Embracing Their Oppressors

In rooting around the internet in support of my recent posts (here, here, and here) on the Hamas attacks, I came across a photo of a banner, "Queers for Palestine."

More than one, actually, in various permutations of the basic phrase.

A full Google search offered a page, "BDS Movement," within which I found an article headed with:

You can’t pink wash this

More than 500 people march as “Queers For Palestine” bloc, reclaiming Berlin's the Radical Queer March as a space for radical queers committed to feminist anti-racist and anti-colonial politics.

My initial head-scratch moment in encountering this is the dissonance of supporting the establishment of a state whose people would oppress those supporters. Gazan law prohibits male-male sexual relations. While this page engages in a bit of apologetics in noting that the law is a holdover from the British mandate, and is rarely enforced, other sources note that Palestinians in Gaza overwhelmingly support sharia law (to the tune of 89%), and sharia law severely punishes (ranging from imprisonment to corporal punishment to the death penalty) 'sodomites.'

This is not an outlier position. Looking at the region, we find that Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brunei, and Yemen are among the ten Muslim-majority nations that impose the death penalty for homosexuality. Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and United Arab Emirates ban homosexuality with lesser punishments. Syria and Lebanon have prohibitions on the books, but do not enforce them. Only Turkey and Cyprus allow same-sex relations.

Putting your sexuality at the fore of your identity, as in the phrase "Queers for Palestine," suggests you take that part of your identity rather seriously. Nevertheless, we have this phenomenon of people rooting for a culture that would, at the least, jail them for expressing that identity.

That the "QFP" post appeared on a BDS page is, of course, no surprise. BDS stands for "Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions," and per that page, "is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality. BDS upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity."

As I've noted, recently and not-recently, Palestinians could have their nation and their freedom if they desisted from efforts to deny Israelis those rights. That is, if they committed to a two-state solution and denounced violence and terrorism. Instead, they, in myriad ways, signal their rejection of that solution, rejection of Israel's right to exist, and continued assertion that "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

Many domestic two-staters act as if this sentiment does not exist, as if the only thing stopping peace in the Middle East and a "free" Palestinian state is Israel's intransigence. Nowhere in the plethora of protests do I see a call for the dissolution of Hamas or Hezbollah and a demand that Palestinians commit to accepting peace with Israel. This dearth has been brought to the fore in the wake of the Hamas attacks, with many who spoke of Palestinian rights or dignity or freedom proving themselves to be overtly anti-Israel and antisemitic.

Which brings us back to the dissonance. Israel is a liberal, Westernized state and culture, whereas Gaza is not. Israel is not all the way there, but its LGBTQ rights are miles ahead of its neighbors. Israel does not relegate women to subordinate status. One quarter of Israel's legislature is female, and Israel has had a female head of state. Israeli women serve in the military alongside men, including in combat roles. 15-20% of Israelis are secular-to-atheist. 21% of Israelis are Arab. 17% of Israelis are Muslim. 5% of Israelis are some "other" religion, whether it be Christian, Druze, Baha'i, or something else. Yes, there are criticisms to be leveled at Israel, which has a freedom score of 77/100 (America's is 83), but from a perspective of human rights and Western values, those criticisms pale in comparison with the norms of Islamic cultures, including Gaza, and the reality of Muslim-majority Middle Eastern nations, which score from the 30s down to single digits.

None of this matters, of course. The notion that Palestine is an occupied land, and that Israel is engaged in apartheid practices and wholesale oppression of Palestinians, is very popular in certain circles, to the point of its embrace being required for in-group acceptance. Groupthink is mightily resistant to challenge, and the longer one holds a view, the harder it is to let it go, even when faced with something like Hamas’ utter barbarity on October 7th.

I've written in the past of a "grievance hierarchy" in progressive politics. The principles of equality have been cast aside in favor of "equity," which is best understood as a coercive effort at equality of outcome, based solely on a restrictive and curated set of identity markers. Because equality is out the window, inequality takes its place, and that's where the fun starts. Where there is inequality, there is the crab-antics scrum for ascendance. The more oppressed a group can claim itself to be, the more consideration it gets from the "equitizers."

Or, more accurately, the more oppressed a group is deemed by the "white knights" at the high table of wokedom, the higher their ranking in the depth chart.

Are there rules or criteria for the rankings? We know that "intersectionality" comes into play, as in if you have two or more associations with "oppressed" groups, you rank higher. A black male ranks above a white male, but a black female ranks higher, a gay black female higher still, and so forth.

But, for that to work, the demographic check boxes that deserve inclusion in the playbook must first be decided, and here is where it gets weird.

Why does Islam warrant inclusion in the ranks of the oppressed, while Judaism does not? Or, if we allow that the progressives are indeed aware the long history of antisemitism in the world, why does Judaism rank below Islam? Islam not only outnumbers Judaism by over 100 to 1, it is much more at odds with other oppressed or protected groups. Why does Islam, which is worse in regard to women and gays than Christianity, get looked at as "oppressed" while Christians are "oppressor?"

The answer lies in narcissism, localizing, willful ignorance, and an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" relativism. All of which are stubbornly factose intolerant.

On a whim, I tapped "feminists for Palestine" into a search engine. Lo and behold, my first hit was a site, "Black Women Radicals."

Wherein I found this, in some big-ass font and all caps:

WE, WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM, WE AS BLACK FEMINISTS WHO BELIEVE IN FREEDOM –– FREEDOM FROM WHITE SUPREMACY, PATRIARCHY, CAPITALISM, TRANSPHOBIA, QUEERPHOBIA, ABLEISM, AND OTHER OPPRESSIONS –– UNABASHEDLY BELIEVE IN AND STAND IN SOLIDARITY FOR A FREE PALESTINE.

Yeah.

The lack of awareness would be unfathomable, but for a possible explanation suggested by an acquaintance. Revealed and plumbed in depth by Thomas Sowell in his “A Conflict of Visions,” it is an “unconstrained” view of possibility. As another acquaintance noted, the Left doesn’t seem to put much stock in consequences, moral hazard, or “stubborn facts.” If we consider that the Queers for Palestine and the like-minded believe that an unrestricted nation named Palestine would create peace, happiness, and help move the culture toward Western progressive values, we can come to understand how they might think as they do.

No matter that it’s detached from reality, and no matter that it papers over a vile and rank antisemitism.

Such attitude gives quarter to and emboldens the Israel- and Jew-haters among us, including a 5000-strong rally in Brooklyn. Meanwhile, this billboard, which appeared in Bergen County, NJ, was taken down after over a hundred complaints were filed with the local police.

Its hyperbole does not undermine its accuracy.

All around us, people are choosing sides in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Too often, they choose based on what their in-group tells them, rather than on reality. Too often, they choose based on a vision that fails the reality test. While, in America, they have the right to be wrong, the rest of us must challenge their choice.