palestinian lesbians

[demagogic_schizoid]

they must really be a thorn (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835469.html) in the side of the anti-imperialist left. I mean come on, this is funny. The only country in the Middle East where you could hold a conference for lesbians....Israel. :rofl: I wonder how those people who paint Israel as a fascist state and it's enemies as freedom fighters will explain this one. Wouldn't it just be easier for them if Palestinian lesbians didn't exist...maybe someone could have a word with them and ask them to keep quiet for the time being until the zionists have been defeated, as they are kind of letting the side down.

PS sorry to anyone who clicked this thinking it was porn. it was my intention to draw you in for indoctrination under false pretences.

[PenguinHunter]

It's nice to see causes like this bring opposing sides closer together: Israeli and Palestinian homosexuals support one another while Israeli and Palestinian conservatives cooperate to think up ways to beat the first group down. If only there were more gay pride rallies in Israel and the Palestinian Territories, they could all work together to form a little America.

[Stoned_Rider]

Palestinian chicks are hawt. I'm disappointed in the lack of photographic linkage :dont:

[PonderBee]

I once had a young college student who worked part-time for me. She was muslim & had emigrated from somewhere in the middle east w/ her parents & brother. She confided to me that she was in a loving & sexual relationship w/ her best friend (an American female). A few months after she began working w/ me her parents & brother confronted her about the relationship in the employee parking area, screamed at & beat her. They told her that she was "dead" and left her crying on her knees in the parking lot. The police showed up after the fact but she refused to agree that she'd been assaulted or that she was injured in any way. Rose left, never returned (even to pick up her paycheck) and we were never able to reach her again. I called the police weeks later but they were not interested. From time to time I think about her and wonder how she is.

[Ferrus]

they must really be a thorn (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835469.html) in the side of the anti-imperialist left.
It would appear the relation between Islamic conservatives and the anti-capitalist left is one in which the Islamists have the whip hand. Why? The ruck of the left wing movemoment - but for a few honourable exceptions - comprises emotional activists. In contrast the Islamic movement is calculating, for at its head are scholars and ideologues who keep a strict orthodoxy and who demand obedience. It feels disgust towards the licence (by their construal) that these movements promote yet equally see its potential by way of an infiltrator, worming into Western public opinion.

Frankly most people in the West are hopelessly ill-informed of the Middle East. Both the Left and Right subscribe to inane platitudes and formulae which often bear little relation to actuality. Ironically the Middle East has our number well enough. If, forgive me for using that Baconian commonplace, knowledge is power that is one advantage they have possession of.

[meanlittlechimp]

they must really be a thorn (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835469.html) in the side of the anti-imperialist left. I mean come on, this is funny. The only country in the Middle East where you could hold a conference for lesbians....Israel. :rofl: I wonder how those people who paint Israel as a fascist state and it's enemies as freedom fighters will explain this one. Wouldn't it just be easier for them if Palestinian lesbians didn't exist...maybe someone could have a word with them and ask them to keep quiet for the time being until the zionists have been defeated, as they are kind of letting the side down.

PS sorry to anyone who clicked this thinking it was porn. it was my intention to draw you in for indoctrination under false pretences.

I don't see how that justifies imperialist actions. I'm not saying Israel is imperialist, I'm not saying they're not. I just don't see how it's relevant to whether the other things they do are justified or not. If I treat Mexicans very well it has nothing to do with whether I treat Puerto Ricans horribly; I don't see how one has anything to do with the other.

[Ferrus]

I don't see how that justifies imperialist actions.
It doesn't - indeed the worst excesses of 19th century European imperialism came from similarly paternalist, liberal attitudes. But what it does suggest that the left wing is leaguing itself with strange bedfellows. But then, alas, it always has supported conservative movements against the establishment even if the aforesaid establishment was 'liberal' or 'progressive'. Note Marx's support of the Carlist movement in Spain, the Social Democrat's uneasy relations with Narodiks and Nihilists in Russia, British socialists' support for Sein Fein in Ireland which was, at least till recently, a deeply conservative Catholic movement and other assorted example. Such movements usually become a pest to them in the fullness of time.

