Members of Parliament in Norway today approved a bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry.

The new law, which passed by 84 votes to 41, will make marriage gender neutral.

The Scandinavian country already allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into civil partnerships, but LGBT rights groups had long complained the law does not go far enough.

“The new law won’t weaken marriage as an institution,” Huitfeldt told Parliament.

“Rather, it will strengthen it. Marriage won’t be worth less because more can take part in it.”

Norway has historically had a tolerant attitude towards the LGBT community and has championed LGBT rights on the international stage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/06/11/norway-legalises-gay-marriage/

What does this have to do with the OP?

It seems that its touted as such when it comes to Israel, so why not Norway too?

Thats a pretty good bench mark for human rights. Isn't it?

It seems more to be posted toward the OP poster,than the topic.

Norway's Gay Rights should not be mentioned on a thread that could make Norway appear to be an antisemitic country? stick only to the subject at hand, seems really quite interesting to me considering.......

it is verboten to imply that gays can live a fulfilling life anywhere else.

but it depends whether we are discussing overall human rights or liberal ideologies as they are upheld in a country (as we often discuss here re: Israel), or if we are discussing discrimination against a specific group. When in a discussion about Israeli Arabs' equal rights or lack thereof has the first post been about Israel's great track record regarding gay rights?

Never. The OP was about anti-semitism. Posting an article about gay rights in response does nothing to refute the OP. Had you waited until someone commented on human rights in general being lacking in Norway, then....

But then again people that go after Israel all the time are masters at deception.

you do not post here much but things that could be considered off subject from the OP are posted all of the time usually without protest besides Gay Rights and antisemitism are both human rights issues aren't they?

It was the first country to outlaw discrimination against gays 30 years ago in 1981, at a time when having gay sex was still a criminal offence in most of the US and Israel. It is also one of only six countries in the world where gay marriage is allowed, and where gay couples have the same access to adoption and IVF that heterosexual couples do.

Surely, for a proudly gay man such as yourself, Norway is wonderful example of progress and a model that all countries should endeavour to emulate. Together, let us hope that the United States and Israel look towards Norway as a source of inspiration for what a modern country should be.

I still fail to see the connection in my original post on what I asked.

That's okay. Apparently everyone else here understood just fine.

"Apparently everyone else here understood just fine."

to have a proudly gay person here who actually posts in the LGBT forum. It certainly is a nice change.

Its also nice to have a casual observer swing by here whose post count confirms that they are not in fact just a sock puppet cooked up by one of other regulars. That might sound overly cynical, but I've been here a long time, William, and I'm jaded. I'm a world-weary man.

On behalf of all the good liberals here, we pray and hope beyond hope that your incisive rhetoric and lion-hearted advocacy for gay people in America helps set the US on a Norwegian path to equality in our lifetimes.

so that I can see it for it's merits, please?

And am known to call out bullshit when I see it.

its a damn shame you're not Catholic.

Metropolitan Community Church.

"In 1968, a year before New York’s Stonewall Riots, a series of most unlikely events in Southern California resulted in the birth of the world’s first church group with a primary, positive ministry to gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgender persons.

Those events, a failed relationship, an attempted suicide, a reconnection with God, an unexpected prophecy, and the birth of a dream led to MCC’s first worship service: a gathering of 12 people in Rev. Troy Perry’s living room in Huntington Park, California on October 6, 1968.

That first worship service in a Los Angeles suburb in 1968 launched the international movement of Metropolitan Community Churches, which today has grown to 43,000 members and adherents in almost 300 congregations in 22 countries. During the past 36 years, MCC’s prophetic witness has forever changed the face of Christianity and helped to fuel the international struggle for LGBT rights and equality

These edited excerpts are from “The Lord Is My Shepherd, And He Knows I’m Gay” authored by MCC Founder and Moderator, Rev. Troy D. Perry."



Now if you have a problem with my faith or the Church I worship in, just know this, much bigger people than you have tried and failed to bring us down. We're here, we're queer, and most of all we have PRIDE in who we are and what we do.

is totally unjustified.

Norwegian support for Palestinian self-determination has NEVER meant that Norway was equating Israel with Nazi Germany. AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.

It's time for that slur to die.

Inquiring minds want to know!

