I think my response to this is going to, by necessity, be meandering and convoluted. Basically, I think it's an issue of freedom of expression—the state making an attempt to intervene, and so on. The fact that I support human rights for Palestinians isn't really relevant to the argument—short of homophobia or other hate speech, I believe that any queer or queer-allied group has the right to join the parade and express any sentiment they'd like, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with it, or feel comfortable in its presence. This goes for pro-Zionist groups and banks and even, grudgingly, the Canadian Armed Forces. Pride ain't my party, or even the activists' party anymore, but everyone's.
In regards to the issue of whether Israel has the right to exist, I believe it's tangential to both Pride and the activities of Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity groups. Do I think that the Zionist project was a good idea? No, I do not; I think it's a terrible idea that has had damaging consequences for Jews and Palestinians alike. Do I think that Europe had the right to atone for its sins against its Jewish population by transplanting them to an Arab region and displacing the local populace? That was a shitty thing to do, though typical of Europeans. Probably in this respect, I don't hold moderate views, especially for a Jew. But given that this happened, and that Israel is now a nuclear power financially and militarily backed by superpowers—and on an ethical level, now has a Jewish population of around five million—it isn't going to cease existing regardless of whether or not it was a good idea in the first place. It is not threatened by Palestinian suicide bombers or homemade rockets that miss all the time, or by Iran's bluster, and it is especially not threatened by the rhetoric of North American activists. When the issue of Israel's right to exist is brought up by either side, I squint suspiciously and back away, because the question is typically not argued in good faith.
Which is one of the reasons why the apartheid model is a useful framework (if flawed). White South Africa was never going to go away, and hasn't. The goal of the anti-apartheid movement was never to kill or displace all the white settlers, regardless of how much many of them had it coming. It was to remove the apartheid structure and transform South Africa into a state for all of its citizens. By drawing the comparison, QuAIA/CAIA essentially says, "look, we are not trying to threaten the lives or homes of anyone; we want human rights for Palestinians just like Israelis currently have." This is a good thing for all concerned unless one is specifically invested in Jewish supremacy in Israel.
In terms of creating a safe space—while safe spaces are important, at something the size of Pride, it's impossible to have a safe space where no one is uncomfortable or feels unsafe. I mean, the police are allowed to march in Pride. And many people in the march, particularly sex workers and First Nations people, have faced actual brutal violence at the hands of the police, with batons and pepper spray and tasers, which is far worse than being made to feel uncomfortable because of a political slogan. Queer Palestinians no doubt feel threatened by having groups like StandWithUs there, given that they support violence against Palestinians. Or countless other groups who might find that their shared sexual identity is not enough to bridge the gaps with people of different cultural, national, or ideological identities. One does have to draw a line, and that line should be drawn only at hate speech, because if the line is drawn at "hurts my feelings" or "makes me feel uncomfortable," Pride will fail to achieve the very diversity it sets out to celebrate.
no subject
In regards to the issue of whether Israel has the right to exist, I believe it's tangential to both Pride and the activities of Palestinians and Palestinian solidarity groups. Do I think that the Zionist project was a good idea? No, I do not; I think it's a terrible idea that has had damaging consequences for Jews and Palestinians alike. Do I think that Europe had the right to atone for its sins against its Jewish population by transplanting them to an Arab region and displacing the local populace? That was a shitty thing to do, though typical of Europeans. Probably in this respect, I don't hold moderate views, especially for a Jew. But given that this happened, and that Israel is now a nuclear power financially and militarily backed by superpowers—and on an ethical level, now has a Jewish population of around five million—it isn't going to cease existing regardless of whether or not it was a good idea in the first place. It is not threatened by Palestinian suicide bombers or homemade rockets that miss all the time, or by Iran's bluster, and it is especially not threatened by the rhetoric of North American activists. When the issue of Israel's right to exist is brought up by either side, I squint suspiciously and back away, because the question is typically not argued in good faith.
Which is one of the reasons why the apartheid model is a useful framework (if flawed). White South Africa was never going to go away, and hasn't. The goal of the anti-apartheid movement was never to kill or displace all the white settlers, regardless of how much many of them had it coming. It was to remove the apartheid structure and transform South Africa into a state for all of its citizens. By drawing the comparison, QuAIA/CAIA essentially says, "look, we are not trying to threaten the lives or homes of anyone; we want human rights for Palestinians just like Israelis currently have." This is a good thing for all concerned unless one is specifically invested in Jewish supremacy in Israel.
In terms of creating a safe space—while safe spaces are important, at something the size of Pride, it's impossible to have a safe space where no one is uncomfortable or feels unsafe. I mean, the police are allowed to march in Pride. And many people in the march, particularly sex workers and First Nations people, have faced actual brutal violence at the hands of the police, with batons and pepper spray and tasers, which is far worse than being made to feel uncomfortable because of a political slogan. Queer Palestinians no doubt feel threatened by having groups like StandWithUs there, given that they support violence against Palestinians. Or countless other groups who might find that their shared sexual identity is not enough to bridge the gaps with people of different cultural, national, or ideological identities. One does have to draw a line, and that line should be drawn only at hate speech, because if the line is drawn at "hurts my feelings" or "makes me feel uncomfortable," Pride will fail to achieve the very diversity it sets out to celebrate.