire Nation is an imperialist state that profits off of its colonialism, to the detriments of the territories it colonizes (obviously). Therefore, it makes sense that the FN seems more modernized than the rest of the world. But do not mistake their technological advancement for social progress. It is common propaganda that social progress moves with technological progress, in the same direction, and at the same pace. (For one thing, define “social progress.”) Colonialist states such as Israel will try to justify their occupation of Palestinian territory and oppression of Palestinians with, “Okay, yeah, maybe we’re doing those things, but we’re also the only country in the Middle East with LGBT rights!” And um, sure, Tel Aviv has a pride parade, but the Israeli gov’t also directly oppresses LGBT Palestinians. Or how when India decriminalized homosexuality and a lot of dumb liberals were like, “Good for India for finally catching up to the West!” when it was Western (British) influence that fucked India up in the first place. 

And even so, these are not the best examples I could give, because the FN can’t even boast gay rights. Now, you all know I tend to see the comics as a buffet of canon; I pick and choose what feels right, and if I doubt its plausibility, I have no problem ignoring it. At first, I was dubious to the claim that Firelord Sozin criminalized homosexuality. Apparently, being gay was all fine and dandy in the Fire Nation before Sozin (which I highly doubt, but still) and then all of a sudden he’s rounding up his subjects and sending them off to… well, it never exactly specifies, but you can guess. Again, not many specifics are given. But, it would make sense for an autocrat boasting the glory of his nation to need a scapegoat, and “the homosexuals” seem a pretty decent target. I mean, it’s not like this doesn’t have historical precedent. So while I initially marked it as kind of immature writing, just the idea that Bad Man is Homophobe because Bad, the more I examined the Fire Nation royal family of ATLA, the more it made sense that the Fire Nation has a history of egregious homophobia. 

Instead of looking to Sozin, who we truly know nothing about other than the fact that he liked to throw grass in people’s faces as a kid (which, uh, same—okay tangent, but why is ripping grass out of the ground and then throwing it like confetti so satisfying? Anyway), we need to look at the interplay among Ozai, Zuko, Iroh, Azula, and Ursa. Now, it’s really not hard to apply a queer reading to Zuko’s arc. I mean, the fact that it plays out like a 1:1 of a coming-out narrative wasn’t intentional on the part of the head writers is, frankly, staggering. And saying this isn’t to diminish the importance of his moral growth—one of understanding his own complicity in the war, and taking on the responsibility to mitigate his family’s legacy of violence and terror—but it is actually impossible to ignore the role Gender plays in all of this. If the Fire Nation was truly free of sexism, which, by the way, is impossible because its culture is too steeped in real-world influences to be able to separate imperialist values from upholding patriarchy, Zuko’s story would have played out much differently. For the record, you could switch out the word “Honor” for masculinity in not just ATLA, but a lot of other texts as well (especially those involving duels) and I bet we’d all come to understand just how silly and deluded the entire concept is. Of course, honor does not necessarily equate to masculinity. Acting honorably is whatever the culture defines it to be. For the Fire Nation, their culturally is militaristically-inclined, and so Zuko tries desperately to be a good soldier. Of course, Zuko is terrible at War, and thus is considered a failure. Being nurturing, compassionate, sensitive, or gentle is seen as weakness, and thus Zuko is forced to suppress these inherent traits if he does not want to be deemed weak. To be clear, Zuko does not learn how to be good; he learns that he is good. That he’s okay as he is, and that he should trust to act on his instincts, because they were right all along. 

Concurrently, while Azula’s arc is certainly less Gender than Zuko’s is (Toph proves the closest parallel to Zuko in that regard), misogyny is a pervasive element in understanding why she is the way she is. Unlike Zuko, who is, frankly, encouraged to yell (as it is pretty much the only form of emotional expression men are permitted to display) Azula must remain poised at all times if she wants to stay in her parents’ good graces. She clearly had better discipline than Zuko did as a child—and that is partially due to raw talent, but talent can only get you so far. Her flames weren’t always blue. While, yes, Azula is valued for typically masculine traits, such as her physical prowess, cunning, and “stoicism,” she is the Crown Princess. It is expected of her to follow in her father’s footsteps and promote military dominance during her inevitable reign. And surely you must be saying, “Well, if there are female Firelords, case closed, right? If a woman can be supreme ruler, then clearly the country cannot be sexist.” Riiiiiiight. Because Ancient Egypt wasn’t sexist. Because Britain. Etc.