[nfinityi]

I'm fairly disappointed, I thought this would be about how gays all over the middle east are being mistreated, but I'm left with this...


























And boobs are pretty cool...

[demagogic_schizoid]

It doesn't - indeed the worst excesses of 19th century European imperialism came from similarly paternalist, liberal attitudes. But what it does suggest that the left wing is leaguing itself with strange bedfellows. But then, alas, it always has supported conservative movements against the establishment even if the aforesaid establishment was 'liberal' or 'progressive'. Note Marx's support of the Carlist movement in Spain, the Social Democrat's uneasy relations with Narodiks and Nihilists in Russia, British socialists' support for Sein Fein in Ireland which was, at least till recently, a deeply conservative Catholic movement and other assorted example. Such movements usually become a pest to them in the fullness of time.

Marx "supported" the British imperial venture in India. Well, he said it had "vile motivations" (or something along those lines) but he loathed Asiatic cultures, he saw them as stagnant, and according to his views on human progress, they needed to be occupied by a foreign power which could lay the foundations for a capitalist society, the only kind of society which could eventually lead to communism.

I do agree about the Islamists having the upper hand in their relationships with the left. Look what happened to the communists who supported the Iranian revolution. It's a shame people like the RESPECTers in Britain didn't read a bit of history. They seem to live in a dream world where religious fundamentalism is just a desperate cry by a few helpless poor people who really want to be saved by socialism, but just don't know it yet. It's a pretty patronising view, and it seems the Islamists have been more than happy to accept the help of a few deluded western activists without budging an inch with regards to their social attitudes. From what I can see, it's not a "give and take" relationship.

[Ferrus]

Marx "supported" the British imperial venture in India. Well, he said it had "vile motivations" (or something along those lines) but he loathed Asiatic cultures
Yes the first mode of production after primative communism is the 'Asiatic' slave based society as existed in Ancient Mespotamia, Greece, Rome and arguably in parts of Asia till the 20th century. In many ways this is a reflection of the typical trope of the 19th century with regard to the 'Oriental Despot'.

[s'box]

they must really be a thorn (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835469.html) in the side of the anti-imperialist left. I mean come on, this is funny. The only country in the Middle East where you could hold a conference for lesbians....Israel. :rofl: I wonder how those people who paint Israel as a fascist state and it's enemies as freedom fighters will explain this one. Wouldn't it just be easier for them if Palestinian lesbians didn't exist...maybe someone could have a word with them and ask them to keep quiet for the time being until the zionists have been defeated, as they are kind of letting the side down.


So are lesbians some sort of anti-matter to tanks and armies and the like? cause that would in fact make it very hard to oppose israel what with all the tanks and occupation dissapearing entirely in some sort of lesbian-IDF nuetralization process where they all implode together and some sort of lovely sunshine universe pops out instead.

I guess it would be an unfortunate fate for the lesbians to go dissapearing, or trasmutating into other universes or some rot like that, but it would surely stop the occupation.

[demagogic_schizoid]

So are lesbians some sort of anti-matter to tanks and armies and the like? cause that would in fact make it very hard to oppose israel what with all the tanks and occupation dissapearing entirely in some sort of lesbian-IDF nuetralization process where they all implode together and some sort of lovely sunshine universe pops out instead.

I guess it would be an unfortunate fate for the lesbians to go dissapearing, or trasmutating into other universes or some rot like that, but it would surely stop the occupation.

I notice you use the word occupation. Could you expand? Don't you think there is enough land and wealth in the huge expanses of neighbouring Arab countries to rehouse Palestinian's in the "occupied territories" if they really wanted to show their solidarity? Have you looked at a map of the region? What percentage of land (and oil for that matter) in the Middle East is under Israeli control? And people still complain about "occupation".

Also, why don't most Arab Israelis choose to return to Palestinian-controlled territories when given the option? Could it be because Israel gives them better civil rights than the Palestinian govt.? Which brings me back to the original point, which is that it must be inconvenient for some people in the "identity politics" movement to have to simultaneously support gay/womens rights movements and nationalist movements on behalf of countries not tolerant of gay/womens rights movements against ones which are much tolerant of them - especially when lesbians from said "opressed nation" hold their conference in the enemies country.

