Antisémitisme: Ce printemps l’antisémitisme se portera rose (Pinkwashing: A country where women are not stoned, gays not hanged and Christians not persecuted can only be up to no good)

Au printemps, le keffieh se portera en étendard : en version classique noir et blanc, en bleu indigo ou de toutes les couleurs… Magazine féminin
Cette alliance brun-vert-rouge donne le frisson. Elle guette les faux pas des démocrates. (…) L’antisionisme est le nouvel habit de l’antisémitisme. Demain, les universitaires qui boycottent Israël demanderont qu’on brûle les livres des Israéliens, puis les livres des sionistes, puis ceux des juifs. Roger Cukierman (président du CRIF, janvier 2003)
On s’est d’abord approprié l’image et après la terre. Historienne israélienne
L’Israël des oranges, c’est un Israël sans Arabes. Historien
Avec la peinture aussi, les colons se veulent dans la continuation de l’orientalisme. Ils se travestissent en celui qu’ils viennent remplacer. Le discours de la « terre arabe mal exploitée et peu fertile » se met en place. La propagande sioniste a recours à une iconographie très organisée et contrôle totalement les images produites pour échafauder le mythe d’une terre à l’abandon où ils viennent introduire la modernité. « Le cliché selon lequel la colonisation apporte le progrès ! », souligne Elias Sanbar. Et qui va se décliner dans des images de la bonne santé dans le travail, les chants, les danses, les femmes radieuses, émancipées et en short… C’est le réalisme socialiste à l’israélienne, le rêve colonial qui produit les oranges que l’Orient envoie à l’Occident. Marina Da Silva
Vous avez plié le genou devant l’insolence du mensonge, de la diffamation, de la haine obsessionnelle d’Israël. Vous avez plié le genou devant ceux qui méprisent des assassinats de chrétiens au Niger, au Soudan, les assassinats inter-palestiniens et autres désastres humanitaires pour focaliser leur misérable animosité sur la création de logements à Jérusalem. Vous avez cédé à la pression de la haine nauséabonde de ceux qui dans les manifestations crient « Mort aux Juifs ».Vous avez aussi baissé pavillon devant ceux qui s’opposent par la violence à la parole, à son expression et qui tente de museler la vérité. Vous avez commis une faute grave contre la liberté d’expression, la liberté de réunion, contre les valeurs de la démocratie. Vous avez aussi, en encourageant l’extrémisme fascisant, donné un soutien à ceux qui veulent l’anéantissement d’Israël, seule véritable démocratie du Proche-Orient. Charles Meyer (vice-président France-Israël, lettre ouverte au député-maire de Nantes et chef du groupe PS à l’Assemblée JM Ayraut, 01.04.10)
French pop star Vanessa Paradis has cancelled her upcoming concert in Israel only a month before she was supposed to arrive in the country with her partner, Hollywood actor Johnny Depp, leaving fans and pundits speculating as to the reasons for the cancellation. Paradis’ agent David Stern announced the change of plans in the French media, claiming that the cancellation was due to professional reasons, but insiders who organized the concert claim that the singer acceded to calls to cancel the show made by Palestinian solidarity groups. According to the same sources, it was apparently the planned visit of Paradis’ partner Johnny Depp that drew the attention of the groups that advocate boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel because of its treatment of the Palestinians. Depp, who had intended to accompany Paradis along with their two young children, had excitedly informed various media outlets of the planned trip to Israel during interviews he gave to promote his new film « The Tourist. » It is thought that these interviews alerted BDS organizers to Paradis’ intentions to perform in Israel. Although Paradis’ agent David Stern maintains that the concert was cancelled strictly for professional reasons, there have been reports that in the last few weeks, BDS organizers have asked Paradis to cancel the show, sending her letters and waiting outside her performances, threatening to boycott her too. Haaretz (Jan.16, 2011)
« Pinkwashing » (le « marketing rose »)  est un mot-valise combinant « rose » et « blanchiment ». Le terme est le plus souvent utilisé pour décrire différentes formes de marketing à but non-lucratif. Il peut se référer à: la promotion de biens et services utilisant le ruban rose qui représente le soutien aux organismes de bienfaisance liés au cancer du sein. (…) La promotion du positionnement pro-homosexualité d’une entité commerciale ou politique pour tenter de minimiser ou d’adoucir ses côtés considérés comme négatifs. Wikipedia
