Racism Wrapped in Rainbow Flags

Sunday's annual LGBT pride march in NYC featured many of the typical opportunists leeching off the festivities, corporations and politicians seizing the chance to hawk their wares or pander for votes during what used to be the commemoration of a radical anti-police riot at the Stonewall Inn. Fitting in well with these shameless self-promoters was the state of Israel, represented via their New York Consulate and the Tel Aviv municipality. They marched waving an equal number of Israeli and rainbow flags, suggesting somehow an equivalence between a racially-based state and a symbol of diversity.

Participating in the delegation was gay porn actor-cum-mogul (no pun intended) Michael Lucas, producer of films such as "Men of Israel", "Shameless Holes", "Piss Sluts", and "FARTS!". Recently, the Zoolander lookalike has found a second calling in politics, acting as an apologist for Israel and basher of Muslims in mainstream gay publications such as The Advocate, formulating ingenious strings of buzz words such as: "The world should understand that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not a conflict between two political entities. It’s a conflict between two worlds — one that is stuck in the Middle Ages and one that belongs to the 21st century. It’s a conflict between civilization and barbarism; between freedom and oppression; between democracy and dictatorship; between human rights and violations of human rights." This past year, he started a sort of Birthright Israel for horny gay dudes, getting tourists exclusive access to "sexy soldiers" on IDF bases.

Elsewhere, Israel's state-sponsored attempts at pride march co-option were met with resistance. Toronto's Queers Against Israeli Apartheid dissident bloc was at first banned (and then unbanned) from this year's march following a campaign by B'nai Brith, supposedly under the justification that the term 'apartheid' was offensive (nevermind that the comparision has been made by former Israeli Prime Ministers Barak,Olmert and allegedly even Ben-Gurion). In Madrid, Israel's official delegation was banned from participating as organizers expressed dismay over the flotilla massacre, much to the chagrin of Russian-born Michael Lucus, who quipped, "Europeans are not very smart."

Violent Origins & Contemporary Apologists

In the brief but excellent philosophical/political polemic "Violence," Slavoj Zizek engages in an interesting thought experiment on Zionism. He presents the reader with the following unattributed quote:

"Our enemies call us terrorists... People who were neither our friends or our enemies... also used this Latin name... And yet, we were not terrorists... The historical and linguistic origins of the political term 'terror' prove that it cannot be applied to a revolutionary war of liberation... Fighters for freedom must arm; otherwise they would be crushed overnight... What has a struggle for the dignity of man, against oppression and subjugation, to do with 'terrorism'?"

Those familiar with the eccentric Lacanian knows his favorite mode of argument is to present the reader with the seemingly obvious, only to settle on a completely inversion conclusion. The above quote might immediately be attributed to a present day Islamist militant, but its source is actually Menachim Begin, when he lead the Igrun paramilitary group in its resistance to British mandate control. Begin would later become Israel's sixth prime minister.

Zionism or International Law: On Which Turf Do We Battle?

Among the publishing class of Israel’s critics, a boundary (by no means inseperable) exists in how best to approach a critical analysis of the situation, and in turn, which path toward a solution. For the likes of Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky and organizations such as the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, philosophical discussions about Zionism are fine for the classroom, but changes in policy are the goal. Finkelstein often points out that the entire “international community” (meaning for these purposes global institutions and popular opinion) is fairly unanimous on the basic contours of the issue: Israel is required by law to retreat to the 1967 borders, end the occupation, and arrive at a just and consensual settlement to the refugee question (whether full right of return or reperations). The International Criminal Court has ruled against the apartheid wall, and every mainstream human rights organization is in basic agreement about the systemic abuses of Palestinians by the IDF.

Yet there is no such consensus on Zionsim, they contend: national liberation movement or racist colonialism? Fallen from grace or corrupt from the start? Activists in the Finkelstein camp may recognize the inherent problems with such international institutions as the U.N. or NGO’s (Finkelstein himself remains an avowed Communist, surely grasping how distant such bodies are from his ideals), but see no use in arguing from a weak and divided position. Should international law actually be followed (an untested proposition to be sure), conditions for Palestinians would surely ameloriate. Deal with the possible, they say, not the ideal. As Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine summarizes in a recent debate,

“If you are involved in Palestinian national liberation for decades, as I have been, then it is clear that to have an effective political program you need a clear and well-defined goal. Without it, you can have no coherent strategy, and, without a coherent strategy, you cannot be effective. Things will just be random and ad hoc, and whatever momentary victories take place end up getting lost in the ether. So the question, ‘What is our actual goal?’ is crucial.”

No Country for Old Men

Haim Bajayo is a living witness to history. Born in 1935 in Hebron to a Jewish family, Bajayo witnessed how a neighborhood where Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully was transformed by racist nationalism into a cultural battlefield.

Hebron today is within the borders of the occupied West Bank, and is home to some 86 Jewish settler families living amongst tens of thousands of Palestinians. These families, unlike Bajayo’s and other indigenous Jews, moved in following Israel’s 1967 land grab, and brought with them plenty of IDF soldiers to ensure their safety and the Palestinian’s misery: the IDF significantly restricts Palestinian freedom of movement, have indiscriminately fired on civilians, and protect settlers when they engage in communal violence against Arabs.

The attitude of the settlers sits in direct contrast with many local Jews from Bajayo’s generation. Case in point, on Wednesday, a left wing Knesset delegation was greeted with an insane barrage of irrational hatred:

One man was accused of drinking Jewish blood because he was drinking a can of Arabic coke. The settlers shouted ‘This is not Palestine, it is not Arab land and you’d better get used to it!’.

The Two Exploitations of Gilad Shalit

Tomorrow, according to The Jewish Week, a flotilla will pass down the Hudson and East rivers, ending at the United Nations. Unlike the ‘Free Gaza’ flotilla that serves as it’s inspiration, it will not be carrying any humanitarian aid, no mid-afternoon nosh for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Rather, this flotilla’s mission is to draw attention to the plight of Israeli soldier Gil Shalit, who has been held prisoner by Hamas since 2006, to teach delegates that Gaza is not “a besieged utopia of wine and roses”.

Meanwhile, a pro-Hamas news outlet reports that Shalit is intently following the World Cup to allegedly take his mind off the fact that the Israeli government has thus far refused to accept Hamas’ offer of a prisoner swap.

Like in soccer, Israel’s supporters and Hamas are embroiled in an aggressive game of kicking Shalit’s plight back and forth, trying to score the most symbolic points. One can’t help but feel for Shalit, as propaganda wars rarely actually care about their human ammunition.

Another Jewish Week writer, Jonathan Mark, contends that Israel’s easing of the blockade was a mistake since they didn’t get Shalit released in return. It is unclear what connection prisoners of war have with withholding toys from all of Gaza’s children, but it does put Jonathan Mark conspicuously in league with the Grinch.

But of course, shifting the attention away from the humanitarian crisis (of which toy shortages are sadly the least of Gaza’s woes) by bringing up Shalit is all part of the game, which is why the reactionary ‘Free Gilad’ flotilla is embarking now, in the aftermath of renewed international interest. The last time I remember hearing so much about Shalit was around the time of the widely condemned 2008 siege. How convenient.