JERUSALEM—Let’s dispense with the charge of “pinkwashing” that has been leveled against Israel. The word has come to stand for the claim that Israel officials use the nation’s relatively progressive stance on gay rights as a tool to distract journalists and public attention from its treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
Some Israel supporters do indeed push the nation’s culture of tolerance to the forefront—the Anti-Defamation League, for example, has produced ads promoting Israel as a humane environment for people of all sexualities. But the concerns that pinkwashing has become an effective smokescreen obscuring the Israeli occupation are inflated.
Israel is considered by some to be a “‘Mecca’ for gay Palestinians,” who are often persecuted in their own communities, Michael Luongo wrote earlier this month in GlobalPost. But, he added, “Rights advocates say the good press is actually a mask covering Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in general.” A 2011 New York Times op-ed by Sarah Schulman defined such efforts as pinkwashing—“a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.” She quoted Aeyal Gross, a professor of law at Tel Aviv University, who argues that “gay rights have essentially become a public-relations tool” for Israel.
Israel indeed hosts vibrant gay pride parades (even through sacred Jerusalem), welcomes gay military service, and courts gay tourists. A rainbow patch on a tourist’s backpack in Jerusalem’s Old City will elicit more yawns than sneers. A May profile of Tel Aviv on 60 Minutes noted that it* was rated the most gay-friendly city, according to one survey. And gay Palestinians living in Israel are among those who benefit from this tolerance.
But there is scarce evidence of a unified campaign to use a tolerant social culture as a red herring. And in any event, Israel hardly has a PR machine capable of keeping journalists from highlighting its military occupation. The arguments about it are too vehement. As Peter Beinart, the former editor of The New Republic and an American Jew, argued in his recent book, The Crisis of Zionism, “Israel doesn’t have a public relations problem, it has a moral problem.”
Schulman’s op-ed cited as evidence for attempts at pinkwashing the fact that Tel Aviv launched a 2010 campaign to brand itself as a destination for gay tourists. But many tourist hubs around the world, from Key West to Bangkok, court gay visitors.
Israel saw a gay pride parade June 8 with over 30,000 marchers. The day after the Tel Aviv demonstration The New York Times’ Isabel Kershner filed a report not on that parade, but a smaller march in Jerusalem denouncing racism against Ethiopian Jews. All government mouthpieces congratulate themselves for their country’s humane policies, and in doing likewise Israeli spokespersons are the rule, not the exception. It is difficult to argue that such boasting is successfully used to obscure Israel’s most controversial policies.
*Correction: The sentence originally referred to Tel Aviv as Israel’s capital city, which is incorrect; Jerusalem is the capital.
I've written about pinkwashing extensively. The intentional strategy is well-documented by Sarah Schulman and other academics and activists. You can find videos on YouTube where pro-Israel PR professionals either promote this strategy or criticize it. Even though the strategy has been exposed, there's still a lot of effort to legitimize it and the Islamophobia wrapped up in it.
I don't know if or how journalists are ever a target of the strategy, but I have documented the activities of one man named Omer Gershon who I first learned about after he appeared in a hoaxy propaganda video that maligned Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity activists as homophobic. Since the video was exposed as fictitious (we still don't know who made it), he has been quoted in at least two stories about gay-friendly Tel Aviv -- AP and The Guardian. Both publications neglected to mention his past as an internet hoaxer. In November 2011, he worked as an “Israel Buddy” for a design blogger junket to Israel produced by Kinetis.
It is difficult to argue that the strategy is used successfully, but they keep trying to use it.
Homosexuality was still a taboo during the demise of apartheid in South Africa, but similar PR strategies were employed in promoting the racist South African regime as a land of liberal western values surrounded of course by backward and barbaric native culture.
#1 Posted by Benjamin Doherty, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 06:33 PM
Here is a summary of two panel discussions recently held in New York on pinkwashing. Before we decide whether or not to "dispense" with the term, let us understand the underlying meanings that it carries. Most importantly, through testimonies from Palestinian queer activists and American LGBTQ activists and scholars who recently returned from Palestine, we get a glimpse into the Palestinian sensibilities, which are completely absent from the article above: http://electronicintifada.net/content/israels-pinkwashing-exposed-dishonest-new-york-debates/11142
#2 Posted by Uri Horesh, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 07:00 PM
Mr Doherty, piously declaring the evil of alleged Israeli pinkwashing to be a moral charge is absurd- especially when made by cultures which routinely murder gays or those who defend those regimes and their 'ideals'.
If you are indeed concerned about human rights in any meaningful way, you would address the issue of blatant state sponsored antisemitism found in Palestinians and Arab world media, taught in schools and often preached from pulpits by state funded clerics.
