For a gay high schooler living in the U.S., it is with extreme difficulty that I watch the American and Israeli governments exploit my sexual identity to excuse ongoing ethnic cleansing.
The Progress Pride Flag was never intended to fly over the corpses of dead Palestinians. Like many queer young people today, I have watched with paralyzing anger as the symbol of our liberation waves atop armed Israeli killing machines and our existence is commodified as justification for Israel’s imperial violence. Israel has no right to wave any flag over the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Yet, for that flag to be colored with a rainbow is illustrative of the settler state’s incorrect, dangerous rationale for carrying out its ongoing genocide.
As Israel and its associated settler colonies market themselves as “gay havens,” they perpetuate the flip side narrative as well—that Palestinians are a barbaric and homophobic population of uncivilized heathens. The narrative itself is anerasure of Palestinian queer life and Israel’s oppression of LGBTQ residents. It ignores that Western colonialism has historically led to worse treatment of LGBTQ minorities in colonized regions. When the British claimed “Mandate Palestine” in 1920, they passed sweeping anti-gay legislation that still governs homosexual relationships in Gaza today. Throughout history, in the name of bringing civilization to Middle Eastern communities, colonialists have criminalized queerness and facilitated queer oppression.
Moreover, Israel itself has punished LGBTQ identities since the state’s birth. The current Netanyahu administration has positionedhomophobicleaders at the peaks of the Israeli government, refuses to legalize gay marriage, and faces rampant rates ofanti-LGBTQ sentiment in the country. Israel cannot be considered a pro-gay force for freedom as it continues the erasure of Palestinian queer life, facilitates an ongoing genocide, and furthers anti-queer lawmaking.
When the British claimed “Mandate Palestine” in 1920, they passed sweeping anti-gay legislation that still governs homosexual relationships in Gaza today.
When did the British leave Palestine?
Also ‘claimed mandate Palestine’… this kinda glosses over they fought the ottoman empire (who where also occupiers) as part of ww1 because the ottomans had sided with Germany in ww1.
You should also toss in the fact that the British had promised the Levant to the Hashemite family of Arabia in exchange for their assistance in the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in WWI (see Lawrence of Arabia for an interesting but highly skewed portrayal of this), and then secretly plotted with France to divide the land up between themselves while also allowing significant Jewish immigration into Palestine. This enraged the Hashemites, who stopped working with the European powers. Britain in turn stopped supporting them, continued supporting their other Arab allies in eastern Arabia, namely the House of Saud, and this resulted in the Saudis eventually conquering nearly all of Arabia and creating the wonderful state of Saudi Arabia we know today.
The Hashemites did get minor states in Iraq and Syria, which collapsed relatively quickly, as well as in Jordan, where they still rule as its royal family. If you’ve ever been, you’ll know that Jordan is much more progressive than Saudi Arabia, with no Islamic law, an open Christian minority, no laws against homosexuality or alcohol, and you can even find a gay bar in the capital.
If you had to point a single finger for why the modern Middle East is such a mess, the British wouldn’t be a bad target at all.
All true, but it’s not as if the various sectarian factions in the middle east get along wonderfully. Pointing at the British is definately an option and it’l be hard to call em blamess, but the ottomans before them and the various countries since also play roles. But it’s a popular narrative I’ll give you that.
Jordan indeed is very progressive, stable and a beautiful country. IIRC the PLO tried to stage a coup there, hence the Palestinians are not welcome there either and they keep the border shut tight. Egypt also absorbed a lot of Syrian refugees but refuses Palestinians, why is that?
I need to make time to study what happened in Palestine after WWII, but I know I will have to dig through a mountain of propaganda.
You’ll need to go back further than that. The actual lines on the map in much of the Middle East have their roots in very old imperial districts/subdivisions from back in the days of the Ottoman Empire. And of course, the following periods of European colonialism and great power partitioning, particularly after the First World War.
How far back?
Did I not just describe that you need to look at the Ottoman Empire…?
Let me clarify. The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. Should I review the history of the Ottoman Empire going all the way back to 1299? If I should not go all the way back to 1299, how far back should I go?
They made the locals pinky-promise they’d hate the gays for at least 100 years after they left
ssssssh the British did itsssshhhhhhhhhjjjh
Throughout history, in the name of bringing civilization to Middle Eastern communities, colonialists have criminalized queerness and facilitated queer oppression.
If they think that most of the Middle East didn’t criminalize homosexuality and oppress LGBT folks before European domination, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.