I also see people saying that there were female guards at the Boiling Rock. Other than the fact that the Boiling Rock seems like it’s a bit short on guards and will take what they can get at the moment (Sokka and Zuko are both children who do not fit into those uniforms and no one questions it. No one even says, “Hey, aren’t you a little too young to work here?” …which is a shame, because the response, “I’m an intern..?” would’ve floored me) working-class women have always participated in labor. The Boiling Rock is not a gender-segregated prison. The only thing they care about is whether or not you’re a threat to the Fire Nation. They don’t even care if you’re an actual child (see: Suki). Seeing as the Fire Nation is deeply concerned with the containment of rebel forces, and the prison is fucking huge, it makes sense that they would hire a handful of women along with the male guards. It doesn’t seem like a job many would want (although with the Fire Nation’s brainwashing it’s hard to say), and they could use all hands on deck. But do we see any female high-ranking military officials? Any female soldiers in their military at all? The worst jobs cannot afford not to hire women. The Firelord cannot afford not to turn his daughter into a weapon simply because she is female. (His dumb gay son is clearly inept and a lost cause.) Azula’s greatest advantage is that people underestimate her. She enlists the help of Mai and Ty Lee, two teenage girl non-benders, because she knows that agility is key. She would rather blend in, be able to move through crowds unnoticed, than to show off (not to say she doesn’t like showing off, but she is distinctly subtler than Zuko, not to mention Ozai). In this way, her cunning and prowess are feminine qualities. Her swallowing of her emotional outbursts is a distinctly female trait. Under patriarchy, men are, in fact, encouraged to display their emotions more than women are, because at least men get to be angry. Azula is hyperaware of how misogyny operates in society, and she uses that as yet another tool in her arsenal. 

Now, I cannot go without mentioning Iroh’s treatment of Azula. We’re clearly all thinking it. Pre-Lu Ten’s-Death-Inspired-Epiphany-Iroh sends his niece and nephew some gifts from the Earth Kingdom: a doll and a knife, respectively. He sends the wrong toy to the wrong kid. First of all, he sends a ten-year-old Zuko a knife, which is decidedly not a toy (though he still manages to use it like one), and he sends a doll to Azula, which she immediately burns out of spite. Azula rejects gender roles in the same way Zuko does, but there is another layer to it, because femininity and women are so devalued; masculinity and association to it is a way of gaining power. Thus, Azula must perform femininity (physical perfection, “One hair out of place”) to gain approval and can never be caught slipping if she wants to be taken seriously. Unlike Zuko, who never once acts dignified, and is never taken seriously, Azula has learned to utilize these roles to her advantage in every possible way. And yet, Iroh does not care about how well she presents herself. She is a woman, and she wields too much power. Of course, the latter part is true. She is far too powerful considering her agenda, and she does need to be stopped (and helped). But when Iroh says, “No, she is crazy and needs to go down,” there are some heavily gendered implications at play here. To put it outright: Iroh is a sexist. He may have critically reexamined his views on war and peace after the death of his son, but that clearly did not extend to gender. Even a subtle thing, like constantly trying to set Zuko up with random girls in Ba Sing Se (it’s implied it’s not a one-off occurrence) (also, why would he be so rude to those poor girls as to force them to go on a date with Zuko, the actual worst person you could ever go on a date with except for perhaps a serial killer) seems a bit…. presumptuous. Not that I’m necessarily faulting him for his heteronormativity. Suki never had the chance to introduce him to Judith Butler after all, seeing as they had a war to win under intense time pressure and all that when they met. Maybe afterward, though. It’s the least he could do to better connect with his #Wells4Boys nephew (and #MyLittleStepchildren niece—though they truly have their work cut out for them). 

So yeah, assuming that sexism does not exist in the Fire Nation ignores the real-world implication of those claims. The Fire Nation is largely modeled after imperialist Japan, among other cultural influences. To then claim that an imperialist, militaristic society can exist without patriarchy in a cultural landscape so similar to our own is heavily reductive and downright ignorant. Not to mention, there’s pretty clear evidence throughout the entire show that the Fire Nation is sexist, among every class, and on a systemic, structural level.

So when people say, “Sexism is bad for men, as they are taught to repress their emotions, and they hurt themselves and others in the process,” they are, in fact, talking about Zuko. QED.

#analysis #zuko #azula #iroh #yeah this is two thousand words... #hope its adequate!!! lol #anon #asks

[jewish-privilege]

...In 2017, three Jewish attendees at the Chicago Dyke March were asked to leave after displaying a rainbow flag with a Star of David on it. In the surrounding arguments about what exactly happened, multiple leftist groups framed this debate not about visibly Jewish queer people existing without being quizzed about Israel and Zionism, but about “pinkwashing” at Pride events. Pinkwashing broadly describes how corporations will attempt to appeal to the LGBTQ community while simultaneously harming the community through its business practices. But in this specific context, pinkwashing refers to the belief that Israel only enacts LGBTQ-friendly policies in order to draw attention away from its treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

In an essay published by the Black Rock Anarchist Collective in defense of the Chicago Dyke March’s actions, one writer stated, “Just to make myself clear: if you are a Zionist, if Palestinians make you feel uncomfortable, or if you work for a horrible, violent, pinkwashing organization, go fuck yourself, and go fuck yourself somewhere other than Dyke March. Just because a space allows you to attend does not mean that the space is FOR you, and to assume that you have a right to come and make people feel unsafe in their own spaces just because you want to be visible in public is the HEIGHT of privilege, White fragility, Jewish feelings, and general fuckery.”

