Israel gets teh gay!

November 22, 2006 6:18 PM

Israel recognizes same-sex marriages^wn performed abroad. But even heterosexual Israelis are still often forced to marry abroad by Orthodox rabbis. Israel has partialy recognized same sex civil unions since 1994.^wp The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa are the only other nations to legalize same sex marriage; however, most European nations recognize some form of civil union.^wp

Gay Palestinians often seek refuge in Israel since they may be tortured or killed by the Palestinian Authority; this continues dispite the fact that Jordanian law, as would be applied in the west bank, does not criminalize homosexuality. Israel sadly does not often grant gay Palestinians refugee status, forcing them to remain hidden within Israel.
posted by jeffburdges (37 comments total)

Okay - Israel/Palestine, gay marriage, idiosyncratic use of wikipedia links - I predict this will not end well.
posted by yhbc at 6:24 PM on November 22, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

As I brought it up, honor killings over homosexuality are apparently common and legally protected in Jordan.^wp Not sure how common legislation protecting honor killings is in the "moderate" Muslim world. But honor killings are naturally permitted in true Islamic nations, like Saudi Arabia.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:30 PM on November 22, 2006

What's this all have to do with WordPerfect? WP's a great word processor, but it was made in Orem, Utah (presumably by Mormons), not in Israel.
posted by orthogonality at 6:33 PM on November 22, 2006

meta.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:47 PM on November 22, 2006

Funny, I think it's far sadder that gay Palestinians would be tortured and murdered by their own and most of the governments in the region, not that Israel won't give them refugee status.
posted by loquax at 6:53 PM on November 22, 2006

The increasing political power of Orthodox Jews - whose rock-throwing protests and overturning and burning cars helped cancel plans for a recent gay pride parade in Jerusalem - is a terrible sign for folks who like to think of Israel as a democracy.
posted by mediareport at 7:01 PM on November 22, 2006

BBC
posted by econous at 7:01 PM on November 22, 2006

"Gay Palestinians often seek refuge in Israel since they may be tortured or killed by the Palestinian Authority; this continues dispite the fact that Jordanian law, as would be applied in the west bank, does not criminalize homosexuality. Israel sadly does not often grant gay Palestinians refugee status, forcing them to remain hidden within Israel.

...

WP's a great word processor, but it was made in Orem, Utah (presumably by Mormons), not in Israel."

Oddly enough, gay Utahns have to remain hidden too, especially in Orem where they may be tortured and killed by the General Authorities^BS.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:04 PM on November 22, 2006

BBC
posted by econous at 10:01 PM EST on November 22 [+] [!]

Thanks!
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:20 PM on November 22, 2006

Those actually interested in the topic of Israel and gay rights may want to know that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has a lesbian daughter:

Ehud Olmert's lesbian daughter came out against Israeli authorities' handling of last week's gay pride rally in Jerusalem. Dana Olmert gave a rare media interview Sunday in which she accused police and politicians of being too lenient toward religious protesters who threatened violence against those participating in the event. While not commenting on her father's refusal to take a strong stand for or against last Friday's rally, she deplored the fact that a Cabinet member could denounce homosexuals without being challenged.

"I would have been happy had someone within the government responded to Eli Yishai, who called the march an abomination," Olmert told Israel's Army Radio. As a compromise deal, what had been planned as a march through Jerusalem was relocated to a Hebrew University stadium on the outskirts of the capital. Dana Olmert said the fact that the event was not canceled outright was a "bitter victory."

"There was a feeling that we were in a cage," she said. "There was something sad about the whole thing, the way it was handled."
posted by mediareport at 7:20 PM on November 22, 2006

I'm Jewish, and this kind of thing confuses me. Here's a great opportunity to reach out and let a heavily persecuted population know that they have somewhere safe to go, but the Orthodox establishment is so blinkered by their own dogma that they'd rather throw rocks and make a sad problem even worse. This is one of the many reasons that "traditional" Judaism is unattractive even to many Jews: we won't change, we won't adapt, we won't lift a finger to help ourselves because we're too interested in being Orthodox. The Unitarians have carved out a position of incredible moral authority for themselves by presenting a vision of inclusion in places where it might otherwise not exist. We Jews might be well-served to take a similar stance.
posted by 1adam12 at 7:33 PM on November 22, 2006

quote: BBC

...what?
posted by tehloki at 7:47 PM on November 22, 2006

we won't change, we won't adapt,

I know what you mean, but at the same time isn't that the whole attraction of the faith? The acceptableness of such ideas may wax and wane in relation to the general public, but that's the core of the religion so it's hard to blame them. Doesn't mean I have to support it or grant them special rights, but I don't expect them to change...
posted by cell divide at 7:49 PM on November 22, 2006

Those actually interested in the topic of Israel and gay rights may want to know that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has a lesbian daughter.