Yeah. I’ll give this kid credit as a high school student writing this. But the premise of pink washing is that it is used to divert attention or sway public opinion. That doesn’t have any bearing on facticity of claims. It is possible to call out pinkwashing by Israel and the West and also call out homophobia in middle east society at the same time.
It’s deeply frustrating that such a racist and ethnocentric view of the world dominates even supposedly leftist narratives, in which nothing has ever happened unless Europeans made it happen. To deny the agency of non-Europe originating societies to do evil is still to deny their agency.
My friend, maybe you should do some research before you make assertions so confidently, especially if you’re going to use those assertions to accuse others of being racists or ethnocentrists. I’d recommend the Wikipedia article called LGBT People and Islam, particularly the “History” section of the article. The TLDR is that homosexual practices were accepted and commonplace in the Muslim world during the Islamic Era, although their view of what homosexuality is would be considered lacking by modern standards. In fact, they were so damn gay that they wrote love poems to their male pages and Europeans made fun of them for it. Here’s a quote from Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World:
Whatever the legal strictures on sexual activity, the positive expression of male homoerotic sentiment in literature was accepted, and assiduously cultivated, from the late eighth century until modern times. First in Arabic, but later also in Persian, Turkish and Urdu, love poetry by men about boys more than competed with that about women, it overwhelmed it. Anecdotal literature reinforces this impression of general societal acceptance of the public celebration of male-male love (which hostile Western caricatures of Islamic societies in medieval and early modern times simply exaggerate).
I am well-aware of same-sex practices in the history of Islam, but the idea that there is one ‘Islamic Era’ with one standard used is fucking absurd. From your own source:
The 18th and 19th centuries saw the rise of Islamic fundamentalism such as Wahhabism, which came to call for stricter adherence to the Hadith.[40][41][42] In 1744, Muhammad bin Saud, the tribal ruler of the town of Diriyah, endorsed ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s mission and the two swore an oath to establish a state together run according to true Islamic principles. For the next seventy years, until the dismantlement of the first state in 1818, the Wahhabis dominated from Damascus to Baghdad. Homosexuality, which had been largely tolerated in the Ottoman Empire, also became criminalized, and those found guilty were thrown to their deaths from the top of the minarets.[40]
But sure, keep peddling misconceptions because reality is inconvenient.
My friend.
Once again you have made assertions without doing your research.
I said “homosexual practices were accepted and commonplace in the Muslim world during the Islamic Era”
Do some research, learn when the Islamic Era ended according to whichever scholarly consensus you’d like, then count how many years that was before the criminal punishment for homosexuality was specified in Saudi Arabia in 1928.
And also, that’s where your haste has brought you: Saudi Arabia, not Palestine. Muhammad bin Saud’s name should have tipped you off to that. Palestine was created by carving up the Ottoman Empire, so that is the historical culture you must evaluate to make your claim, not Saudi Arabia’s. With that in mind, here’s the very next paragraph after the one you quoted:
Homosexuality in the Ottoman Empire was decriminalized in 1858, as part of wider reforms during the Tanzimat. However, authors Lapidus and Salaymeh write that before the 19th century Ottoman society had been open and welcoming to homosexuals, and that by the 1850s via European influence they began censoring homosexuality in their society.
This is not a misconception. This is the inconvenient reality. The Ottoman Empire began censoring homosexuality in their culture in the 1850s because of exposure to European society.
My friend.
Once again you have made assertions without doing your research.
I said “homosexual practices were accepted and commonplace in the Muslim world during the Islamic Era”
And I’m telling you that trying to argue that there was one standard from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush over the course of hundreds of years of history is utterly divorced from reality.
Do some research, learn when the Islamic Era ended according to whichever scholarly consensus you’d like,
Do you mean the Islamic Golden Age?
then count how many years that was before the criminal punishment for homosexuality was specified in Saudi Arabia in 1928.
I don’t even know how to respond to this considering the loose legal system of the Saudis and the fact that Saudi Arabia as we know it still did not exist in 1928.
And also, that’s where your haste has brought you: Saudi Arabia, not Palestine. Muhammad bin Saud’s name should have tipped you off to that. Palestine was created by carving up the Ottoman Empire, so that is the historical culture you must evaluate to make your claim, not Saudi Arabia’s.
Okay, first, the paragraph notes that it is bin Saud’s endorsement of the Wahhabist movement, which dominated from Damasacus to Baghdad, which is the relevant portion. Second, the culture of the Ottomans is not particularly relevant to the culture of Palestine - the Ottoman Empire was not a nation-state, and Palestinians were sure as shit not culturally Turkish. Third, most areas outside of Anatolia had a great deal of local autonomy to administer laws and punishments, especially in accordance with Islamic law and jurisprudence.