En France, tout le monde connaît le ruban rouge, signe de lutte contre le Sida. En Amérique du Nord, le ruban rose (pink ribbon) est associé à la lutte contre le cancer du sein. De nombreuses marques s’associent à cette cause en affichant ce signe distinctif et en indiquant qu’une somme sera reversée à un organisme de recherche ou une association. Et c’est là que les dérives commencent, en particulier en octobre, mois de sensibilisation au cancer du sein outre Atlantique. Construit sur la base du terme greenwashing, le pinkwashing est utilisé pour décrire les activités d’entreprises et de groupes qui se positionnent comme leaders dans la lutte contre le cancer du sein alors qu’elles sont engagées dans des activités qui peuvent/pourraient contribuer à augmenter le nombre de ces cancers… Plus largement, le terme s’applique aussi à ces sociétés qui cherchent tout simplement à exploiter ce filon et à faire du business. Sircome
Pendant les guerres mondiales du 20ème siècle, les banquiers cosmopolites (?) qui finançaient tous les belligérants utilisaient les médias pour construire les ennemis en produisant de l’homogénéité cognitive dans chaque camp, de sorte à fabriquer le consentement de chacun à l’agression de l’autre. Aujourd’hui, dans cette perspective de construction de deux camps antagonistes, le sionisme rose cherche à faire croire qu’Israël est forcément dans le camp du Bien puisqu’on y prend le parti des minorités et de la liberté individuelle : « La preuve, dira un propagandiste, les homosexuels et les femmes sont libres chez nous ! » (même si les femmes ne sont pas une minorité). « Et voyez ces pays comme l’Iran, où les homosexuels sont persécutés et la sexualité des femmes est réprimée ! Ne faudrait-il pas déclarer la guerre à ces dictatures islamiques pour libérer les gays et les femmes du régime infâme qui les menace, et qui nous menace également par ricochet ? » Le but de ce management des perceptions consiste à fabriquer la perception d’une menace à partir de rien. De fait, l’Iran ne représente aucun problème rationnel à aucun niveau objectif (?). Il faut alors inventer de toute pièce le « casus belli » en communiquant sur des points de détail apolitiques tels que la liberté sexuelle individuelle. Lucien (?)
Gay rights have essentially become a public-relations tool, even though conservative and especially religious politicians remain fiercely homophobic. Aeyal Gross (Tel Aviv University)
When you go through a checkpoint it does not matter what the sexuality of the soldier is. Haneen Maikay (Al Qaws, Palestinian gay organisation)
After generations of sacrifice and organization, gay people in parts of the world have won protection from discrimination and relationship recognition. But these changes have given rise to a nefarious phenomenon: the co-opting of white gay people by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political forces in Western Europe and Israel. (…) These depictions of immigrants — usually Muslims of Arab, South Asian, Turkish or African origin — as “homophobic fanatics” opportunistically ignore the existence of Muslim gays and their allies within their communities. They also render invisible the role that fundamentalist Christians, the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jews play in perpetuating fear and even hatred of gays. And that cynical message has now spread from its roots in European xenophobia to become a potent tool in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (…) In 2005, with help from American marketing executives, the Israeli government began a marketing campaign, “Brand Israel,” aimed at men ages 18 to 34. The campaign, as reported by The Jewish Daily Forward, sought to depict Israel as “relevant and modern.” The government later expanded the marketing plan by harnessing the gay community to reposition its global image. Last year, the Israeli news site Ynet reported that the Tel Aviv tourism board had begun a campaign of around $90 million to brand the city as “an international gay vacation destination.” The promotion, which received support from the Tourism Ministry and Israel’s overseas consulates, includes depictions of young same-sex couples and financing for pro-Israeli movie screenings at lesbian and gay film festivals in the United States. (The government isn’t alone; an Israeli pornography producer even shot a film, “Men of Israel,” on the site of a former Palestinian village.). (…) The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation has named these tactics “pinkwashing”: a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life. (…) What makes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies so susceptible to pinkwashing — and its corollary, the tendency among some white gay people to privilege their racial and religious identity, a phenomenon the theorist Jasbir K. Puar has called “homonationalism” — is the emotional legacy of homophobia. Most gay people have experienced oppression in profound ways — in the family; in distorted representations in popular culture; in systematic legal inequality that has only just begun to relent. Increasing gay rights have caused some people of good will to mistakenly judge how advanced a country is by how it responds to homosexuality. In Israel, gay soldiers and the relative openness of Tel Aviv are incomplete indicators of human rights — just as in America, the expansion of gay rights in some states does not offset human rights violations like mass incarceration. The long-sought realization of some rights for some gays should not blind us to the struggles against racism in Europe and the United States, or to the Palestinians’ insistence on a land to call home. Sarah Schulman