...Honestly, everything about the pinkwashing debate is infuriating, and everyone involved needs to stop, drink a juice box, and take a nap. We need to remember that Pride celebrations, even in their most cringe-worthy corporate form, whether they are in the U.S. or Israel, are a net positive. Claiming that there is something inherently sinister about LGBTQ people having a slightly less miserable time in Israel are dressing homophobia, transphobia, and anti-Semitism in faux social justice language.

At the same time, we need to address the fact that Israel has a myriad host of issues when it comes to treating LGBTQ people with respect and dignity. Same-sex couples still cannot get married in Israel, because marriage is controlled by the Chief Rabbinate and there is no civil marriage. In 2015, an ultra-Orthodox extremist stabbed five people at the Jerusalem Pride parade, killing one. A far-right Israeli NGO put up homophobic billboards in Jerusalem right before their Pride celebration, and a man with a concealed knife was arrested at this year’s Pride parade.

Queer Palestinians in the diaspora should be able to discuss their problems with Israeli government policies and military actions without being told to “spend some time in Gaza and see how you like it.” Likewise, queer Jewish people like myself should be able to talk about the treatment of LGBTQ people in Israel without having to engage in a three-hour discussion of Israeli politics. I’m not exaggerating: I made one offhand comment about Israel at a Thanksgiving potluck once and got tied up in an argument that lasted until midnight.

I wonder if some of this bad discourse is because of how the Israel-Palestinian conflict is treated in leftist spaces. The conflict is frequently treated as an afterthought (a la “Oh, we need to sound woke, p.s. Free Palestine I guess”). If we actually wanted to incorporate justice for Palestinians in a meaningful way into the LGBTQ movement, that would require recognizing how Jews and Palestinians are closely related groups, both with historic ties to the Levant. It would also mean holding bad actors on all sides accountable for their actions and having difficult conversations about Israel and Zionism. But that requires hard work and coalition building, and many would rather harass Jewish proprietors of community organizing spaces or kick Jewish people out of LGBTQ spaces altogether.

One reason this argument is so exhausting is that it happens every single year. Every June, the discourse about pinkwashing is trotted out, and every year, leftist queer events make it clear that they will be policing people’s Jewish identities. This has most recently been seen with the Washington D.C. Dyke March, whose organizers sent a Facebook message to a Jewish woman saying marchers could wear “Jewish stars and other identifications and celebrations of Jewishness (yarmulkes, talit, other expressions of Judaism or Jewishness)” but it would not permit “pro-Israel paraphernalia” at the march. In comments to the Washington Post, one Jewish organizer Yael Horowitz didn’t clarify if rainbow flags with the Star of David violated the event’s policies, but did state that Palestinian flags were permitted. A joint statement from Zioness Movement, A Wider Bridge, and the JCRC of Greater Washington condemned the D.C. Dyke March and demanded that they apologize and allow Jewish marchers be able to march “as their full authentic selves.”

I find this kind of mixed messaging infuriating. Queer events should not be dictating to Jewish people about which expressions of our faith and culture are acceptable. Leftists need to stop playing this game where some forms of nationalism are praised while others are condemned. American, Israeli, and Palestinian nationalism all have toxic elements because nationalism is an inherently toxic concept. Also, I don’t trust organizers to be able to tell the difference between being proud to be Jewish and Israeli nationalism. I have a denim vest that I wear to all activist events that says עם ישראל חי (Am Yisrael Chai, or “The Jewish people live on”) and a patch of the flag of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Would I be asked to leave, or quizzed about Zionism and Israel, to prove that I’m one of the “good ones” if I wore it to the Chicago or D.C. Dyke March?

I want to be able to spend this month being proudly Jewish and proudly queer, but pinkwashing debates make me have to choose between the two. We need to stop making LGBTQ Jewish people pick from a false binary, and instead welcome to join all other LGBTQ people in the collective struggle for queer and trans liberation.

#antisemitism #homophobia #lgbtq jews

[projectqueer]

STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY WITH Dyke March Chicago

by Stephanie Skora, Trans Liberation Collective founder Before I say anything else, it is most important to note that the Israeli State began bombing Gaza again last night. Gaza has been limited to only two hours of electricity a day for the past several days, no doubt in a preemptive move to silence news about the bombing. Instead of circling up around Palestinian communities and helping support them during yet another brutal attack on their land and families, many people were calling them antisemites and perpetuating Zionist violence against Palestinians by allowing unfounded and unsupported accusations of antisemitism to gain traction. This is a source of no small amount of disappointment and anger on my part. We, as Jews who claim to be in solidarity with Palestine, must do better.