And I’m telling you that trying to argue that there was one standard from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush over the course of hundreds of years of history is utterly divorced from reality.
OK and who should I believe, some random dude on the internet saying “trust me bro” or Everett K. Rowson, American scholar and Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University? What I said comes straight from his mouth, so if you want to argue that point you’re welcome to send him an email. From his article, “HOMOSEXUALITY IN ISLAMIC LAW” (with further citations available in his bibliography):
At the same time, historical and anecdotal texts indicate a widespread acceptance of homoerotic love affairs, at least in elite society and probably much more generally, throughout the lands of Islam, with very little geographical or ethnic differentiation.
Do you mean the Islamic Golden Age?
That’s the one!
I don’t even know how to respond to this considering the loose legal system of the Saudis and the fact that Saudi Arabia as we know it still did not exist in 1928.
Welp, you’re the one who brought up Muhammad bin Saud, not me. As you quoted, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab formed an alliance with bin Saud, the emir of the town of Diriyah. The Emirate of Diriyah, also known as the First Arab State, was ruled by bin Saud and later his son until his son was militarily defeated and executed by the Ottomans in 1818-1819. The Al Saud clan and the followers of ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab, however, remained in the same geographical area, and founded the Second Saudi State that lasted from 1824 until 1891, followed by the Third Saudi State in 1902. The Third Saudi State would eventually change its name to “Saudi Arabia”, and it is ruled by the Al Saud clan to this day.
Okay, first, the paragraph notes that it is bin Saud’s endorsement of the Wahhabist movement, which dominated from Damasacus to Baghdad, which is the relevant portion.
Here are links to maps of the First Saudi State’s territory, the Second Saudi State’s territory, and the Third Saudi State’s territory. You’ll notice that Palestine does not fall within the borders of any of those three maps. Furthermore, I think you might need a reminder on where Damascus and Baghdad are located. Go find both of them on a map, draw a line between the two, and tell me if Palestine is anywhere near the area denoted by that line. Once again, you need to do your research before you post assertions online.
Second, the culture of the Ottomans is not particularly relevant to the culture of Palestine - the Ottoman Empire was not a nation-state, and Palestinians were sure as shit not culturally Turkish. Third, most areas outside of Anatolia had a great deal of local autonomy to administer laws and punishments.
Fair enough. Palestinians are also sure as shit not culturally Saudi Arabian, though, so why do you keep bringing that up? I think the best source about specifically Palestinian history would be from a Palestinian academic. Let’s read an excerpt of an interview with Palestinian scholar and author of Queer Palestine and the Empire of Critique, Sa’ed Atshan:
Same-sex marriage is not yet recognised in Palestine and homosexuality, under the British Mandate criminal code Ordinance of 1936, can face legal repercussions, including prison sentences. The British played a prominent role in exporting homophobia to the Global South, including the state of Palestine. “There is a role that Western colonialism has played in exacerbating homophobia within the Middle East, North Africa region and across the Global South,” Atshan agrees. “Much of the justification that the British and the French marshalled in colonising these parts of the world was the belief these people were seen as primitive and barbarians. The ‘evidence’ for that was that these people were viewed as too accepting of homosexuality and they need to be disciplined.” As a result, heteronormative Victorian models of gender and sexuality were imposed on colonised locations such as the anti-sodomy laws across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and the Global South. “A lot of the legislation comes from the Western colonial forces, so we have to think about those legacies of colonial homophobia, and the British were a huge exporter of homophobia all over the world.”
OK and who should I believe, some random dude on the internet saying “trust me bro” or Everett K. Rowson, American scholar and Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University? What I said comes straight from his mouth, so if you want to argue that point you’re welcome to send him an email. From his article, “HOMOSEXUALITY IN ISLAMIC LAW” (with further citations available in his bibliography):
Everett K. Rowson also says that the Quran doesn’t have any rules against homosexuality, something which is easily disproven, so I don’t know that he’s trying to push a wholly honest narrative.
Welp, you’re the one who brought up Muhammad bin Saud, not me.
The only reason I brought him up, even in passing, was in quoting from your own source about the rise of Wahhabism and increased application of anti-homosexual Sharia rulings.
Fair enough. Palestinians are also sure as shit not culturally Saudi Arabian, though, so why do you keep bringing that up?
