A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price

Posted on September 20th, 2010 by Katherine Franke

Last Tuesday the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the City of Jerusalem had engaged in impermissible discrimination in its ongoing refusal to fund the City’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center, Open House.  Year after year, the City had refused funding requests from Open House, and the Court ruled that “The history of the relationship between the sides reveals that the appellant’s hand reaching out for support has met time and time again with the miserly hand of the municipality … We cannot but express hope that the municipality will not behave stingily again and that the sides can shake hands without further involving the court.”

Ynet News has the story, and the opinion is available here, but only in Hebrew at the moment.  An English translation should appear soon, but Google Translate will give you a rough sense of the justices’ reasoning.

It’s great that the Israeli Supreme Court feels a strong commitment to eradicating acts of discrimination against LGBT individuals and organizations.  That’s more than we can say of the Supreme Court of the United States, quite frankly.  Who among us isn’t concerned about how the U.S. high court will handle the same-sex marriage and “don’t ask, don’t tell” cases that are careening their way?

Justice Isaac Amit, from http://bit.ly/asSr8F

But must the recognition of the equality rights of one community come at the expense of another?  Apparently so, according to the Israeli Supreme Court.  In an unfortunate part of Justice Isaac Amit’s opinion in the case, he wrote (paragraph 55), that equal and respectful treatment of the gay community was one of the criteria for a democratic state, and that this is what separates Israel from “most of the Mideast states near and far, in which members of the gay community are persecuted by the government and society.” Justice Amit then mentioned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia two years ago in which he claimed that there were no homosexuals in Iran.  This claim by the Iranian President served as evidence, in Justice Amit’s view, of Israel’s comparative tolerance, modernity, and morality.

So what’s wrong with this observation on Justice Amit’s part?  Well, it has to be viewed in light of recent efforts by the Israeli government to rebrand itself in a self-conscious and well-funded campaign termed alternately “Brand Israel” and “Israel Beyond the Conflict.” According to the Israeli government – whether Labor, Kadima or Likud – a modern, democratic, and tolerant state should respond with empathy and outrage when “their homosexuals” are discriminated against or attacked.  As Justice Amit claimed, this is what distinguishes a state such as Israel from, for instance, its Muslim and Arab neighbors.  Various pro-Israel advocates, including the Israeli government, have seen a strategic advantage in comparing Israel’s tolerance of gay people with intolerance toward gays in neighboring countries.   Not too long ago, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, concerned that the international community held an unfairly negative view of Israel, launched an extensive public relations campaign, as then-Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni put it, “to make people like us.” Other Israeli diplomats were explicit about the role for gay and lesbian rights in this strategy: “Ministry officials view gay culture as the entryway to the liberal culture because, as he put it, gay culture is the culture that creates “a buzz.” Naomi Klein, in an interview, laid it out plain and simple: “the state of Israel has an open strategy of enlisting gay and lesbian rights and feminism into the conflict, pitting Hamas’s fundamentalism against Israel’s supposed enlightened liberalism as another justification for collective punishment of Palestinians.”

Unpopularity was not the Foreign Ministry’s only worry. Concerned that the international community was wavering in its hard line stance toward Iran’s growing nuclear capability, it allocated roughly $2 million to a new campaign to discredit Iran by specifically highlighting its mistreatment of lesbians and gay men. Similarly, StandWithUs, a pro-Israeli advocacy organization based in Los Angeles, echoing Justice Amit, has explicitly pursued a strategy of responding to criticism of Operation Cast Lead (the invasion of Gaza in December 2008) by emphasizing how well lesbian and gay people are treated in Israel. “We decided to improve Israel’s image through the gay community in Israel” said an official with StandWithUs to the Jerusalem Post. “We’re hoping to show that Israel is a liberal country, a multicultural, pluralistic country…That is a side of Israel we are very proud of and that we think should be shown around the world… As far as a lot of people are concerned, Israel is Gaza and the West Bank and tanks, and they don’t see the beautiful culture and the liberal side.” Other bloggers similarly saw an opportunity to blunt international criticism of Operation Cast Lead by pointing to Hamas’ intolerance toward gay men as a justification for the Israeli military action. Back in the U.S., StandWithUs circulated a flyer on college campuses in which it compares Israeli, Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese and other Middle Eastern states’ policies on “sexual freedom” and concludes that Israel is the “only country in the Middle East that supports gay rights.”

(Justice Amit, portrayed as a progressive liberal in the media coverage of this case, ruled this summer that the easing of the Israeli blockade of Gaza did not apply to Fatima Sharif, a 29-year-old lawyer from Gaza who sought permission to travel out of Gaza to Bir Zeit University to study for an master’s degree in human rights and democracy.)