Let me make myself VERY clear: I am a proud Jewish woman. I am a genderqueer trans woman, a lesbian, and an anti-Zionist. I am nobody’s token, and I find antisemitism in all forms abhorrent. I am in explicit solidarity with the Chicago Dyke March Collective, and support all of their actions, and decisions during the March and at the park afterwards in regards to their removal of three Zionists from the space. I participated in the conversations with, and removal of, those Zionists, and would do the same again if asked. The people in question were kicked out because they were Zionists, were aggressive, and made Palestinian attendees feel unsafe. That is, and will always be, a valid reason to remove someone from a space.

In the interest of centering Palestinian voices in recounting the actual events of that day, I will refer everyone who asks to the forthcoming statement from the Dyke March organizers. The Chicago Dyke March Collective organizers can speak for themselves, and I would encourage everyone to listen to their words, rather than making assumptions based on sources that lack credibility. I will, however, make a statement about the backlash from, and aftermath of, the removal of those Zionists. Many of you have asked my perspective on the events of that day, so please consider this my official statement on the matter.

Dyke March is, very specifically, a space organized by queer and trans people of color, FOR queer and trans people of color, so that they have somewhere safe to go and celebrate themselves during Pride Month. Yes, everyone is welcome at Dyke March as long as they follow the rules of the space and don’t cause any problems, but Dyke March is not designed to be a space for everyone and their assorted feelings about oppressed people.

This year, Dyke March was very, VERY visibly anti-Zionist, and pro-Palestinian. This means a variety of wonderful and necessary things, but it also means that, for attendees, that there are prerequisites to our attendance there. By attending, we are recognizing that we are entering a space that was specifically designed to center and uplift queer and trans Palestinian voices… if that is not something that you can comply with, the solution is simple: don’t go to Dyke March. If, like Ellie Otra, Palestinians make you feel uncomfortable and you “just want to be Jewish in public” but feel the need to assert your presence and privilege even after you’ve been told that Palestinians feel uncomfortable, then don’t come to Dyke March, and go do it somewhere else. If, like Laurel Grauer, you are a known liar, Zionist, racist, and Islamophobe, then don’t come to Dyke March, and go march with A Wider Bridge and/or the Israeli Consulate in Chicago Pride, who I’m sure would be more than happy to have your despicable-ass self in their contingent.

Just to make myself clear: if you are a Zionist, if Palestinians make you feel uncomfortable, or if you work for a horrible, violent, pinkwashing organization, go fuck yourself, and go fuck yourself somewhere other than Dyke March. Just because a space allows you to attend does not mean that the space is FOR you, and to assume that you have a right to come and make people feel unsafe in their own spaces just because you want to be visible in public is the HEIGHT of privilege, White fragility, Jewish feelings, and general fuckery.

It is also important to say something about the role of Jews in explicitly anti-Zionist spaces. Namely, it is never the place of Jews to tell Palestinians how, where, why, and at what they are allowed to feel uncomfortable, unsafe, or traumatized, and in which contexts. Palestinians always have the right to determine the terms of their own safety in their own spaces. Always. It is neither the place, nor the right, of Jews to get all up in our feelings about the reactions of Palestinians to symbols that have been heavily appropriated by the Israeli State and Zionist settlers for the express purpose of eliciting reactions of fear and trauma. Whatever your feelings about the Star of David as a symbol, the reality of the situation is that the violent use of that symbol by the Israeli State has made it inextricably associated with that state, and the violence that it commits. That is OUR problem as Jews, and our feelings about that symbol are to be hashed out amongst ourselves, in Jewish spaces, and not taken out in the form of baseless and violent accusations against Palestinians.

It is absolutely true that the Israeli State has appropriated Jewishness for its own purposes, and perverted the culture and history of a beautiful, proud, and strong people to serve the theocratic, ethno-nationalist interests of a genocidal nation-state. It is absolutely true that Zionism is a form of racism and White Supremacy, mediated through a Jewish context. It is absolutely true that Zionism is an unacceptable political ideology that has no right to be heard, or considered as valid, in any space, but particularly those that center Palestinians. It is absolutely true that Zionism is an ideology that maintains its supremacy through the re-traumatizing of each successive generation of Jews, in attempt to force us into allegiance with the Israeli State. It is absolutely true that Zionism reinforces its power by forcing Jews to exhibit White fragility in response to criticism of Jews, because in the context of Zionism, Jews assume a position of power and privilege that we have not historically occupied.

So, what is the role of Jewish people in anti-Zionist spaces, especially ones organized by Palestinians? I would argue that our role is twofold: 1) To support the labor, organizing, and work of Palestinians as they continue their struggle for liberation from the Israeli State and Zionist ideology, including by educating other Jews about Palestine and Zionism. 2) To link the struggles against antisemitism and anti-Zionism, and to help ensure that one struggle is not weaponized to silence the other.