[s'box]

I notice you use the word occupation. Could you expand? Don't you think there is enough land and wealth in the huge expanses of neighbouring Arab countries to rehouse Palestinian's in the "occupied territories" if they really wanted to show their solidarity? Have you looked at a map of the region? What percentage of land (and oil for that matter) in the Middle East is under Israeli control? And people still complain about "occupation".


Of course I used the word occupation, theres an occupation. Do you really think an occupation is not a big deal? and percentage of the land has nothing to do with it (most of the middle east is either densely populated or uninhabitable, maps only say so much), these are these peoples homes, communities and lives that you acting like they have no entitlement to at all. There are 4 million people living in the occupied terrorities. Gaza is one of the most densely populated regions on the earth and you think they should just leave?

Also the countries around the palestinean territories are bastards. No one has to pretend otherwise to support Palestinean freedom. Also most of those countries already house huge numbers of palestinean refugees (edit a bit, the vast majority of the population of Jordan is already Palestinian). But even if they weren't bastards, this argument wouldn't hold up. The populations of some of the surrrounding countries (with the exception of egypt, who already holds a sizeable about of palestinean refugees) are comparable to the population of people in the palestinean terrorities. Any mass influx would lead to horrible instability as most of these countries have trouble maintaining infrastructure for their current populations, where are these poor countries going to get all the money to build homes and provide water and power to 4 million people, much less integrate them into society with jobs and stability without creating a lost and alienated population that would resort to all the troubles of extreme poverty such as increased crime and islamic fundamentalism.

But nevermind all that really, why the hell should they give up their homes and their lives and their communities they set up so Israel, a foreign occupier, can have the land and territory that already is clearly claimed and lived on by other people.

and why do you keep bringing up oil all the time did you get beaten over the head by a blood for oil sign or something, it really seems like it mustve hurt, it left a huge impression


Also, why don't most Arab Israelis choose to return to Palestinian-controlled territories when given the option? Could it be because Israel gives them better civil rights than the Palestinian govt.?

Because they probably left there for a reason and came to israel for a reason. possibly for a job. Occupation, a huge displaced population and restricted access to the world doesn't make for a strong economy.


Which brings me back to the original point, which is that it must be inconvenient for some people in the "identity politics" movement to have to simultaneously support gay/womens rights movements and nationalist movements on behalf of countries not tolerant of gay/womens rights movements against ones which are much tolerant of them - especially when lesbians from said "opressed nation" hold their conference in the enemies country.

The article says pretty clearly that the organization that sponsored it is based in Haifa and that the attendees are both from Israel and from the occupied territories. Its also probably still rather hard to move around and gain access to the occupied territories.

Are you suggesting that they would've been able to hold this conference in Ramallah before the PLO took over?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Of course I used the word occupation, theres an occupation. Do you really think an occupation is not a big deal? and percentage of the land has nothing to do with it (most of the middle east is either densely populated or uninhabitable, maps only say so much), these are these peoples homes, communities and lives that you acting like they have no entitlement to at all. There are 4 million people living in the occupied terrorities. Gaza is one of the most densely populated regions on the earth and you think they should just leave?

I don't think they should just leave, I support a 2-State solution.


Also the countries around the palestinean territories are bastards. No one has to pretend otherwise to support Palestinean freedom.

What do you mean by "freedom"? To me, freedom is when an individual is not coerced by other individuals. If Israel was wiped off the map today and the Palestinians got their own state, I see no reason why they would be any more free than Syrians or Jordanians are today.

Also, you are for some reason not making quite an obvious connection here. If the countries around the Palestinians are bastards, why do people concentrate so much on Israel as the root of the problem.


Also most of those countries already house huge numbers of palestinean refugees (edit a bit, the vast majority of the population of Jordan is already Palestinian).

The vast majority of the population of Jordan is already Palestinian? This is because they were the same country. "Palestinian" only became a national identity as opposed to a British label for an area after the creation of Israel. So in effect, at least one "palestinian" state already exists. And I'd ask you to compare the rights of a Palestinian living in Jordan with those ofone living in Israel.