Literally the only reference I made to Saudi Arabia was to bin Saud in passing. with no reference to the country, only his support of Wahhabism and its subsequent spread as a response to you bringing up Saudi Arabia.
Furthermore, I think you might need a reminder on where Damascus and Baghdad are located. Go find both of them on a map, draw a line between the two, and tell me if Palestine is anywhere near the area denoted by that line. Once again, you need to do your research before you post assertions online.
My God, do I have to fucking explain to you the use of geographical comparisons in English?
We’re done here.
We’re done here.
Oh thank god
I don’t think anyone believes there aren’t a lot of gays in the Middle-East. The argument is that they get executed when they are caught
Oh yeah, no doubt about that. The point that I’m attempting to make is that the Middle East was not always that way
Your supposed narrative of the entire middle east throwing gays off buildings ISIS style for centuries is not representative of reality.
Ask Iran how much Western coups helped them go from their 1953 Democracy to the liberal secular state it is now
Your supposed narrative of the entire middle east throwing gays off buildings ISIS style for centuries is not representative of reality.
And where the fuck did I say that?
Ask Iran how much Western coups helped them go from their 1953 Democracy to the liberal secular state it is now
What the fuck does that have to do with the pre-European Middle East criminalizing homosexuality?
And where the fuck did I say that?
I’m sorry your comment totally didn’t 100% imply that. Good that you corrected me there with plausible deniability.
What the fuck does that have to do with the pre-European Middle East criminalizing homosexuality?
Iran was becoming more secularized and “Western” until their government was overthrown in 1953 and AGAIN in 1979 for not giving free oil to Britain and America.
LGBT stuff in the West was stigmatized until like 20 years ago and you’re out here criticizing governments from 70 years ago for not being progressive enough.
1950’s was when America was just getting rid of their Jim Crow apartheids laws.
Your argument is just presentism
My argument… disputing that homophobia and homophobic laws in the Middle East originated from European influence… is presentism.
Okay. You have fun with that.
None of your arguments surrounding Iran are even vaguely relevant.
My argument… disputing that homophobia and homophobic laws in the Middle East originated from European influence… is presentism.
You’re saying that the new laws under British colonialism are not relevant. From the article:
When the British claimed “Mandate Palestine” in 1920, they passed sweeping anti-gay legislation that still governs homosexual relationships in Gaza today. Throughout history, in the name of bringing civilization to Middle Eastern communities, colonialists have criminalized queerness and facilitated queer oppression.
If you look up Iran before 1950 the capital was starting to Westernize. You’re implying that the West had amazing gay rights during the 1950’s while America didn’t even have Gay Marriage until 2004.
And after America coup’d Iran’s regime with operation Ajax, Iran becomes super progressive… And then in 1979 America overthrew Iran again (probably for still being too regressive on gay rights) and installed Ayatollah Khomeini. Another massive success for gay rights under American imperialism!
You’re saying that the new laws under British colonialism are not relevant. From the article:
Yes, because, unlike the author of the piece, who can be forgiven for being a high schooler, I recognize that the laws being referenced in this case under British colonial rule were new only in wording. The Ottomans before them, as well as regional authorities in Palestine, had plenty of laws used as cudgels against the LGBT community. The British also implemented laws against stealing; that doesn’t mean that the British fucking brought the idea of personal property to the Middle East.
If you look up Iran before 1950 the capital was starting to Westernize. You’re implying that the West had amazing gay rights back then when America didn’t even have Gay Marriage until 2004.
Fucking what.
Where do I imply that the West had amazing gay rights before 2004? Where do I reference the gay rights situation of the West positively at all in my argument?
Oh my bad I thought your argument was supposed to be relevant to anything ever.
This is exactly the kind of whataboutism the article is about. Be better.
Fucking what? How is that a whataboutism at all?
Article: colonialism historically criminalizes queerness
You: oh yeah? What about the people who were there BEFORE the colonialism criminalizing queerness? Your argument is invalid!
It really doesn’t get much more textbook whataboutism than that.
But this is kind of a criticism of responding to what aboutism with what aboutism. Both sides were historically anti queer in both similar and different ways.
responding to what aboutism with what aboutism
Not really, no. It’s not whataboutism to point out that a whataboutism argument is illogical and that said illogical argument is being used to excuse atrocities.
People are being killed at a large scale, the aggressor is pink washing using a what aboutism about those people’s track record on gay rights, and this article doing a what aboutism about israel and the west’s gay rights track record. The headline is about genocide. But the content of the article is just trying to make an argument about which side has the better gay rights track record. I don’t think any body is actually arguing, or believing an israel argument, that this war is justified because israel is supposedly kinder to gay people than palestine.