Why does this look so limited? Because we, as Jews, enter into these spaces (or at least SHOULD be entering into these spaces) as accomplices to the liberatory struggle of the Palestinian people. Zionism is a system of power and control places Jews in a position of privilege vis a vis Palestinians.

This means that when Jews enter an anti-Zionist space, we accept that we are entering it under certain conditions. As beneficiaries of the system of power and control that those spaces were set up to combat and dismantle, we may be held to a higher political standard. We may be required to affirm certain political positions in order to remain in the space. We may be asked certain questions about our politics because of our positions of privilege. And all of those things might feel bad, might hurt our feelings, and might seem really unfair to us… but it is our job to remember, and to remind each other, that our discomfort and hurt feelings at being held to a higher standard is nothing, NOTHING, compared to the genocide, violence, and ethnic cleansing that we are in those spaces to help put to an end. That is our role as accomplices, and privileged people in that space. Other privileged groups of people are treated the same way in social justice spaces, and that is the norm in our corner of society. It is also important to note that if you are arguing that a space that excludes Zionists automatically also excludes Jews in general, then it is YOU who is conflating Zionism and Judaism, not Dyke March.

I would also like to add this, specifically addressing the Jewish people that will see this statement, and in particular those of us who call ourselves anti-Zionist, or Palestine solidarity activists. It is incumbent upon us, in particular, to not participate in this mishegas, and to not heap violence upon Palestinians. It is incumbent upon us to not let our possible previous Zionist brainwashing and existing Jewish fragility and feelings to allow us to grab on the first specious accusations of antisemitism levied against Palestinians by a source that completely lacks credibility. A Wider Bridge, is a known racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, and transphobic organization coming down against Dyke March, which is run entirely by queer and trans people of color, some of whom are Palestinians. Laurel Grauer, a known liar, racist, and Islamophobe, works for A Wider Bridge, and is not credible in any meaningful way on this issue.

It is our job to listen to Palestinians. To not pass judgement on them without hearing their voices. To believe them when they refute or reject accusations made against them. To lift up their voices when they speak their own truths, and give their account of events. It is our job to not give further traction to unfounded or under-supported accusations of antisemitism made against Palestinians, especially when we KNOW that accusations antisemitism have been historically weaponized against Palestinians, and used to silence their voices on vital matters, including affirming their own humanity and safety.

If you, personally, cannot do these things, then I ask you to consider why you cannot believe Palestinians, why you are giving credibility to accusations of antisemitism without knowing all the details, and why you have a right to be considered a Palestine solidarity activist.

That’s all I have to say on the matter for now. I am in explicit solidarity with Chicago Dyke March, and all the organizers in the Chicago Dyke March Collective.

#chicago dyke march #lgbtq #palestine #israel #zionism #xenophobia #racism #colonialism #imperialism #bigotry #oppression #lgbtq issues #lgbtq visibility #chicago #illinois #human rights #activism

[naheemc]