But even if they weren't bastards, this argument wouldn't hold up. The populations of some of the surrrounding countries (with the exception of egypt, who already holds a sizeable about of palestinean refugees) are comparable to the population of people in the palestinean terrorities. Any mass influx would lead to horrible instability as most of these countries have trouble maintaining infrastructure for their current populations, where are these poor countries going to get all the money to build homes and provide water and power to 4 million people, much less integrate them into society with jobs and stability without creating a lost and alienated population that would resort to all the troubles of extreme poverty such as increased crime and islamic fundamentalism.

The countries are not poor. They have great potential for wealth. It's the way their societies are structured that keeps the wealth concentrated. That's up to them to fix.


But nevermind all that really, why the hell should they give up their homes and their lives and their communities they set up so Israel, a foreign occupier, can have the land and territory that already is clearly claimed and lived on by other people.

Do you think Israel should not exist?



Because they probably left there for a reason and came to israel for a reason. possibly for a job. Occupation, a huge displaced population and restricted access to the world doesn't make for a strong economy.

But what about all the neighbouring Arab countries? They could go there, but they choose not to.


Are you suggesting that they would've been able to hold this conference in Ramallah before the PLO took over?

I'm suggesting Israel is the only country in the region where you could hold this conference.

[Zergling]

they must really be a thorn (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/835469.html) in the side of the anti-imperialist left. I mean come on, this is funny. The only country in the Middle East where you could hold a conference for lesbians....Israel. :rofl: I wonder how those people who paint Israel as a fascist state and it's enemies as freedom fighters will explain this one.

Most of these sentences are pretty pointless, all they accomplish is getting anger up. (Like most talks about politics, it instantly divides into groups of people repeating some standard memorized lines and getting a rise out of other people.).

[demagogic_schizoid]

Most of these sentences are pretty pointless,

In your opinion then, what is the "point" of a forum, what is the "point" of the average post, and what is the "point" of your reply? I'm not being belligerent, it's a genuine question. because to me the only "point"of my post was to satisfy my own desire to make "a point" (I don't know if that counts as a pun). I'm not trying to pretend that my participation on this board is in aid of some greater good. However I do think that debate in itself is healthy, even if my contribution is no more than a grain of sand on a beach. Ultimately, if people think something is wrong, they should point it out.

Also if you don't like talking about politics why are you in the Current Affairs sub-forum?

[Ferrus]

Most of these sentences are pretty pointless, all they accomplish is getting anger up.
Ah, you clearly don't appreciate the delicate beauty that is the internet flame war.

[Zergling]

In your opinion then, what is the "point" of a forum, what is the "point" of the average post, and what is the "point" of your reply? I'm not being belligerent, it's a genuine question. because to me the only "point"of my post was to satisfy my own desire to make "a point" (I don't know if that counts as a pun). I'm not trying to pretend that my participation on this board is in aid of some greater good. However I do think that debate in itself is healthy, even if my contribution is no more than a grain of sand on a beach. Ultimately, if people think something is wrong, they should point it out.

Also if you don't like talking about politics why are you in the Current Affairs sub-forum?

Sometimes I find out about interesting or new information, plus I was looking through several forums.

The "point" you were trying to make with that part of the post was that a lot of liberals were stupid (Or perhaps there was some subtle difference, but it was still a similar argument), which doesn't accomplish anything except annoy some people. Because of the way theis part was phrased, the debate didn't go anywhere except people repeating the beliefs they had originally.

The point of this reply is to try and get this information through to you.

[Carebear]

"The Southern Islamic Movement cooperated with Orthodox Jewish groups in protesting the Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem. "

Perhaps staging more Gay Pride parades is the solution to peace in the middle east?

[Ferrus]

"The Southern Islamic Movement cooperated with Orthodox Jewish groups in protesting the Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem. "

Perhaps staging more Gay Pride parades is the solution to peace in the middle east?
Gay Pride parades where everyone hangs aborted fetuses on poles and chants 'evolution displaces God'.