I do equate Palestine with being homophobic assholes for killing Gay people just like the Nazi's did back in WWII and thats not a slur thats a fact! and it's still going on to day in Palestine as it is in Palestine like Countries.

like some here have the ability to see what was said or thought by many of us without it really being said. Even if we are not concious of these thoughts they can correct us to what our minds really think. Many of us would be lost without constantly being told what we really said or think if it were not for these gifted helping us.

Norway refuses gay Iraqi asylum, says ‘go home, be discreet’

A gay Iraqi has been refused Norwegian asylum and told to “go home and be discreet.”

The High Court accepted that Azad Hassan Rasol was gay and that gay men in Iraq are at risk, including at risk of being killed, but it ruled that Rasol ‘must comply with Iraq’s socio-cultural norms’.


http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/12/norway-refuses-gay-iraqi-asylum-says-go-home-be-discreet/

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 08:59 PM - Edit history (2)

All it takes is an irrational obsession.

One article after the next, over and over non-stop, showing just how bad Norway is...

And btw, what Norway is doing to this Iraqi is disgusting.

it doesn't translate into it being a leader in civil rights or human rights for all wouldn't you agree?

Any nation with liberal/progressive values that guarantees equal rights for all deserves far more support than a theocratic regime. It just so happens that the most obsessed, irrational Israel critics tend to support a 1-state theocratic dictatorship over a 2-state solution with Israel intact as it is. These 1-staters delegitimize Israel constantly and are propagandists for Hamas and the PLO. They should be for Israel remaining a liberal democracy and supportive of it.

That's the real issue.

Not some bogus charge of pink washing.

What's sad is that those accusing Israel of pink washing have nothing to say about constant Hamas and PLO violations of gay Palestinians human rights. They're shamefully silent on this and believe they can credibly get away with criticizing Israel on the gay rights issue.

You admitted yourself (and correct me if I'm wrong) that to criticize Hamas and the PLO for what they do to gay Palestinians is delegitimization that only keeps the occupation and settlements going. Better to stay silent as Hamas and the PLO wants it. Keep the focus on Israel. Do Hamas/PLO propaganda for them. Many people would take that to mean you support a theocratic dictatorship over a liberal democracy. It should be the other way around. And THAT'S the point of bringing up Israel's gay rights record.

I've said it's used to do that and it has been on this thread in fact , and really I do not care what 'many' people think oh and we see Israel's small religious parties taking the blame for Gay marriage not being allowed to be preformed in Israel but those parties have been kicked to the curb by the super majority formed Kadima/Likud, how come those laws haven't been changed according to we're told here about Israel and it's overall attitude towards Gays it should only take about 5 minutes of the Knesset's time a 'no brainer' really so whats the hold up?

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)

It's used to show how immoral and unethical it is for the anti-Israel contingent to advocate for Israel's destruction, via a constant demonization/delegitimization campaign, as though it has no right to exist.

Think about it. Israel has no reason to advertise itself to its liberal zionist critics for 2 states. They already know the deal. The point is to counter anti-zionist, anti-Israel 1-state propaganda.

========

It's also used to attract tourism.

is often held up as a jusfitication for Israeli denial of most human rights to Palestinians...the relatively good position of Israeli LGBT's, it is essentially argued, means that it doesn't matter what that country does to people in the West Bank.

No one has ever made that argument.
I call shenanigans.

Israel is more liberal when it comes to gay rights than the Palestinian Authority; therefore, those who advocate Palestinian rule in the Palestinian territories are arguing for the supplanting of one regime with a less liberal one, and therefore they are not true liberals.

So the argument goes - and by a process of deduction, true liberals support the occupation of Palestine by Israel.

Its a cynical exercise, and one that can only be maintained by ignoring the voices of gays and lesbians in the West Bank, most of whom realise that the only way to realise political progress there is for Palestine to have independence.

and on this thread comments #81, #84 #85

You see what you look for.

No one is actually making such an argument.

True liberals do not support the occupation - they also don't support illiberal regimes like the one ruling Gaza.

You'd think that progressives could be critical of Israeli occupation as well as of the oppression of gays in the OT by the Palestinian leadership.

In fact, it's odd that there isn't more such overlap. Instead, any negative comment with regard to the way Palestinians are treated by Hamas (or the PA) is met by howls of pink-washing and whatnot.