While you might not consider regular promises of 'We'll finish what Hitler started' or the popular kindergarten ditty, 'Hamas! Hamas! Jews to the gas!' to merit your pious attention, the rest of the civilized world does.
The UN, NATO, the Quartet, et al, have all said peace can be had predicated on three points:
Cessation of violence
Diplomatic recognition of Israel
Secure borders
Which of those things are too onerous a burden for the Palestinians?
#3 Posted by Voter One, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 07:10 PM
It's hard for Palestinians to "secure their borders" when Israel already has their land occupied & covered with checkpoints. And Israel has historically been quite more successful on the violence side of things, including killing 10x as many Palestinian children as vise versa.
#4 Posted by DK, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 07:50 PM
DK
When the UN, et al, refer to secure borders, they are referring to permanent agreed upon borders which provide for the security of all states in the region.
Given that all the wars since 1948 have originated with Arab states open declaration of the eradication and the more recent promises of genocide, Israel takes her border security quite seriously- as does the aforementioned UN, NATO, Quartet, etc.
And for the sake of accuracy, the only reason there is an 'occupation' is because of a war foisted on Israel. Immediately following that war, there Arab world issued the Khartoum Declaration, in which they issued three 'No's'- to negotiation with Israel, recognition of Israel or the cessation of violence. This was in response to Israel's offer to give back conquered territory in exchange for peace.
As for the numbers argument, the very notion is absurd. The Palestinians have a long time and well documented habit of fighting from civilian areas and civilian institutions, hiding weapons in schools and hospitals and so on.
#5 Posted by Voter One, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 09:02 PM
I'm sure Voter One can find some UN/NATO/Quartet justification for the child abuse depicted here in the name of the occupation s/he puts in quotes (since s/he doesn't seem to believe it is a real thing).
http://www.channel4.com/news/israel-regularly-breaches-rights-of-palestinian-children
Or perhaps another abbreviation is in order: BS.
#6 Posted by Uri Horesh, CJR on Tue 26 Jun 2012 at 10:42 PM
I think both the author and the critics miss the point: it's not that the claim is 'tenuous' as Justin Martin attempts to point out; it is, in truth, infantile.
Of course states present their best face to the public, as Martin correctly writes; to suggest otherwise is naive or disingenuous. SO the critics must prove that the Government of Israel (or its PR reps) has actually created the Gay-friendly events it promotes. Now that would be something to write about. But the 'pinkwashing' smear? Please. What these people are saying is that Israel simply doesn't have the right to promote any positive attributes: nothing. Its moral stain is so huge that it overwhelms its goodness. Hitler was a vegetarian, they might say, but that didn't make him a Buddhist. It's a simplistic argument from intellectual frauds and political misfits who, frankly, haven't been able to get their way and are reduced to pettiness. Like a 15-year old girl who lost her boyfriend to a rival, they have only one emotion: hate. And the rest follows. Honestly, I couldn't care less.
#7 Posted by Moe Reese, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 03:28 AM
In order for "pinkwashing" to be a legitimate criticism, like "greenwashing" it must be a FALSE claim of being gay positive. I have heard nothing to support such a claim. Israel appears to be genuinely gay-positive.
The relationship of Israel to the Palestinians is an entirely different issue. When Florida advertises itself as a wonderful tourist destination, it doesn't talk about the no knock warrants, and the murder rate. PR is expected to focus on the positive. That's not any-washing, it's just the nature of advertising.
#8 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 04:26 AM
@Thalia This is not true. "Pinkwashing" is a neologism derived from whitewashing, and the claims do not have to be false for the strategy to be real. Review the definitions of whitewashing, pinkwashing, greenwashing and bluewashing.
#9 Posted by Benjamin Doherty, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 10:25 AM
It is fine to recognize Israeli progress on LGBT rights for what it is: great progress that benefits gay Jewish Israelis alone.
What is not acceptable is the use of this progress, by the Israeli government, to present Israel as a human rights haven in the midst of barbarism, which is exactly what it does. Furthermore, Ambassador Michael Oren has claimed that Israel offers asylum to queer Palestinians, which has been shown to be patently false. This is a prime example of pinkwashing that Martin leaves out.
Israel promoting itself as a tourism haven for LGBT visitors may not be pinkwashing, but false claims such as those made by Oren most certainly are.
#10 Posted by Jillian York, CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 12:08 PM
.
ALL governments rely on deception. ALL of them. NO exceptions. Force and fraud = govt.
.
#11 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 27 Jun 2012 at 02:25 PM