[Carebear]

Gay Pride parades where everyone hangs aborted fetuses on poles and chants 'evolution displaces God'.

:theclap: :theclap: :theclap:

[s'box]

Most of these sentences are pretty pointless, all they accomplish is getting anger up. (Like most talks about politics, it instantly divides into groups of people repeating some standard memorized lines and getting a rise out of other people.).

Agreed and I played his little game. Hes got a penchant for this sort of conservative talk show host style left bashing that makes my mind twitch enough to respond


I'm suggesting Israel is the only country in the region where you could hold this conference.


you completely dodged this. They couldn't have held the conference in Ramallah when it was under direct Israeli occupation. Its hard to hold the conference in Palestinean territories now because they are heavily restricted (by Israel). We don't know if the democratically elected conservative government (which of course became hugely more conservative by pure opposition to Israel) that is in charge of some of the occupied territories wouldve allowed it.


What do you mean by "freedom"? To me, freedom is when an individual is not coerced by other individuals. If Israel was wiped off the map today and the Palestinians got their own state, I see no reason why they would be any more free than Syrians or Jordanians are today.

Military occupation is very coercive. As is rule by a foreign power. As is having 4 million people under a states juristiction who are not citizens and have no rights.


Also, you are for some reason not making quite an obvious connection here. If the countries around the Palestinians are bastards, why do people concentrate so much on Israel as the root of the problem.

Because the problem is the occupation. Israel is the occupying power, therefore the root of the problem.


Do you think Israel should not exist?

The vast majority of the population of Jordan is already Palestinian? This is because they were the same country. "Palestinian" only became a national identity as opposed to a British label for an area after the creation of Israel. So in effect, at least one "palestinian" state already exists. And I'd ask you to compare the rights of a Palestinian living in Jordan with those ofone living in Israel.

I wasn't talking about Israel.
You wouldn't compare those living in Israel to Jordan. Because we're not talking about Israel, we're talking about Palestine. A Palestinean in Jordan lives far better than one in the West Bank.


They have great potential for wealth.

Which means theyre poor.

[demagogic_schizoid]

you completely dodged this. They couldn't have held the conference in Ramallah when it was under direct Israeli occupation. Its hard to hold the conference in Palestinean territories now because they are heavily restricted (by Israel). We don't know if the democratically elected conservative government (which of course became hugely more conservative by pure opposition to Israel) that is in charge of some of the occupied territories wouldve allowed it.

I didn't dodge the question, I made the point that Israel is the only country in the region where you could hold this conference. You could respond by giving them some credit for that but for some reason you try to blame the conservatism of Arab ruling classes partly on Israel. Perhaps Israel has had some effect, but I don't believe it;s proportionate to the amount of condemnation they get from certain sectors who do not criticise any Arab state in the same terms.


Military occupation is very coercive. As is rule by a foreign power.

Obviously. Didn't I say I supported a 2 state solution? Did I say the Palestinians in the occupied territories were free? No. But I also don't think Syrians, Jordanians or Libyans are very free, and if I were to gamble on it, I wouldn;t have much faith that the citizens of a newly "free" Palestine (in the way that you used the word ie Palestinian freedom, the collective cause, not individual freedom) would be particularly free either. However this doesn't mean I think it's desirable for them to be occupied, but I'd ask you whether or not you've considered that the Israelis are fearful for their security if they withdraw from all occupied territories immediately. Do you think there needs to be more co-operation to the peace process from the Palestinian camp, or does the the blame all go one way? You still haven't answered my question as to whether the state of Israel should even exist.




Because the problem is the occupation. Israel is the occupying power, therefore the root of the problem.

Right, and the attitudes of many individual Arabs and their ruling classes towards homosexuality as well their conservative social and political systems are in your opinion not at "the root" of the fact that this conference couldn't be held anywhere in the Middle East except Israel?


I wasn't talking about Israel.
You wouldn't compare those living in Israel to Jordan. Because we're not talking about Israel, we're talking about Palestine. A Palestinean in Jordan lives far better than one in the West Bank.

I am talking about Israel and the comparison is perfectly valid.