Of course, I could be wrong - but that's how I read the posts I think you are talking about.

but its not the first time, nice save though

If the people are making that argument in earnest, then I am with you.

especially the last statement made to me

In fact, Israel's position on LGBT rights is often held up as a jusfitication for Israeli denial of most human rights to Palestinians...the relatively good position of Israeli LGBT's, it is essentially argued, means that it doesn't matter what that country does to people in the West Bank.

To rephrase this... Denying the Palestinians most of their human rights is warranted by Israel's treatment of their LGBTs. It doesn't matter how badly the Palestinians are treated. Israel has every right to treat them however it wants, without any regard for their human rights, because Israel has given a different group far reaching rights.

The argument you reproduced here (incorrectly btw), essentially said that anyone who supports the creation of a Palestinian state (under Palestinian rule), without concerning themselves with the rights of the Palestinian LGBT community; someone who is apparently willing to trade away the rights of a minority group of Palestinian citizens in the service of Palestinian independence is revealing that they are someone who is less concerned with the issue of human rights than they are with the issue of Palestinian self-determination.

Horse trading of that sort can out a person who always insisted that their interest in the I/P conflict centered on human rights and equality as really having some other, unspoken reason for being into the subject. Or even of being less liberal than they had previously declared. Any "solution" that condemns an innocent minority group to renewed oppression and possibly even death is probably not going to be an acceptable one for many liberals.

So the argument goes - and by a process of deduction, true liberals support the occupation of Palestine by Israel.

No. The argument would be that true liberals would refuse to support the installation of any proposed Palestinian government that itself refused to grant its citizens basic human rights. The argument is NOT that true liberals must support the occupation of Palestine... but that true liberals would not accept the installation of an extremist Muslim theocracy that oppresses women, gays and lesbians and so on, to be an acceptable solution.

Its a cynical exercise, and one that can only be maintained by ignoring the voices of gays and lesbians in the West Bank, most of whom realise that the only way to realise political progress there is for Palestine to have independence.

Which itself is a somewhat cynical exercise as merely obtaining independence is worthless unless it is accompanied by the requisite democratic institutions such as free speech, equal rights and an independent judiciary. For example, in Iran the nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to aid in the overthrow of the Shah and declare independence, only to then be executed by the tens of thousands immediately afterwards. According to your argument those Iranian Marxists probably knew that the only chance for their movement to grow in popularity hinged on gaining independence for Iran first. And there is certainly some truth to that idea. On the other hand, one gets the impression that they might have acted differently had they any idea what kinds of effects that revolution would have on Iran, or considered how it might lead to far greater oppression and violence than they ever knew under the Shah, or somehow imagined that it would impel Saddam to invade and slaughter nearly a million Iranians.

In short, both you and Ken are both wrong. No one here at DU (or anywhere probably), makes either of the ridiculous, straw man arguments you've shown me. Ken, your charge is one that has been asserted by anti-Zionist factions as a reaction to Israel's promotion of their extremely liberal LGBT policies as their existence disrupt their narrative of Israel being the antithesis of liberal ideals, having embraced theocracy, oppression, supremacy ideology and apartheid. Since it seems unlikely that Israel would be all of those things while ALSO being one of the most enlightened nations on the planet regarding LGBT it called into question their entire narrative's foundation. So this absurd "pinkwashing" conspiracy theory was made up to explain why their model is still reliable... ie: "Israel isn't REALLY liberal, they're just ACTING that way to trick you!"

until such time as the Afghan government outlawed discrimination against gays and lesbians?

Uhm, nope, I would not support the US staying in Afghanistan until the Afghans granted every citizen, including LGBT ones, equal rights. What about my post made you think that I hold the US responsible for all Afghan human rights issues? Or more to the point, what makes you think I hold Israel responsible for all Palestinian human rights issues?

and clear explanation.....

A gay Iraqi has been refused Norwegian asylum and told to “go home and be discreet.”

The High Court accepted that Azad Hassan Rasol was gay and that gay men in Iraq are at risk, including at risk of being killed, but it ruled that Rasol ‘must comply with Iraq’s socio-cultural norms’.


http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/12/norway-refuses-gay-iraqi-asylum-says-go-home-be-discreet/

'would you say that the US should maintain its full military occupation of Iraq until it brings it law3s concerning Gays into line with at the US's?

Surprised a DU member would ask such a thing .