One of the headlining endorsers of #MarchForOurLives held last month in Washington, D.C. was the organization Veterans for Gun Reform. The group released a video that played during the flagship march, featuring 16 veterans who had served in wars from Vietnam to Iraq. They spoke to their personal experience using the M-16—the military-grade counterpart to the commercially-available AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting—and the meaninglessness of differentiating between the two. Throughout the video, veterans comment on their experiences with the AR-15: “There is no reason...why anyone other than military and law enforcement should have an assault weapon like this.” “High powered, rapid-fire assault rifles like the AR-15 are meant for one thing...That’s not something I want in my country.” Kyle Hausmann-Stokes, the video’s director and a veteran himself, says in reference to the availability of the AR-15: "It's like taking a soldier off the battlefield with a machine gun and bringing it into the civilian world." VIDEO cover photo: screenshot from Veterans for Gun Reform PSA, above The rhetoric of the video draws a familiar line between the acceptable use of gun violence on the foreign “battlefield” and its unacceptable use in the domestic “civilian world.” Yet, the persistence of this imagined dichotomy derails the very message many of the march’s young leaders were beginning to raise: Any real challenge to gun violence in the U.S. requires questioning the very culture of militarism that makes it possible—and the U.S.’ role in proliferating it globally. The Israeli military came under international scrutiny in late March when snipers shot live ammunition into crowds of Palestinians participating in the Great Return March within the Gaza Strip. In the first day alone, more than 750 were injured, and at least 18 were killed--including youth, and journalists wearing clearly-designated press vests. Videos showed unarmed protesters murdered as they prayed, as they ran, at times being shot down to cheers from the soldiers. Days later, the U.S. blocked a vote by the U.N. attempting to launch an investigation into the Israeli military’s claim that the shootings were part of a “precision strike." Two additional protesters died from their wounds earlier this week. There are deep ties between Israeli militarism in occupied Palestine and gun violence in the United States. From the U.S.’ multi-billion dollar fiscal sponsorship of the Israeli army, to the weapons tested on Palestinian protesters before they are sold to the U.S. military, transitioned into local police departments, and eventually made available on the civilian market, the way military, police, and interpersonal gun violence are connected internationally is exemplified by the relationships that bind the United States and Israel. A prime example of this are the tactical trainings offered by the Israel Defense Forces to police departments across the U.S., passing on the very strategies used to brutally suppress Palestinian protesters to law enforcement and private security forces internationally. The St. Louis police department participated in these trainings in 2011—one of the many reasons the state’s response to protests in Ferguson after Mike Brown’s murder looked so similar to scenes from occupied Gaza. Indeed, military ties between the U.S. and Israel also lay bare the deep interconnectedness of the fight for Black lives with Palestinian liberation. Ferguson, Missouri. 2015. (Photo via IVN) Many Black organizers expressed dismay at how the country rallied to support Parkland youth in ways it has never supported the victims of police shootings. One of the primary demands of The Movement for Black Lives has been ending the militarization of local police departments—a phenomenon the Veterans For Gun Reform video perpetuates rather than criticizes. Yet, as many pointed out, the difference between #MarchForOurLives and #BlackLivesMatter isn’t merely the skin color of lead organizers, nor their access to resources and the ears of celebrities. It is equally that the former calls for state intervention to stop interpersonal violence, while the latter implicates the state as a primary culprit for interpersonal violence. While one demands gun violence be restricted to “the battlefield,” the other acts from the knowledge that “the battlefield” exists wherever there are Black people, Muslim people, border-crossers, and those resisting the inherent violence of militarism. Where is the line between “the civilian world” and “the battlefield?” Were protesters killed in Gaza, and the thousands of Palestinian children who have been murdered by the Israeli military, acceptable victims of gun violence? If automatic weapons weren’t meant to take the lives of young people attending school in Parkland, were they meant to take the lives of young people attending schools in Baltimore, Kabul, Brooklyn, Waziristan? Deeply disturbing news that child killed yesterday was yet another student at UNRWA school - two others were killed previously.  #Children should never be targets! https://t.co/uFapQwjQ3t — Matthias Schmale (@matzschmale) April 21, 2018 Only days before #MarchForOurLives stormed Washington, hundreds of protesters blocked traffic and interrupted a King’s basketball game in Sacramento, CA, protesting the death of Stephon Clark at the hands of police. While they had no permits, had raised no money, and had no celebrity endorsements, they insisted their message was just as crucial as the one lifted up by Parkland students. They insisted that being shot in your grandmother’s backyard is as unconscionable as being shot in your classroom, or being shot during prayer, no matter the qualifications of the individual pulling the trigger. The same weapons that killed young people in Parkland are killing young people in Damascus, in Chicago, in Baghdad. And just as there is no meaningful difference between an M-16 and an AR-15, no meaningful difference between “the military” and “law enforcement,” there is no meaningful difference between “the battlefield” and “the civilian world.” The distinction merely delineates the communities the state deems deserving of gun violence, and the populations on which it condones the testing of deadly weaponry for the sake of private profit. Instances of gun violence are connected through the governments, weapons manufacturers, and systems of dominance that make them possible. To truly challenge gun violence, our conversations about the international reach of militarism must be connected, too. This essay was written in collaboration with the inspirational, talented, visionary writer and dear friend Benji Hart of Radical Faggot. Benji is a Black, queer, femme artist and educator currently living in Chicago. They have essays featured in the anthologies Rebellious Mourning: The Collective Work of Grief (2017) and Taking Sides: Radical Solidarity and the Poverty of Liberalism (2015), both from AK Press. Their writing has also been published at Black Youth Project, Truthout, Salon Magazine, and other feminist and abolitionist media. They are the recipient of the Rauschenberg Residency (2018), Chicago Women and Femmes to Celebrate (2016), and the 3Arts Award in the Teaching Arts (2015). P.S. We're also honored to have Benji as our official #BecauseWe'veRead discussant! Tune in to Instagram live at 11am CST Sunday, April 29th to join the conversation as we discuss Assata Shakur's autobiography!  

http://www.joojooazad.com/2018/04/challenging-gun-violence-means-challenging-militarism-globally.html

#IFTTT #Feedly

[yaakoves-blog]

Summation of How Chicago Dyke March’s Actions Hurt

I recognize that this has been a painful week for the queer community as a whole, but the queer Jewish community is walking away from Sunday in pain, exhausted, and without a home. I have remained quiet about the antisemitism we have been experiencing on the left, if only because I didn't want to - don't want to - play into the hands of the Islamophobic right who would use it to malign communities and the important work that we do in social justice spaces*, but I cannot remain quiet after this. Comrades on the left, especially queer comrades, we need you to step up, to be visible in your allyship, and to be willing to do the hard accountability work of examining how antisemitism has manifested in our movements. Before you react and respond, please step back and listen. The next time someone tells you that they are Jewish and your first impulse is to ask them if they are a zionist, pause. And when you would seek to take the symbols of our faith away from us, drawing the lines of acceptable practice and the conditions of our dignity, please don't and ask yourself if you would impose such demands on any other community.