Which means theyre poor

Who is poor? There are people in those countries with money and power, just like anywhere else. The countries are not poor. There are many poor individuals in the countries. However when you call the country poor you externalise the problem. It is a deterministic view of their place in the world which suggests there is nothing they can do from within to improve their own situation. Yet this position is empircally impossible to justify as many previously "poor" countries across the world have taken measures to strengthen their economies and provide better lives for their citizens

[s'box]

I didn't dodge the question, I made the point that Israel is the only country in the region where you could hold this conference. You could respond by giving them some credit for that but for some reason you try to blame the conservatism of Arab ruling classes partly on Israel. Perhaps Israel has had some effect, but I don't believe it;s proportionate to the amount of condemnation they get from certain sectors who do not criticise any Arab state in the same terms.

I am talking about Israel and the comparison is perfectly valid.


You started this thread talking about how this was somehow a problem for the anti-imperialist left. The anti-imperialist left is opposed to the occupation of Palestine.

That Israel is more liberal than its neighboring Arab states is entirely irrevelent to the issue by which Israel is opposed, and since under Israeli occupation the Palestineans had no rights at all, the rights of people in Israel as opposed to those in neighboring Arab states is not a relevent issue to the occupation, which is the source of the anti-imperialist lefts opposition to Israel.


Who is poor? There are people in those countries with money and power, just like anywhere else. The countries are not poor. There are many poor individuals in the countries. However when you call the country poor you externalise the problem. It is a deterministic view of their place in the world which suggests there is nothing they can do from within to improve their own situation. Yet this position is empircally impossible to justify as many previously "poor" countries across the world have taken measures to strengthen their economies and provide better lives for their citizens


These countries do not have the resources available or the systems in place to accomodate 4 million people. This is the meaning in context by 'the country is poor'. Its not deterministic it doesn't say they will be poor tommorow, and it doesn't account for its use of resources if the nation was organized radically differently. It accounted for its current state in context. Because these changes havn't occurred and there is no political culture for it, this is not practical or valid to say 'just go over there'.



Perhaps Israel has had some effect, but I don't believe it;s proportionate to the amount of condemnation they get from certain sectors who do not criticise any Arab state in the same terms.

This sort of statement is perplexing, as though everyone has to spout their positions in a dispersed manner to cover every possible issue. As though one vying for an end to military occupation has to also point out that they don't approve of the policies of other states of similiar cultural terms. If you have an issue of political opinion do you spend as much time condemning issues that are vaguely related as the issue in question? You started this thread critizing arab countries for their conservatism, but yet you didn't mention how this couldn't have been held in Palestine when Israel controlled it, another clear evil, and I wouldn't have expected you to, because that wasn't the point of your statement. Why should the left be held to such special standards of agregate opinions?


You still haven't answered my question as to whether the state of Israel should even exist.

For now the 2 state solution is probably the best method for peace and the most practicle way to move forward. I have little care for whether or not a state of Israel exists, so long as those living in that territory may live there safely (this statement can be applied to a fair deal of the nations on the earth, if not all.)


Right, and the attitudes of many individual Arabs and their ruling classes towards homosexuality as well their conservative social and political systems are in your opinion not at "the root" of the fact that this conference couldn't be held anywhere in the Middle East except Israel?

This is just a wierd statement as it held to the original premise when the response was to another related issue, which means you made a statement here that I in no way disagree with, but presented it as an opposing statement. The focus on Israel is the focus on the occupation. The root of the problem is the occupation. The 'problem' is the occupation. The thing the left opposes is the occupation. This is why in response to your
Also, you are for some reason not making quite an obvious connection here. If the countries around the Palestinians are bastards, why do people concentrate so much on Israel as the root of the problem.
People are concentrating on Israel.

So the main problem with communication here and with this thread, is that youre acting as though the lefts opposition to Israel which is on the basis of its occupation and its foreign policy, means it thinks israel is some sort of pure evil with the blackest of the black that could never have anything right, and that because we oppose something that others oppose as well, the left supports arab states as the holy saints of love and peace.

Not the case. Liberal and secular organizations within Palestine also oppose Israel and its policies while opposing the conservative takeover and actions of domestic and regional governments.