Gay rights law up to the level as the US? surprising alright

Do you think countries that discriminate against minorities kind of like Apartheid era South Africa did but far far worse , should be recognized or even allowed to exist?

Fuck no !!!

I am very surprised that a DU member could even ask such a question .

interesting alright

Un fucking believable.

No country that discriminates,stones,kills minorities should exist.

FUCK NO .

(I take offense even answering such questions)

but okay then

KILLING STONING OR DISCRIMINATING SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED OR EXIST .

If you do not agree,maybe you should not be making DU your home ?Maybe this site is just not for you?

but thank you here you would leave no room for change or development nothing black and white either/or ya that's a progressive view alright and because I do not believe in wiping out the existence of countries that have regressive laws regarding Gays and what should be done with them and the people who live there? I shouldn't be posting here? also you are talking about what are mostly non-white countries interesting indeed

edited for clarity go ahead and look

The pros and cons with respect to discrimination against Gays , be it from a black ,white ,yellow,blue or orange colored people can not
be entertained by progressive or even mildly civilized thought , and should not be tolerated,ever.

Even listening or debating those people who argue against gay marriage should not be a part of decent human discussion.

PERIOD !!!

but yet you think it civilized to advocate for the destruction of countries that discriminate against Gays? once again what happens to the people living those countries who judges who rules who decides

I understand your feelings about Gay rights but your proclamations about countries and accusations towards me are quite out of line IMO

broke it down to just Gays, but what about other minorities and women should we take it your ok with that well unless they're Gay or what? That resembles the tack your attempting to take with me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12573

the poster was not talking about my comment but listed it as the starting place for our conversation in which you again say that no country should be allowed to exist without full Gays rights

Was just helping you with the personal attack on you, that is all.



Personally I think he was out of line tho, he has delusions of being smarter than you or anyone else posting on here.

about your seeming problem with reading in context it seemed to occurred here too

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=12522

but have it your way in the context of the conversation I do not think it was either a personal attack on me nor out of line, and BTW IMO shay is very intelligent

if you not offended then.

in for a penny, in for a pound

but, to paraphrase Stalin, deporting hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Africans is merely a statistic.

The Israeli record on gay rights is brought up on this thread to show up supposed "liberals" who seem to support repressive regimes such as Iran, the PA, and Hamas over relatively liberal Israel. So the claim that is being made here is that if Norway is pro-gay rights, then it can't be antisemitic. It's nonsensical and takes the gay rights issue out of context. But that seems to be the argument

Couldn't have put it better myself.

As well as deliberately excluding that point from my post. The argument is not that Israel promotion of gay rights means that it is no not oppressing the Palestinians. The argument is that "liberals" aren't so concerned with supporting liberal countries and positions as they claim because they attack liberal Israel in support of obviously more repressive regimes and groups that are trying to destroy Israel. So the comparison to Norway is simply false.

despite its superior Gay Rights record are we to assume that means he doesn't care about supporting liberal countries?

So far virtually every ProIsrael augment I have seen here is predicated on some kind of either/or if you support a Palestinian state you also support Hamas, the Pa, the PLO, and even Iran so I must ask it seems you support Israel so does that mean you also support, settlements, Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, according to whom the deportation of Africans "is not aimed against infiltrators, but instead is meant to preserve Israel's character as a Zionist-Jewish country."

if you apply your own standards to yourself then it absolutely must otherwise then you are presenting a self serving double standard

What country is trying to destroy Norway? None. So, the criticism of Norway isn't about supporting an adversary of Norway bent on its destruction. It merely points out that Norway has an antisemitism problem.

Second: you write:

"So far virtually every ProIsrael augment I have seen here is predicated on some kind of either/or if you support a Palestinian state you also support Hamas, the Pa, the PLO, and even Iran so I must ask it seems you support Israel so does that mean you also support, settlements, Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Eli Yishai, according to whom the deportation of Africans "is not aimed against infiltrators, but instead is meant to preserve Israel's character as a Zionist-Jewish country."