I have been with you as you have done Palestinian liberation work and heard you say that you recognize that Judaism is not Zionism, as you have declared that it is possible to be antizionist without being antisemitic, and I believed you. I still do. Please show me that you meant it.

(If you need resources to begin to work through this, "the past didn't go anywhere" is an excellent voice that recognizes the need for intersectional liberation: http://www.buildingequality.us/…/ant…/rosenblum/the-past.pdf)

*And if you are a part of that group and would exploit this moment to push your agenda, no, not here, not in my name as a queer Jew. You do not get to use me to malign, scapegoat, harass, or harm the Muslim community. If you do, you will hear from me. To my Muslim friends who have been targeted this week, know that I am sending my love and care. Please feel free to reach out if you need someone to hold them accountable.

#judaism #jumblr #jewish #queer #lgbt #lgbtq #chicago dyke march #antisemitism #solidarity #islamophobia #zionism #antizionism #antioppression #oppression #intersectionality #jewishqueer

[the-kennel-blog]

Lana Tatour, ‘Homocolonialism and queer organising in Palestine’

Lana Tatour’s recent public lecture at Warwick University explored the concepts of homonationalism, homocolonialism and how we can effectively advance - and (re)conceptualise - queer rights in Palestine. This talk was particularly pertinent given the increased focus by media outlets and activist groups on alleged ‘pinkwashing’ by Israel.

Homonationalism

Tatour’s talk began with exploring Jasbir Puar’s idea of homonationalism that suggests, broadly speaking, that the recent advance of gay rights is about incorporating queer people into the state. Marriage and, in particular, new technologies of reproduction such as surrogacy and assisted reproductive technologies are means of making queers reproductive parts of the nation through, inter alia, increasing its birth rate.

As queers become a part of the state, their ability to question the state diminishes and the advancement of queer rights can disguise, sanction and produce other coercive elements of the state. In ‘Rethinking Homonationalism’, Paur argues that “homonationalism is fundamentally a deep critique of lesbian and gay liberal rights discourses and how those rights discourses produce narratives of progress and modernity that continue to accord some populations access to citizenship—cultural and legal—at the expense of the delimitation and expulsion of other populations. The narrative of progress for gay rights is thus built on the back of racialized others.”

Homocolonialism

Tatour builds on Paur’s idea of homonationalism to advance the concept of homocolonialism which suggests, essentially, that colonisers justify colonial actions as a grounds of advancing queer rights on ‘primitive’ cultures. Tatour describes this as an “encounter of alienation” where colonisers impose certain values on another culture in an exploitative manner.

Pinkwashing

Tatour’s thesis is that the advancement and promotion of queer rights in Israel is a form of pinkwashing to distract from Israeli actions against Palestinians and imposing colonial conceptions of queer rights on Palestinians. Her thesis rests on two elements: the temporal connection between the two elements and alleged Israeli state propaganda.

Tatour argues that two processes - the increasing rights of queer Israelis and the promotion thereof against the declining treatment of Palestinians - are occurring at the same time and therefore must be connected and, from this, the promotion of Israel is queer-friendly is a form of pinkwashing to disguise its actions against Palestinians.

A counter argument could be that there are many other reasons for the advancement and promotion of queer rights in Israel that are disconnected to the situation with Palestine. For example, there could be an economic imperative in Israel promoting its advancement of queer rights as a may to attract tourism dollars. Pitching Israel as a “fun place, cool place”, as Tatour describes it, could be a way of reconciling the traumatising history of conflict that Israelis and Jews have experienced. Finally, Israel could simply be advancing and promoting queer rights as it believes it is the right thing to do. The processes may not be connected but for time.

Tatour argues, however, that propaganda that is (officially or implicitly) state-sanctioned displays the nexus between the two. In her presentation, she pointed a number of printed materials highlighting Israel’s queer rights agenda and contrasting the poor treatment of queer people in Muslim (and, implicitly, Palestinian) territories. She also referenced an address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu where he contrasts Israel’s standing up for queer rights against Muslim states (and, implicitly, a Palestinian state) that criminalise same-sex sexual relations. Tatour contends that this painting of Israel as queer-friendly and Palestine as anti-queer is deliberate. The advancement of queer rights in Israel, the critique of Palestine’s stance on queer rights and Isreal’s actions against Palestinians are not merely temporarily colocated but the same phenomenon: pinkwashing.