It is worth noting why, how and to what effect a state’s posture with respect to the rights of “its” homosexuals has become an effective foreign policy tool, often when negotiating things that have little or nothing to do with homosexuality.  The “win” in the Open House case should be celebrated, but celebrated critically, in so far as the rights of the lgbt community have been conscripted in a much larger state campaign to drum up support for a military attack on Iran.  A victory for gay rights, isn’t a victory for gay rights, isn’t a victory for gay rights.  We need to remain attentive to how and at what price these rights are secured, and how the rights claims of the lgbt community are being appropriated for other purposes.  Marriage rights in the U.S. should not be secured for same-sex couples at the expense of a viable life for those who choose not to marry, and civil rights for lgbt organizations should not be recognized in Israeli at the expense of Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims, or as part of a larger state-based campaign to justify military action elsewhere.  Many progressive Israelis get this, but the pro-homo rights community in the rest of the world may not, and it ought to take notice.

(Some of this post is drawn from an essay, Ahmadinejad Comes To Columbia: The Perils Of Standing Up For The Gays, on which I am working that examines the ways in which “gay rights” are conscripted in the name of and in furtherance of other state interests that have little or nothing to do with sexual freedom.)


  1. #Israel: A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://t.co/xzzIY8w

  2. #Israel: A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://t.co/xzzIY8w

  3. That specific paragraph 55 is annoying in its condescending tone towards almost everyone who’s mentioned in it. However, I did feel the need to make a comment regarding the subject in general.
    The way I see it, in many of the times such statements are made about human rights in Israel vs. Arab/Muslim countries, they are made with genuine concern, either to the Israeli situation or the situation of human rights in the middle east. In those cases I find that those making such a statement are concerned with the possibility that political agreements might give legal, political, or actual power to regimes that have no commitment to human rights, which might affect their own lives or the lives of others within those societies.
    I’m not trying to claim that every time such a statement is made it is with such true concern at heart. It can, and often is, used by national and international interested parties in order to gain ‘points’ with public opinion or with international institutions. Such use is disrespectful and unfair to Israeli glbts, Palestinians, and other Arabs alike. But if looking beyond the dirty political game – there’s a true fear here (which, justified or not, is actually genuine), and also an interesting question about priorities between gender and national rights.
    A case where I think it all becomes clearer came up a little while ago regarding joint Jewish-Israeli and Muslim-Palestinian protests against settlements in East Jerusalem. In those protests Jewish female protesters often wear shorts and tank-tops, as they would anywhere else. However, since the protests are taking place in a Palestinian neighborhood, such protesters are considered ‘slutty’ because of their clothes, which do not follow Muslim modesty rules. As a result, Palestinian women refused to join the protest and be seen with ‘such’ women and, what’s worse, there were many reports of Palestinian men harass those Israeli women since they deemed them ‘easy’. Recently, the organizers of the protests asked all protesters to show up in modest clothes.
    The way I see it, here’s another example of how difficult and confusing it might be to support national rights of a nation that does not support your personal rights in return. I believe that this isn’t a simple case of the rights of one group (i.e. Israeli glbts) coming at the expense of the other (i.e. Palestinians) but a very real issue to debate both ways, once we go beyond the cynicism of the political parties involved.
    (To read more about that – http://tiny.cc/c7y0b)

  4. […] For full text click here. […]

  5. This February, Palestinian LGBT leaders will be touring the US. Representatives from Aswat (The Palestinian Lesbian Organization based in Haifa) and Al Qaws (LGBT Muslim/Christian group from Ramallah) will be at the following venues:

    February 5 – National LGBT Task Force Creating Change Conf – MNPLS

    Feb. 6 – University of Illinois, Circle Campus

    Feb 8 -Harvard Kennedy School 6 pm Starr Auditorium

    Feb 10- CUNY Grad Center

    Feb 11- University of Pennsylvania

    Feb 14/15 – Arab Resource Center, San Francisco

  6. A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME

  7. RT @Elizrael: A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME #Israel

  8. RT @GayMiddleEast: RT @Elizrael: A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME #Israel

  9. RT @GayMiddleEast: RT @Elizrael: A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME #Israel

  10. A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME #Palestine

  11. RT @shaxnjacksn A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME #Palestine

  12. RT @shaxnjacksn A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price http://is.gd/fr5dD #lgbtME #Palestine

  13. Excellent: "A Big Step Forward for LGBT Rights In Jerusalem, But At A Price" http://bit.ly/anPpVF

  14. Hello, it is my firs time in this site and i must say that it is what i was looking for. THX so much for \Your work.

  15. Hey there, You have performed an excellent job. I will definitely digg it and in my view recommend to my friends. I’m confident they will be benefited from this web site.

  16. I do not even know hhow I ended up here, but I thought this post was great.
    I don’t know who you are but certainly you are going to a famous blogger if you are
    not lready 😉 Cheers!

  17. Can you tell us more about this? I’d like to find out more details.

    Have a look at my web blog; penomet reviews [http://mutaithe.com]

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.