Your premise is just false. Merely supporting an end to the Occupation might not directly support Hamas. But the pro-Arab argument is almost never that simple or noble. You are a case in point. You don't want merely the end of the Occupation. You also support the Right of Return. Since that absolutely does mean the replacement of the Jewish state with an Arab state, likely to be run by the dictators of the PA or Hamas, you really aren't one to talk. The point being that there are very few who simply oppose the Occupation without also having a deeper anti-Israel agenda, or who simply ignore the underlying anti-Israel stance of the Arab position. Pro-Israeli posters naturally respond to that agenda. I know of no similar anti-Norway position. So, again, the comparison between the two sets of arguments is entirely false.

and the premise is hardly false it is the same you fall back on " Arabs" want this or that usually ending in destroying Israel however that is much the same as saying Jews want this or that it is also curious that in this arena we see complaints about Arabs (Palestinians but let's include them all, sort of like a puffer fish eh?) not liking Israel, it ignores the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which Israel rejected and the fact that it seems in this case we're told that the those living under the boot of the Israel military should like and appreciate that boot, interesting and only supports what I said prior

and now you accuse me personally of advocating for Israels destruction for supporting the concept of RoR curious indeed because first off RoR would be negotiated in practice you know that and you work on the assumption that every Palestinian refugee would flock to Israel,why other than such nonsense supports what is IMO a rather paranoid not to mention arrogant view, in fact on another thread you claimed the world, the UN , NGO's , Arab countries would force every Palestinian refugee in the world to flock to Israel within the green line, now I did not reply to that because to be honest I considered it rather hysterical and well silly in short I was being nice, but seeing as how you choose to bring it back up, let's take a realistic look first who will force Israel to accept 4-5 million Palestinian refugees and more importantly how will this be accomplished? will the US support this will Congress pass a bill what? Really now we both know Israel will not allow this in the actual practice and IMO most Palestinian refugees will not wish to go to yet another hostile country, take a look at how Israel is dealing with Sudanese as an example.

as to not seeing an antiNorway agenda, perhaps you review the title of the OP

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 01:34 AM - Edit history (6)

[font color=blue]and the premise is hardly false it is the same you fall back on " Arabs" want this or that usually ending in destroying Israel however that is much the same as saying Jews want this or that [/font]

Except that there is a mountain of evidence for the proposition that the Muslim/Arab world, especially the Palestinians and Hamas seek the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel. Virtually every Arab leader since 1947 has spoken on it. Not to mention several wars aimed at doing that. So I'm not just saying that Arabs want the destruction of Israel. In fact, if you really believe that the core element of the war is about something else than destroying the Jewish state, I would say that you are simply denying reality.

A further case in point of your denial is the position that you hold on RoR. We've had this discussion before, and I believe that you failed to respond to the point in any meanignful way, but I will summarize the argument again.

1. A "right" is a claim on a governenment that the sovereign must accede to. It can not legitimately deny it. The "Right of Return" must mean that Israel can not legally or morally do anything to prevent the return of any and all who wish to. Otherwise it isn't a right.

2. The few exceptions which would apply for security reasons, such as excluding criminals, could not be expanded to include most Palestinians without voiding the admission of a right.

3. The RoR would apply to all Palestinians, not merely to those who hold refugee status. That is many more than the 4.5 million counted as refugees.

4. Economic conditions would encourage the Palestinians to return to Israel.

5. The desire to reconquer Palestine would encourage Palestinians to return to Israel.

6. The proposed Palestinian state would not accept the refugees (authoritative members of the PA have already said so).

7. The Arab states won't take the refugees. If they would, they already would have done it.

8. Even if the current generation of Palestinians agreed not to return, that would not be binding on future generations.

9. But the admission of a right such as RoR is forever. Thus, Israel would be legitimately open to the return of any and all later generations of Palestinians.

10. Once Israel accepts the right of return in a peace agreement, it can't legally or morally exclude the vast majority of Palestinians without voiding the right and the peace agreement.

11. You are correct that Israel won't let the return happen. But the only way to do that legitmately is to to deny the RoR in the first place. Denying return after admitting to a RoR is not morally or legally legitimate.

12. The RoR is based in a large part on the denial, of Israel's legitimacy. The Palestinians claim the right because they are the innocent victims of Israel's existence. This is becasue Israel is supposed to have intentionally expelled them to make way for the Jews, and because Israel supposedly could not have existed without the expulsion. Both claims are absolutely false. However, if Israel were to accept the RoR of return, it would be accepting the false claims against it, and effectively admitting that it had no legitimacy.