Tatour further argues that Israel’s concern for queer rights is not genuine as it has a record of refusing refugee claims by queer Palestinians arguing that they fear persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation; it is still yet to legislate for marriage equality (though it recognises overseas same-sex marriages); and there have been acts of violence against queers at Israeli pride events.

What do we do?

My question to Tatour at the conclusion of her presentation was: how do we effectively advance queer rights abroad without falling into the trap of homocolonialisation and an ‘encounter of alienation’? My unspoken thought was: could Israel’s aggressive promotion of its queer rights record (even if conceived of as pinkwashing) effectively place pressure on Palestine and neighbouring Muslim states to improve their human rights record in regards to queer rights?

During her presentation, Tatour highlighted the “commitment of the UN to gay rights as human rights” as an example of homocolonialisation or imposing a Western script and “particular models of sexual emancipation” on cultures which do not recognise this.

Tatour’s argument throughout her presentation was that we should instead look to Palestinian queer self-organising groups and what they are communicating to the West, which is a need to call out Israel’s pinkwashing efforts and support strategies such as boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel. However, there are some significant critiques of that thesis.

Miriam Elman criticises this position as a form of ‘reverse pinkwashing’: “seeking to… deny the truth about Israel’s gay rights record in order to wash away the violent and pervasive persecution of LGBT individuals in Palestinian society”, including the execution of queer men in Gaza and the lack of anti-discrimination protections in the West Bank. Tatour acknowledged that those queer self organising groups communicating to the West through attendance at various international fora have a mobility and thus a platform that many Palestinian queers may not have and, by implication, may not represent that views of all queer Palestinians - but can any group be wholly representative?

For all their efforts, it appears that Palestinian queer self-organising has not made any real advancements in regards to queer rights. Tatour’s example of queer Palestinians seeking asylum in Israel because of alleged persecution on the basis of their sexual orientation is evidence that there are queer Palestinians that live in fear. Tatour also, in answer to my question, acknowledged that there is homophobia in Palestinian society, but that the homophobia in Palestine is affected by the context of colonialism in which Palestinians live.

It is noteworthy that queer rights are going backwards in some non-Western countries in reaction against a Western ‘gay agenda’ that, to use Tatour’s quote, is seen as a means to “impose particular models of sexual emancipation” on non-Western states. Tatour argued that “there are no gays in the Muslim world” at least in the sense in which we conceive of sexual orientation as an identity; that the gay identity has been manufactured and has “been universalised on different parts of the world”; and that the liberal project of gay rights, espoused by the UN and states such as Israel, cannot accommodate differences.

It is here where Tatour contended that queer politics - as opposed to gay politics - is a radical project that refuses centring of the state. By association, we should not judge Palestine on its record on gay rights given that gay rights are culturally relative but should adopt a more radical queer critique that rejects homonationalism and the homocolonialism of Israel and direct our activism that way.

Conclusions

Homonationalism and associated homocolonialism pose real challenges for the queer rights movement. How can we advocate for increased rights for queer people and incorporation in to state institutions such as marriage but maintain a criticism of the state’s exclusion of others (queer refugees, for example)? Should we be seeking incorporation or acceptance? Is queer politics a viable way forward?

Are gay rights culturally relative? It could certainly be argued that marriage and adoption are culturally relative, but what of criminalisation and the state-sanctioned killing of gay people? To my mind, these are universal values - the right to life and to not face persecution because of one’s sexual orientation. To argue that we should not intervene to advance gay rights for fear of imposing liberal Western ideals on different parts of the world ignores our duty as global citizens to act when faced with the persecution of queer people. To suggest that it should be up to queer self-organising groups in the countries concerned to define the means of engagement imposes an unrealistic burden on queer people in countries some of which have ‘gay propaganda' laws restricting their ability to mobilise and others which have a culture of persecution of queers. How we can intervene or engage in an effective way that does not perpetuate alienation is a question that requires further thought and discussion.

What of the thesis that Israel is pinkwashing? Throughout her presentation, Tatour highlighted that Israel has made significant and positive advancements on gay rights. That should be applauded and Israel is right to promote its record on gay rights even if there is still more work to be done to advance gay rights and end homophobia in Israel. Whilst Tatour contends that this promotion of its record is a form of pinkwashing and pointed to evidence for this thesis, she failed to consider the alternative thesis that Israel is promoting its queer rights record and calling out persecution in neighbouring states to place pressure on these states to improve their human rights protections for queer people and that this is a form of (albeit blunt) diplomacy.

The lecture radically challenged ideas of queer rights and aspirations in Palestinian territories and Muslim states. It also challenged ideas of the universality of queer rights and the effects of a rights-based, identity-framed discourse on others. The appropriate response to the persecution of queers overseas, which should be a concern for us all, is something that requires considerably more discussion and debate, especially in a climate where the increasing number of queer refugees suggests that anti-queer persecution is on the rise.