IGF contributing author James Kirchick writes at the New Republic Online about Jerusalem's gay pride parade:
it is not just the ultra-Orthodox community that has opposed gay pride events in Jerusalem. Even liberal stalwart (and newly-elected President) Shimon Peres proved feckless... Ha'aretz reported that Peres promised to oppose the parade in exchange for the votes of Knesset members belonging to religious parties. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has an openly gay daughter, also expressed opposition to holding a gay pride parade in Jerusalem, because of the city's "special sensitivity." Such a stance-having no problem with a gay pride march in principle but disapproving of it in Jerusalem-assumes that there is something morally wrong with homosexuality, and that such an event would tarnish the holiness of the ancient city.
And yet:
Hagai El-Ad (the founder of Magi, an acronym for "Israeli Gay Party," which he hopes will one day be represented in the Knesset) told me that the parade's "existence is a victory for freedom. Its existence proves that Israel is a democracy." In a region of the world where homosexuality can be met with state-sanctioned death, Jerusalem's sixth annual gay pride event is yet another testament to the freedom, openness, and diversity of the Jewish State.
13 Comments for “Jerusalem Pride”
posted by Eric on
I don’t see why it is that “having no problem with a gay pride march in principle but disapproving of it in Jerusalem” necessarily assumes the immorality of homosexuality. That particular city is a tinderbox of both ethnic and religious tensions unlike any other. Disapproving of a gay pride march in the middle of that city may be more pragmatic than anything else.
posted by Brian Miller on
One could make a similar argument for religious celebrations in that city, given recent sectarian violence.
Sadly, one of the things that unites the warring statists of the Middle East more than anything else is homophobia!
posted by Eric on
If homophobia is truly a thing that unites the sectarian extremists unlike any other thing, then it stands to reason that to attempt to draw equivalence between a gay pride march and almost any religious observation will fail. It seems to me that your line of reasoning concedes a broader and possibly more dangerous disapproval of homosexuality than any disagreements that the sectarian fanatics might have amongst themselves. In this, then, the protection of the health and welfare of the gay pride marchers will necessarily draw more resources from the state then, say, the celebration of Passover.
This is not to say that one must approve of the bigotry that fuels violence that those homosexuals in the Middle East experience every day. It is, instead, to say that government support of anything that would unite the otherwise squabbling fanatics would be unwise and strain the government?s primary responsibility to keep the peace. I therefore repeat that for a government official not to support a gay pride march in Jerusalem can be understood better in terms of pragmatism than anything else.
posted by ETJB on
Given the fact that gay people in most of the region facing much, much more serious problems. Is the quarrel over a parade a big deal?
Israel has no anti-gay sodomy law, anti-discrimination laws, gays in the military and domestic partnership benifits.
An Israeli transgender celebrity won the Eurovision back in 1998.
Are their problems? Yes, but not nearly as bad as say, gay Iraqis.
posted by Bobby on
Every city that is sacred is weird about gays. The Vatican protested gay pride in Rome, you can’t go to Mecca if you’re not a muslim and I doubt we’ll ever see gay pride at the ganges river in India.
Besides, I’ve been to Israel, I’d rather spend my time in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Eilat. Why have a parade in a place full of bigots?
posted by Craig2 on
From what I can make out, the conflict is essentially between secular liberal Israelis on the one hand, and fundamentalist
hyper-Orthodox Jews et al on the other. Sound familiar?
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Lori Heine on
“Why have a parade in a place full of bigots?”
Because, Bobby, among those who choose to march are a great many people of faith. It is their faith, too; it is their city, too.
What those who would keep them from marching are really doing is trying to keep gay people shut out of the church and the synagogue. But we belong there just as much as anybody else does. And once we insist upon our own rightful place there, the most formidable weapon they have to wield against us — the notion that religion belongs exclusively to them, for them to use however they please — will be disarmed.