In short, your understanding of RoR is pure delusion. By the way, if you're right, and the refugees and everyone else in the Arab/Muslim world know that they aren't going to ever go back, then why the hell hasn't the Arab/Muslim world done anything to resettle all those millions of people? And if they aren't going to Israel, then where are the refugees supposed to go? Especially if the Arab states and the Palestinian state won't take them?

As far as an anti-Norway agenda, are you really unable to see the difference between mere criticism of Norway and the demand that it cease to exist? There isn't a comparison to Israel in that way. There is no one I know that advocates for the destruction of Norway and its replacement with some other nation. There are plenty of authoritative people who advocate for the destruction of Israel.

what you've said is essentially that if Israel allows one Israel allows them all, you've simply repeated the same worn paranoid propaganda, ya higher living conditions, sure thing the Sudanese are a testament to that, essentially if what you described happened the Palestinians would simply wind up in camps in Israel, ya that's real desirable and then wish for the Arabs to make them go away, and the claim that they're an existential threat to Israel, really ?

where it ends up is that you've admitted that Israel is indeed an artificially created exclusionist enclave that will do almost anything to maintain it self as such, which while it may give its minorities civil rights the divide between the majority and minority is so great the political power of the minority is forever kept in check and rendered pretty meaningless if it disagrees with the majority even in its own best interest

They are not wanted in any Arab states now. The PA has made it quite clear they don't want them in a future Palestine.

And they're NOT like the Sudanese coming into Israel. If the refugees came into Israel, THEY would have to be given automatic citizenship - unlike the Sudanese.

are you queuing up that vid or article yet?

however while they would be indeed citizens the sheer numbers would necessitate camps

...in the new Palestine?

Here's an article from Mondoweiss WRT the Daily Star bombshell from September 2011...
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/09/who-would-be-a-considered-citizen-in-a-new-state-of-palestine.html

Have you seen any higher ranking PA officials deny that in Arabic?

Not even refugees camps within Gaza and the W.Bank would be accepted as citizens.

And just to be clear, the PA ambassador to Lebanon says the conflict isn't over with a Palestinian state. Only the rules of the game change.

So what kind of state is the PA looking for when most Palestinians are supposed to live outside of it, without an end to the conflict?

here is the statement from Abbas taken from your link

I suspect that had he said the reverse we'd be seeing outrage over 'terrorists' being allowed in a Palestinian state

I do hand it to you though Israels 'supporters' do have a true talent for placing a negative spin on anything Abbas says another damned if he does/damned if he doesn't

thanks

* emphasis mine

Here's the excerpt from your post:

And there's more...



There is nothing in the article explaining "automatically" as equivalent to *eventually* allowing refugees to return. That's your spin. The headline clearly states "Interview: Refugees will not be citizens of new state". It wouldn't be a story if it's just a matter of time before they're citizens. Also, the very first sentence reads " Palestinian refugees will not become citizens of a new Palestinian state, according to Palestine’s ambassador to Lebanon."

So you're wrong.

then gave us a self serving reinterpretation of what Abbas said and this time you take Mondoweiss as word of 'dog' gotta love it really

essentially if what you described happened the Palestinians would simply wind up in camps in Israel, ya that's real desirable

Desirable for whom? The Arab states and the UNWRA both colluded to keep the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps instead of building them real cities and towns on the sole argument that making them nice living quarters would be encouraging them to stay where they are now while the goal of everyone should not be to make the refugees temporary digs comfortable but to focus exclusively on bringing them back to their original, rightful homes, which are now within Israel. The same argument was used to deny them citizenship all over the Arab world, deny them access to jobs, education, healthcare, real estate and so on.

Point being no one seems to have any issues with enacting policies that are diametrically opposed to the Palestinians' best interests if there is a chance that it will hurt Israel in some way. The Palestinians have been used as long term pawns in the long game against Israel's continued existence.

For groups like Hamas, UNRWA and the Arab League, forcing the Palestinians into camps within Israel would indeed be very desirable as it would advance their ultimate cause, fostering hatred against Israel and weakening their strategic position.

where it ends up is that you've admitted that Israel is indeed an artificially created exclusionist enclave that will do almost anything to maintain it self as such

Yup. Just like every other state in existence. Your point?

