I AM STRUCK by those on the left whose hostility to Israel is so total that they ignore the fact that, by the values important to liberals, conditions inside Israel are greatly superior to those within any of its Arab neighbors. This does not mean that one needs to agree with Israel’s position on Israeli-Arab issues. As a supporter of Israel’s right to exist as a democratic Jewish state, I have long supported Israeli withdrawal not just from Gaza, but from almost all of the West Bank, and, if an agreement can be reached with the repressive Syrian regime, from the Golan Heights as well. I have also been critical of some aspects of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, although it is always relevant to note that, had the Arab states been genuinely interested in creating a Palestinian state in Gaza and all of what is now the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, they had the ability to do so at any time between 1948 when Israel was created and 1967.
But whatever one’s position on these questions, people on the left ought to be taking note of the differences between the freedom that exists in general within Israeli society and the oppression that is sadly the situation in virtually every Arab state. This is particularly true with regard to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people.
This dilemma is clear in the article by Farris Wahbeh in the International Spectrum section of the January-February 2006 issue of this journal. He criticizes Jerusalem Open House, a welcoming GLBT organization that is explicitly composed of Jewish and Arab Israelis, for agreeing to cancel the GLBT parade set for Jerusalem in August, 2005. He is skeptical of the reason given for the cancellation, namely that the scheduled time for the parade was right in the middle of the period when the Israeli government was pulling Israeli troops and settlers out of Gaza. Bizarrely, by the way, he refers to this as the “supposed pullout and dismantlement of Israeli settlements,” a surprising phraseology given that the pullout with the forcible removal of settlers was a fait accompli by the time he wrote it. Apparently, when skepticism is sufficiently ideologically motivated, it can survive reality.
I was planning to attend that event. I was going to Israel the week before as part of a GLBT Jewish delegation sponsored by the National Jewish Federation. I had told officials in the Israeli Embassy that I would be attending both that delegation trip and the Pride celebration, and was told I would, of course, be very welcome. In the end, because of a death in my family, I was unable to go. But the delegation of GLBT Jews to Israel sponsored by the American Jewish Community went forward, and was a great success. In fact, the reason for the cancellation of the parade was precisely the one given: the need to maximize the Israeli security people available so that the pullout in Gaza could go forward. The irrefutable proof of this is that Jerusalem Open House and others have rescheduled Pride in Jerusalem for August of 2006. I will be attending. And to make clear that I do not myself imply a double standard here, I would be glad to attend a Pride event in Cairo, Riyadh, Amman, Damascus, or any other Middle Eastern nation that would allow one to go forward. But I have not so far felt it prudent to put money aside for my ticket.
It is striking that Mr. Wahbeh is critical of the fact that Jerusalem Open House acquiesced in the cancellation. What he neglects to note is that even scheduling such an event in any Arab country would not only be unthinkable but would have invited severe punishment. He does note later on that “briefly stated, Palestinian society does not welcome alternative lifestyles.” Of course what he should have said is not “briefly stated,” but “grossly understated.” It is not simply that Palestinian society—and, sadly, other Arab societies—do not welcome homosexuality. They in fact actively oppress it. Indeed, later on Mr. Wahbeh acknowledges that “300 gay Palestinian men illegally escaped into Israel in 2003 to evade sexual persecution at the hand of Muslims,” but he does so not to point out the homophobia of Palestinian society, but to be critical of the fact that “gay men who flee Palestine only face further trouble in Israel—the uncertainty of living as an illegal citizen, deportation, and the persecutions common to persons whose nationality automatically labels them a security threat.” Indeed it is official Israeli policy to welcome those gay Palestinians who can establish that their lives would be in danger if they stayed in Palestinian-run territory. I know this because working with the gay Israeli organization agudah—which of course has no Arab counterpart—I have spoken with the Israeli government and heard their assurance that, in legitimate cases of people fleeing because of persecution, those involved can stay legally in Israel.
As part of my concern with international human rights, I and other members of the Human Rights Caucus in the House have regular occasion to speak out against the persecution of gay men in Arab countries. I recently organized a letter protesting the threat by the United Arab Emirates to administer hormone treatment to gay men who were arrested for doing nothing that ought to be criminal in any sensible society. We have had a long series of problems with Egypt and have only just begun to see some diminution in the persecution of gay men there. The situation in Saudi Arabia is of course shockingly brutal, with executions being the fate of some gay men. And as Mr. Wahbeh himself noted, Israel has established itself as a place of refuge for gay Palestinians trying to escape oppression under Palestinian rule.
Israel is of course not perfect on GLBT rights. But it is one of the most advanced countries in the world on the subject, and clearly by far the best in its region. Gays and lesbians serve openly in the Israeli military. Here in the U.S., if and when the Democrats take back either House of Congress, I hope to work to set up Congressional hearings in which gay and lesbian Israeli veterans can appear before Congressional committees to illustrate the total lack of justification for our own country’s ban. Gay organizations flourish, including the courageous and wholly unprejudiced Jerusalem Open House; there has been one openly gay member of the Israeli Knesset, and several other openly gay elected officials, including one now on the Tel Aviv City Council.
The contrast between Israel and its Arab neighbors on the whole range of important liberal values is stark. Within Israel, free speech prevails; governments are freely and democratically elected, with Arab residents of Israel fully participating in the process; the press is free; women are subject to no legal disadvantage and serve throughout the society; and, as noted, GLBT rights flourish to a degree unparalleled in the region. In virtually every one of these cases, the situation is the opposite in almost all Arab countries.
I repeat that this does not mean that people are somehow obligated to side with Israel on the territorial disputes, on the location of the fence, or on other issues relevant to the peace process. But neither should facts be distorted, as they are in Mr. Wahbeh’s argument that the appropriate role for GLBT advocates with regard to the Middle East is to take the anti-Israel position.
What happens all too often is what we see in Mr. Wahbeh’s article—a version of what can best be called “praising with faint damn” the virulent homophobia in much of the Arab world. To quote him again, “with westernized Israel occupying on every side, how will Palestine grapple with sexual identity?” If this means anything, it apparently means that it is somehow Israel’s fault that homophobia exists in Arab countries, particularly Palestine. This of course makes no sense whatever.
Mr. Wahbeh’s position is summarized by his noting that “to be sure, Arab culture in general, unlike the west, does not accommodate open homosexuality. Queer or gay sexuality cannot be found in any industry, culture, or city quarter. Palestinian society, like many others, is bound by tradition. Palestine’s current socio-political efforts are geared toward achieving basic human rights, where the question of homosexuality is a subsidiary one.” The assertion that homosexuality—that is, the right of GLBT people to be treated decently—is subsidiary to the goal of “achieving basic human rights” removes us from the category of those entitled to basic human rights. And the assertion that “Palestinian society … is bound by tradition” is no more a justification for Palestinian homophobia than for prejudice anywhere else.
It ought to be possible for supporters of a Palestinian state—among which I count myself—to be able to advocate that goal without apologizing for Palestinian homophobia. And even those critical to a great degree of Israel’s activities ought not try to turn Israel’s generally pro-GLBT position into a source of criticism, while excusing the tradition-bound active gay-bashing that is sadly present in so many Arab countries.
Congressman Barney Frank represents the Fourth District of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives.
