The Advocate Turns Pro-Israel
In her Advocate interview Morcos recalls her response to a woman who said that Palestinians are “backward” when it comes to gay rights. Morcos replied, “What is backward? Backward to whom? Are we comparing the Middle East, the Arab community, to the Western world? This is not a fair comparison.”
Why is the comparison not a fair one, she says? “Because you’re comparing our scale to your scale without really taking into consideration if we have our own scale.” This sort of culturally relativistic posturing—talk of “our own scale” in regards to basic human rights that all people deserve, regardless of where they live—is a tool used by individuals like Marcos to take advantage of the guilt complexes of Western liberals. The argument allows her to escape the otherwise obvious point that Israel is light-years ahead of the Palestinians when it comes to gay rights.
That is a great point. But the article takes a huge turn for the worse from there. It point out tragic anti-gay persecution in Palestine, making Israel seem like Eden incarnate. I'm sorry, but Israel is anything but that.The article never points out the Israeli army's abuse of Palestinian gay people for its intelligence missions, as documented in Queen Hussein or many other places. It never talks about the stabbings at last year's Pride parade. It never discusses that orthodox members of the Knesset hid their faces when Dana International was honored for winning Eurovision. Somehow, all of that flew under the radar.
I agree that Israel is far better than Palestine when it comes to gay rights. But is not the haven that Kirchick protrays. The mere fact that he portrays it as a haven points to obvious pro-Israel bias. I mean, the whole section talking about Israel granting freedom to its minorities made Kirchik look like his nose was irreparably Kosher and brown.
I also agree with many of the statements in the article, including that it is shameful of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission to boycott World Pride. But there is something terribly wrong with Kirchick's article, which stems more from what he deosn't mention than what he does. Due to blind pro-Israel bias, I give the article a C minus.