I don’t think any body is actually arguing (…) that this war is justified because israel is supposedly kinder to gay people than palestine
Yeah they are. I’ve been in arguments with Israel apologists using that exact argument to say that the genocide is ok because Hamas bad literally dozens of times.
Article: [Accuses colonialism of bringing the criminalization of queerness to the Middle East]
Me: “That’s literally not true”
That’s not a whataboutism. That’s disputing a fact. A whataboutism would be “Oh yeah? Well the Middle East was doing it too, therefore Europe’s colonial homophobia was okay!” or, if you prefer, “Oh yeah? Europe was homophobic? Well, what about the Middle East’s homophobia?”
I’m not saying Europe was okay. I’m not saying the Middle East was exceptionally awful. I’m not trying to justify Europe’s colonial homophobia. I’m saying blame for homophobia being laid at the feet of colonizers in the Middle East is absurd. They have enough crimes to answer for without making more up.
And I’m not even addressing the main thrust of the article, which I agree with.
And I’m not even addressing the main thrust of the article
Which is exactly the problem and exactly what makes it a whataboutism: rather than engage with the actual pertinent points of the article, you choose to nitpick a largely irrelevant detail in such a manner as to distract in exactly the same manner as someone trying to dismiss the whole thing based on that detail.
which I agree with.
You have an awfully odd way showing it, then…
Which is exactly the problem and exactly what makes it a whataboutism: rather than engage with the actual pertinent points of the article, you choose to nitpick a largely irrelevant detail in such a manner as to distract in exactly the same manner as someone trying to dismiss the whole thing based on that detail.
… that’s not what a whataboutism is. A whataboutism isn’t when someone gets caught up on a detail. JFC.
You have an awfully odd way showing it, then…
If someone, in the middle of an article I otherwise found anodyne and agreeable, said “Just like the British brought prosperity to Africa by building roads and hospitals”, I would find myself in the comments section to dispute that shit as well. I’m not here in the comments section because the article bothered or pleased me; I agree with it, but have no urge to make a comment on the article itself. I’m here because a detail which pushes a very inaccurate and eurocentric narrative is being spread, and I would rather like it if it wasn’t.
I give up. You clearly are incapable of understanding what I’m explaining to you.
Have the day you deserve.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but if queerness was criminalized before colonialism and queerness was criminalized after, that would seem to invalidate the idea that colonialism was responsible.
I’m just reading what you are saying and interpreting it through my own ignorance of queer history save for the last 50 years or so I’ve seen with my own eyes.
It’s also really hard to follow what people are actually saying vs. the words being assigned to them for rhetorical purposes to manufacture the argument another person wants to have. Social media really is the worst form of communication.
if queerness was criminalized before colonialism and queerness was criminalized after, that would seem to invalidate the idea that colonialism was responsible.
That’s only half of the picture, though. The point that the article is making isn’t that colonialism brought anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment to the middle east. It’s that colonialism is generally anti-LGBTQ+ whether or not the area was already and as such, the argument that the colonialists are better because they’re not anti-LGBTQ+ is empty propaganda.
Or put in words already in the very headline of the article: pinkwashing genocide.
They know it is a way they can get people to support it.
Well, in a way it’s an argument. Didn’t people condone the genocide against ISIS because they were a bunch of fuvks?
Queers for free?! What a great deal!
For free? No thanks, I bet those come with mtx and spyware.
Nah, the queers are open source.
Do these lgbt people realize that every Arab in Gaza would burn them alive for being gay? Do they also realize that nobody hates Palestinians more than other Arabs and Europeans? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills
As the article notes, that’s not a fucking excuse for genocide.
It’s the excuse your white assess used to kill my people and destroy my country
It’s the excuse your white assess used to kill my people and destroy my country
The fuck
I don’t understand, even if a specific group is deplorable. How is mass genocide is the answer to that.
One can feel sympathetic to people that you don’t like.
This is, of course, not to mention that all of Palestine isn’t the monolith.
You are taking crazy pills
When other Arabs and Europeans start massacring Palestinians wholesale because of gay Palestinians, you’ll have a point.
Do… do you not know that they do? Have you any idea what happens to Palestinians who enter Egypt or Jordan? Do you know that they’re despised and killed off? But your western news doesn’t tell you that so you don’t care
Feel free to show me the non-Western news source about Palestinians being killed off in Egypt and Jordan.
crickets lol