Yeah, so does this guy. Your point?
posted by docgonzo at 7:50 PM on November 22, 2006

This is probably me being stupid again, but can someone explain to me why Jordanian law applies in Palestine?
posted by spaceman_spiff at 8:03 PM on November 22, 2006

Fucking wiki newsfilter bullshit, but yay for Israeli gays.

(Or the traditional "Nice topic, shitty post" that goes hand in hand with "Nice guy, shitty band.")
posted by klangklangston at 8:13 PM on November 22, 2006

^wp
posted by quonsar at 8:29 PM on November 22, 2006

1adam12, Yes, I'd also imagine that offering refuge to gay Palestinians would help Israel's position, but conservatives are assholes all over the world.

Just imagine how much it'd piss off our own fanatics if Jerusalem became the world's haven for homosexual Islamic men? (snicker)
posted by jeffburdges at 8:39 PM on November 22, 2006

Why should Jordanian law apply in the West Bank? Jordan hasn't controlled the West Bank for almost 40 years. Despite its limited effectiveness and control, the Palestinian Authority is the government of the Occupied Territories and it is their laws that 'would be applied in the West Bank,' not the laws of Jordan.
posted by number9dream at 9:21 PM on November 22, 2006

Slight correction: South Africa does not have gay marriage (at least not defined under the Marriage Act). Civil unions between gay couples (and heterosexual couples as well) has been made legal under the new Civil Unions Act.
posted by PenDevil at 9:33 PM on November 22, 2006

Why should Jordanian law apply in the West Bank?

I was going to ask the same thing, then I realized that the poster meant: Palestinian homosexuals don't run to Jordan because the Jordanians don't enforce their own laws.
posted by Pollomacho at 9:58 PM on November 22, 2006

Part of the reason that Israel apparently seldom grants refugee status to gay Palestinians would come from the fact that they do not fall within the strict definition of what constitutes refugees, according to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees:

owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country

The applicants would have to argue the "particular social group" angle, but that is the most vague of all the convention grounds of persecution, and has a very chequered history in most signatory countries' interpretations of the convention. Often, "private" matters like sexuality & domestic violence are interpreted as not giving rise to "particular social group" status. Instead, the relevant tribunals typically look for more public communities & cultures.

Apart from that, Israel hardly has much of a history of giving a flying fuck what the UN decrees, anyway.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:01 PM on November 22, 2006

Why should Jordanian law apply in the West Bank?

I was going to ask the same thing, then I realized that the poster meant: Palestinian homosexuals don't run to Jordan because the Jordanians don't enforce their own laws.

No. He means that, in the West Bank, the (pre-'67) Jordanian legal code is still in effect. Which, by the way, is true.
posted by kickingtheground at 11:35 PM on November 22, 2006

Fifty years ago we would've hung'ed them from a tree. '.'
posted by econous at 12:41 AM on November 23, 2006

Would the US give these folks refugee status? I'd be all for that.

The orthodox of any religion are responsible for so much horrible crap. Maybe the liberals should start taking a hard line on orthodoxy? A joke, but the problem is a serious one world-wide. I know the Orthodox Jews and the Right-wing Christians have some kind of love-fest, and it scares the shit out of me.
posted by miss tea at 4:27 AM on November 23, 2006

Maybe the liberals should start taking a hard line on orthodoxy?

Why, when we're talking about Muslim homosexuals being tortured and murdered in their own countries are we talking about the responsibility of Orthodox Christians and Jews? Maybe "liberals" should start taking a hard line on the real cause of this problem and the people who truely are the ones forcing gay palestianians underground. Hint: It's not right-wing christians or orthodox jews.
posted by loquax at 5:21 AM on November 23, 2006

I get your point, loquax, but right-wing Christians and Orthodox Jews make it OK for Westerners not to care about gay Palestinians, don't they? I'm not advocating for ignoring all of the hideous things fundamentalist Muslims do...but I don't feel like I, personally, can do a whole hell of a lot about that. But within the West, maybe we can do more to at least make it clear that we don't accept that kind of hatred. And maybe eventually the more we don't accept it, the more we CAN do something about the same crap going on in the Muslim world.

Naive? Maybe. Not sure I see a realistic alternative, though.
posted by miss tea at 7:01 AM on November 23, 2006

loquax, Some refugee / immigrant groups make themselves a pain in the ass by failing to integrate (see religious Muslims). But most groups are quite happy to accept whatever changes their new life brings & bing only economic benifits (see Europeans, Chinese, Hindus, South Americans, and gays. heck even single women). Western nations will clearly benifit from admitting gay Palestinians. But Israel would beniit more.