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

the victim mentality that is displayed in that statement boggles really but if it comforts you fine

I'd wager destroying Israel is the last thing UNRWA wishes to do

The UNRWA supports policies that it has aligned itself with politically, like I described. It did register a complaint against Israel when Israel tried to bring better accommodations to the inhabitants of Gaza refugee camps. The UNRWA ultimately probably acts in its own self interest at this point more than anything. It is staffed by Palestinians for the most part, and has a vested interest in keeping the refugees in a position that requires the existence of the UNRWA for years to come.

but I think UNRWA would most likely be in charge of resettlement of Palestinian refugees too, something that I am guessing would be a lengthy process

Opposition to a missile strike on Iran, an act that would have to have heavy civilian casualties and would achieve nothing, does not equate to support for Ahmadinejad.

And nobody "supports Hamas". What some people support is Palestinian self-determination. You can't seriously be arguing that people have to oppose Palestinian self-determination to prove that they don't support Hamas.

Also, none of the "liberal" things in Israel(none of which Likud is responsible for)vindicate the illiberal treatment of Palestinians.

Are we all clear on this now?

You were shown multiple quotes and polls indicating quite clearly how Palestinians prefer the IDF to Hamas control.

Yet, you're against criticizing Hamas and/or advocating for Palestinian human rights under Hamas authority, on the grounds that it would be pointless. That could be perceived (and for good reason) as your being indifferent to or even against the will of the majority of Palestinian Gazans, and therefore in support of Hamas right or wrong. I mean, how should those Palestinians protesting Hamas see someone like yourself if you're going to be indifferent to their plight while not doing anything to pressure Hamas into changing?

Maybe you need to explain yourself better.

The status of gays and lesbians in Israel is frequently used, quite disingenuously, by pro-Israel propagandists on this board and elsewhere as a moral alibi for the occupation of Palestine by Israel - a phenomenon recently dubbed "pinkwashing".

At the outset, its probably worth noting that Israel is not, in fact, a particularly gay-friendly country. The Spartacus travel guide (http://www.spartacusworld.com/gaytravelindex.pdf) has Norway as the 7th most gay-friendly destination, whereas Israel is at 34, in between Gibraltar and Lichtenstein (neither of which are especially enlightened by the standard of Western countries). Gays are not allowed to marry or have civil unions in Israel, and given the stranglehold that religious parties have on the political process there seems very little prospect of either eventuality happening soon.

Essentially, pinkwashing is simply an attempt at distraction, in the same way that the German-American Bund in the 1930s used Nazi scientific discoveries such as x-rays and aspirin to portray Nazi Germany as a forward-thinking country. Alternatively, the logic might be that an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank would be adverse from the point of view of gay and lesbian Palestinians - although given that most Palestinians live under the civil authority of the PA already, that seems rather a stretch.

Its also worth pointing out that gays and lesbians within Israel itself are not altogether happy with the propaganda portraying Israel as some kind of gaytopia, most of which is generated by either non-gays or non-Israelis. Aviv Geffen in particular has voiced concerns that it trivialises the very real problems faced by gays, in particular the high suicide rate suffered by Israeli gays during their completion of military service.

The other irony is that countries that cop the most flak from pro-Israel hacks on this board - Spain, Sweden and Norway, to name several - are in fact the most progressive countries when it comes to gay rights, whereas countries like Israel and the US are much more backward in this regard. I have no idea whether the people who profess to be gay on this board actually are, but if so, they seem inordinately proud in celebrating the "accomplishments" of relatively homophobic countries.

...of persecuted GLBT's in Gaza and the W.Bank.

The anti-Israel crowd hates Palestinians so much, they refuse to bring up Hamas and PLO human rights violations of the Palestinian GLBT community. Seemingly, by doing so they believe they'd be doing Israeli Hasbara that makes Palestine look bad in comparison to Israel.

Therefore, the GLBT community will just have to suck it up and take one for the cause.

--------

But, at least the anti-Israel crowd is consistent. They not only hate Palestinian GLBT's, but also Palestinian women, christians, moderate liberals, and children who are oppressed daily by their Hamas/PLO masters. Not to mention all Palestinian refugees suffering under apartheid conditions in Lebanon.

Team Palestine won't stick up for their human rights either.

They loathe Palestinians and only view them as expendable pawns.

For when it is convenient. Forget about rights, there is a cause to rally around.

justifies continuing the occupation?

Can you show me the relation between the two?

which long windedly said the pretty much the same thing what is that the so called "Team Palestine" supports if not an end to the occupation and a viable Palestinian state?