They know that, and they are afraid. But even those of us who do not choose to believe need to understand the strategic importance of religion. As long as they can keep us shut out, they can go on pushing us around and hiding behind religion to “justify” it.
posted by Brian Miller on
the protection of the health and welfare of the gay pride marchers will necessarily draw more resources from the state then, say, the celebration of Passover
Two observations:
1) The obligations of the state to arrest and prosecute violent criminals are not abrogated due to cost or the intensity of belief driving the assailant;
2) Pride marchers in Jerusalem should be well-armed and prepared to defend themselves, if need be.
Third, unrelated observation:
Minority rights and diversity are rarely protected, let alone cherished, within a democracy. Democracy is mob rule by ballot — no different than an inflamed crowd of people forcing their will on an unlucky few. Without codification of the civil rights of the ultimate minority — the individual — “democracy” is just a path to oppression, as the unfortunate Jewish, gay, gypsy and disabled citizens of Nazi Germany learned under their democratically-elected Fuhrer.
posted by Bobby on
I agree with the well armed part, someone did get stabbed once by the hassidim during a Jerusalem gay pride parade.
However, as someone who has been to Jerusalem, I can tell that there are neighborhoods where if you drive on saturday they will throw stones at your car, and if you’re a woman there are places where you can’t wear a small skirt.
So I think marching in Jerusalem is asking for trouble, although there are certan non-hassidic parts of the city. But in general, it’s like me trying to join the Christian Coalition and be out as a gay man, not worth it.
In fact, Rosie O’donnel who charters a gay family cruise ended up giving up on the Bahamas because while that island government likes gay tourists, there’s a strong religious minority who doesn’t, and they will be protesting if Rosie comes. And frankly, who needs protestors during vacation?
posted by Craig2 on
There are also some staunch social liberals in that country who won’t put up with any funny business from the ultra-Orthodox.
I certainly applaud them for roundly criticising the misbehaviour of their version of the hardcore religious right.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Brian Miller on
it’s like me trying to join the Christian Coalition and be out as a gay man
It’s more like you trying to have a gay pride parade in the Charlotte NC area and marching through certain parts of town that have anti-gay people living in them. Their beliefs don’t trump your right to self-expression in public space.
posted by Bobby on
Brian, what I’m trying to say is that just because you can express yourself doesn’t mean you absolutely have to. It’s your right, but why not do it at a place where you’re embraced and not rejected? Advertising is like that, we sell trucks to people who like trucks, not green hippies, to those we sell the Toyota Prius. There are gay groups and maybe a gay bar in Jerusalem, but having a parade there is just asking for trouble.
Then again, I do have to admit that gay parades have worked in sensitizing heterosexuals so the next time they see a normal homosexual, they won’t be so shocked. So maybe it’s time to shock the haredim in Jerusalem. I still think it’s a big waste of time. Eilat and Tel Aviv are prettier, and you have the beach nearby.
Frankly, we might as well have a gay pride parade in Antartica. I’d be more comfortable there sorrounded by amazing beauty than in Jerusalem being gawked at by the religious.
posted by Eric on
The obligations of the state to arrest and prosecute violent criminals aren?t exactly the issue here. The issue is whether the state would prefer not to make the effort. Knowing that if a gay pride parade marches through the streets of Jerusalem that it would strain the resources of the municipal authorities to keep the peace, it?s understandable that the government would prefer that the march did not take place there.
This is not to say that the government would be justified in failing to provide adequate protection should the march occur anyway. One can easily envision government-provided security, albeit begrudging, to such an event. The issue is not, therefore, one of the approval or disapproval of homosexuality, but a pragmatic concession to the reality that exists within Jerusalem and the resources that would be needed to secure a parade, should it go on.
I find it eminently reasonable that the government would like to avoid the financial costs as well as the likely violence that might occur at such an event. It should be noted that the government is not taking active steps to prevent the parade but is simply preferring to avoid bloodshed and expense.