Ex-patriot communities exert an influence upon their home countries. Do you know what that influence would be if homosexuality became the one & only reason refugee status was granted to middle-eastern Muslims?
posted by jeffburdges at 7:13 AM on November 23, 2006

miss tea - I understand where you're coming from, but there is a world of difference between the "intolerance" of some christians and jews and the conditions faced by gay muslims. To gloss over the horrible human rights records of these countries by codemning or chastizing "western" countries for not accepting any refugee is too simplistic. Frankly, I'd consider any citizen of Palestine or Jordan or Saudi Arabia or Iran to be a refugee for any number of reasons, being gay while muslim included. Other countries cannot be expected to accomodate refugees from countries that are not bankrupt, or suffering from famine or other natural disasters, but are simply conducting business as usual. To accept gay muslims without question and in any number would be tantamount to complicity in the various regime's desires to be rid of those and other elements of their society. If anything, refugees should be accepted only along with extreme sanctions against the offending countries, by the UN, and by any civilized, liberal country that doesn't stand for these types of blatant and quite unhidden human rights abuses. In any case, whether or not Israel accepts refugees on the basis of their being gay is a footnote to the real issue, which is, of course, the intolerance and barbarity of the societies that would make these people refugees in the first place.

jeffburdges: I don't know why homosexual palestinians would automatically integrate better in (especially) Israeli society than any others. It may well be that this is the case, but I'm not sure why you think so.

In any case, my problem with the laying of blame was not that Palestinians (or anyone else) would fail to integrate, only that the root cause of their oppression is painfully, obviously clear - the horrific regimes that would encourage their killing and torture. Israel's refugee policy concerning them is so secondary to that primary cause, in my mind, so as to be irrelevant. Instead of critisizing Israel, why not condemn the regimes that are the root cause of this? In a post praising Israel for recognizing gay civil unions, I would have thought that the contrast with the other governments in the region would be so clear as to be laughable. Unless we're holding Israel (and the "West") to a different standard than Arab/muslim governments. Which is just wrong and racist.
posted by loquax at 7:51 AM on November 23, 2006

Fifty years ago we would've hung'ed them from a tree. '.'

Fifty years ago we would've had them upside down with a fork in their ass!!
posted by LilBucner at 9:30 AM on November 23, 2006 [1 favorite has favorites]

loquax,

Not sure why your tunning this into a moral question. No one is ever *obligated* to accept refugees. You should just consider whether accepting them helps you politically.

Most persecuted Iranians should never be refugees. Even Iranian christians should not be granted refugee status a priori. But if your an ex-Muslim who writes a book about the evils of Islam. Yes, we should protect you because you actively disrupt some Islamic goals which clearly are not ours.

Now gay (ex-)Muslims come between these two extremes. Such you don't know they'll be very active. But the very existance of homosexuals challenges any Abrahamic religion.

If we shelter gay Muslims, their power & influence will increase, and that'll be very good for us, both at home & abroad. See Pim Fortuyn.
posted by jeffburdges at 11:50 AM on November 23, 2006

I thought I *was* trying to make it a political issue. I don't think it helps anyone to accept refugees from any country where they are persecutred for fundamentally illiberal reasons without targeting that country for ideological destruction, one way or the other. What else makes sense? Do you honestly believe that a cadre of ex-muslim homosexuals in Tel Aviv will exert one iota of influence towards change in the regimes they escaped? I highly, highly doubt it, and I think that shouldn't be the basis upon which refugees are accepted.

Going back to the pre-WW2 exodus of the Jews from Germany, it would have helped no-one for other countries to accept Jewish refugees without waging war on Hitler. It would have helped no one to accept refugees and defectors from the Soviet bloc without actively persuing an end to that system of government. I'm saying that there's no point clucking one's tongue at Israel for not accepting Palestinian refugees on the basis of their sexual orientation when that acceptance will not, in any scenario I can imagine, hasten the end of a regime that makes refugees out of them in the first place.

Obviously I am not saying that these people are not deserving of protection - the opposite. I believe they are. So are the women that are persecuted, and the political prisoners, and the indoctrinated, and so on. But finding any fault with Israel before those fundamental questions are at least addressed is ludicrous, in my mind.
posted by loquax at 12:08 PM on November 23, 2006

Do you honestly believe that a cadre of ex-muslim homosexuals in Tel Aviv will exert one iota of influence towards change in the regimes they escaped?

war is the answer
posted by matteo at 1:17 PM on November 23, 2006

you read my mind
posted by loquax at 1:43 PM on November 23, 2006

i read the evening news.
posted by tehloki at 1:51 PM on November 23, 2006

No one is ever *obligated* to accept refugees.

Actually, they are, if they have signed the Refugee Convention. Granted, it's not a strong obligation, in the sense of being enforceable, but it's an obligation nevertheless.
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:51 PM on November 23, 2006

{{fact}}
posted by avriette at 9:35 PM on November 24, 2006