THE POLITICS OF LGBT RIGHTS IN ISRAEL AND BEYOND: NATIONALITY, NORMATIVITY, AND QUEER POLITICS

The 2010 Israeli Supreme Court judgment in the matter of the Jerusalem Open House for Pride and Tolerance, Jerusalem’s LGBT community center, was a turning point in both its recognition of equality for the gay community and its adoption of the discourse that sets LGBT rights as signifying Israel as a liberal democracy and as distinguishing it from other states. This article explores LGBT rights politics in Israel and beyond, taking a critical look at the terms “homonormativity” and “homonationalism. ” Homonormativity has * My thanks go to Erez Aloni, Ofer Guez, Alon Harel, Ofri Ilany, Hagai Kalai, Chen Misgav, Ruti Preser, Iris Rachamimov, Hedi Vitebo, Yuval Yonay, Amalia Ziv, and Neta Ziv, for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article. I am especially grateful to Yehuda Goor for his excellent and dedicated research work, to Peter Teishev for completing the research work, and to Dana Rothman-Meshulam for providing her excellent language skills and her superb editing work. Different versions of the research that forms this article were presented at a number of fora over the years, and I would like to thank the participants for their useful comments: the lecture series on Israel: Historical, Political and Social Aspects, University of Oxford (November 2009); the Israeli Law, Literature, and Society Seminar Series, Harvard University (February 2010); “(An)other Sex 10,” The Tenth Annual LGBT Studies and Queer Theory Conference, Tel Aviv University (May 2010); Columbia Law School Colloquium on Gender & Sexuality (October 2010); Conference on Sexual Nationalisms, University of Amsterdam (January 2011); LGBT Studies Program lecture series on “Queer Suffering and Liberal Rights in Transnational Context,” Syracuse University (April 2011); Conference on LGBT/Queer Studies, Syracuse University, in Madrid (July 2011); Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Sexuality, Culture and Society, “Naming and Framing: The Making of Sexual (In)Equality,” Madrid University (July 2011); Conference on “Governance without a State: Governmentality in a Global World,” Tel Aviv University (July 2012); the CUNY Homonationalism and Pinkwashing Conference (April 2013) and in “l’Atelier Genre(s) et Sexualité(s),” Institute of Sociology, Université libre de Bruxelles (February 2014). 82 COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW [46.2:81 been described as neoliberal sexual politics that does not challenge the dominant heteronormative institutions and is anchored in domesticity and consumption. Homonationalism has been described as nationalist homonormativity, in whose framework “domesticated” homosexuals serve as ammunition for nationalism. The discussion of homonationalism highlights a process whereby the homosexual, rather than being viewed as a threat to the state and its security, has been transformed into someone who is perceived as integrated in the state and who distinguishes it from other states through its tolerance towards him. Homonormativity and homonationalism are preconditions for “pinkwashing”: the use of LGBT rights for propaganda purposes. The article will argue for the need for non-reductive conceptions of the connection between homonationalism, homonormativity, and pinkwashing, as well as point to the contradictions between domesticity and consumption that exist within the notion of homonormativity. The slaying of two gay youths in a 2009 shooting attack at the Barnoar gay youth center in Tel Aviv was a turning point in LGBT rights politics in Israel. The reactions to this incident marked the rise of the new homonationalism alongside the intensification of criticism of this phenomenon, leading to divisive rifts amongst activists. This article examines the “deal” that was woven in the shadow of the Barnoar attack between the gay community establishment and the nationalist establishment and the ensuing crisis in queer politics. In response to the ascent of homonormativity and homonationalism, there was a strengthening of identity politics amongst the groups that are excluded from them, while the queer politics that challenged essentialist notions of identity fell into crisis. The queer idea was at times turned into simply one more identity (“Q”) in the alphabet soup of identities, at the expense of its critical potential and effectiveness.