I do think that many DO treat the Palestianians as expendable, with more concern over who has what patch of dirt than how people are treated. Don't see much outrage for those in the refugee camps, do you.

is that they are statelessrefugees in camps? Now this outrage takes 2 forms the 1 from those who would wish them integrated into the countries they are refugees in, as many albeit you would not know this from reading here already have been, there are 11 million Palestinians and 4-5 million of them are refugees, so that leaves 6-7 million who are not refugees, any country anywhere (other than Israel or heavens for-fend their own) although for some reason Arab countries seem to be the favorite and those who would see them have their own state although were told that the refugees would not be allowed to return to a Palestinian state (so why bother?) something I do not believe but I do note that in your comment this is trivialized as a patch of dirt, the same could said for any country it's just a patch of dirt why be concerned over who has control over it, however believe and advocate as you wish

They bring up 'Pinkwashing' when it's obvious it is they who could care less about Palestinian gay rights.

Notice the lack of any advocacy for it from 'Team Palestine'.

Only excuses and diversionary tactics.

Palestinian gays must not be 'human' enough to the anti-Israel crowd in order to have their rights advocated for.

Shameful.

but what I do note is the projectionist why in which the subject of Gay Rights in the OPT is presented

something that your statement seems to be doing Gay Rights in the territories is usually brought up in an effort by some here to delegitimize a Palestinian State and/or those who advocate for it , in fact Palestinian LGBT activists are denigrated, dismissed, and even called idiots by some here do you want an example of that, I can provide it you wish?

but here is a run down Gay Rights in the territories




This page was last modified on 30 April 2012 at 04:50.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Palestinian_territories


is there work to be done, you bet, but wouldn't it be better to do that work when there is actually a state to work with or should we ignore that too?

BTW other than occasionally allowing GLBT Palestinians to stay in Israel what exactly is Israel and IDF doing to ensure Gay Rights in the OPT ?

...just as the refugees have to, plus women, children, christians, etc... until there's a state.

Because if any harsh criticism is leveled at Hamas or the PA, that would only delegitimize a future Palestinian state from coming into being.

Whether you realize it or not, that's a supportive position you have for Hamas and the PLO; not to mention a complete and total betrayal of progressive/liberal values. With pro-Palestinian folks like yourself, the majority of Palestinians don't need any more enemies.

So how many more decades should Palestinians wait for 'Team Palestine' to start caring about their human/civil rights?

and apparently supporting a Palestinian state means not supporting human rights? got it thanks

oh what will all Palestinians have to do until a state is formed? according to you it seems suck it up, but at least I guess your fair about it as you include all Palestinians in that statement, nothing like egalitarianism

If someone here was against legit criticism of...

a) Republicans
b) Cuba
c) KKK'ers
d) BNP'ers

...what would you make of that? Would you consider them supporters of those groups?

=============

Looks like Pelsar is right. Although you guys won't admit you support a theocratic dictatorship when the time comes for a Palestinian state, your history here shows you certainly won't criticize them and advocate for Palestinian human rights there.

I don't get it.

Could you explain?

How long after a theocratic dictatorship is established would legit criticism and real advocacy for human rights in Palestine be okay? Within a month? Too early b/c they're just starting, right? A year? A decade?

you see it denotes to me a certain degree of desperation however here is what I said to Pelsar

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=11945

so Palestine under the PA/PLO would be and is already we're told by some a theocratic state, but that really doesn't seem to the case does it both thwe PA and PLO are secular but don't let that stop you please

and oh BTW you neglected to answer anything I've asked you did you really think I'd forgotten but please do continue to post diversion after diversion along with the accusations they are in themselves an answer

You make it sound like we could bring Hamas down from here, if only we tried. The survival of Hamas is out of our hands.

Harsh and sanctimonious attacks on Hamas from outside would only strengthen them, by giving them the chance to play the "it's us against the world" card.

And there's no such thing as "Team Palestine". There's just individuals who disagree with you. That's all their is. There's no conspiracy and neither you or Israel are victims.

...for the GLBT Palestinian community once Palestine is established. Neither before it's established or after. The GLBT Palestinian community has to suck it up b/c their "progressive" allies find it pointless to advocate for their rights vs. Hamas. No criticism. No fight for equality. Nothing.

Yes?