En 2005, avec l’aide de directeurs marketing américains, le gouvernement israélien a déployé une vaste campagne, « Brand Israel », en direction principalement des hommes entre 18 et 34 ans : cette campagne a été mise en œuvre en vue d’offrir à cet État colonial un visage attractif et moderne. En 2009, The Israel Project a publié un dictionnaire des « mots qui marchent » pour défendre la politique d’Israël en mettant l’accent sur le fait que la « démocratie » israélienne respecte « les droits des femmes ». Ce plan marketing s’est progressivement dirigé à l’attention de la « communauté LGBT ». Dès lors, en 2010, ce sont 90 millions de dollars qui ont été investis par l’office de tourisme de Tel Aviv pour se donner des allures de destination de vacances sur mesure pour les gays du monde entier. Ce type de financement fleurit, souvent à la faveur d’un arsenal culturel, pour donner un visage gay-friendly à Israël. Les ambassades israéliennes financent des festivals de films gays et lesbiens, aux États Unis comme en Europe. En France, la venue d’une cinéaste israélienne au festival de films féministes et lesbiens Cineffable avait donné lieu à un partenariat entre les organisateurs et organisatrices du festival et l’ambassade d’Israël – l’ambassade finançait en effet la venue de la cinéaste. La campagne pour le Boycott culturel de l’État d’Israël (PACBI) a révélé en 2008 que les contrats qui relient les artistes israéliennes à leur gouvernement, lorsque celui ci finance leur déplacement, contiennent une clause qui définit le but de la collaboration : « promouvoir les intérêts politiques de l’État d’Israël […] et créer une image positive d’Israël. » Un mouvement grandissant à l’échelle internationale dénonce cette tactique de pinkwashing : une stratégie délibérée pour occulter la violation systématique des droits des Palestiniennes derrière un visage moderne, symbolisé par la vitalité des espaces gay en Israël. The NYT
Depuis le recul de l’AIPAC, qui avait misé sur les organisations évangéliques aux USA, le mouvement sioniste tente de récupérer les gays pour en faire la base de son lobbying. Réseau Voltaire
The core characteristic of anti-Semitism is the assertion that everything the Jews do is wrong, and everything that is wrong is done by the Jews. For the anti-Semite every rich Jew is exploitive, every poor Jew a burden on society. For the anti-Semite, both capitalism and communism are Jewish plots. For the anti-Semite, Jews are both too docile, allowing themselves to be led to the slaughter like sheep, and too militant, having won too many wars against the Arabs. For the anti-Semite, Jews are too liberal and too conservative, too artsy and too bourgeois, too stingy and too charitable, too insular and too cosmopolitan, too moralistic and too conniving. To the anti-Semite, every depression, war, social problem, plague must have been the fault of the Jews. Whenever the Jews appear to be doing something good – giving charity, helping the less fortunate, curing the sick – there must be a malevolent motive, a hidden agenda, a conspiratorial explanation beneath the surface of the benevolent act. (…) When it was disclosed that the Israeli army has the lowest rate of rape against enemy civilians, radical anti-Zionists argued that this was because Israeli soldiers were so racist that they did not find Palestinian women attractive enough to rape! Nothing the Jew or the Jew among nations does can be praised, because its purpose is always to « manipulate, » to « conceal, » to « divert attention away from » or to « distort » the evil that inheres in all Jewish actions and inactions. (…) Don’t be fooled by its benign pink hue, or its academic pretext. At its core, the newly-fashioned charge of pinkwashing is little different from the old-fashioned charges leveled by brown-shirted anti-Semites – namely, that neither the Jews nor the Jewish state ever does good things without bad motives. Alan M. Dershowitz

Après l’antisémitisme vert… l’antisémitisme rose !

A l’heure où les tentatives de boycott se multiplient contre le seul Etat d’Israël …

Qui, pour le 20e anniversaire de sa gay pride, accueille tous frais payés les premiers bénéficiaires de la nouvelle loi française sur l’aberration – pardon: le mariage – pour tous …

Et où, comme le rappelle le célèbre avocat Alan Dershovitz, toute initiative bonne ou mauvaise …

Se voit automatiquement dénoncée soit comme crime de guerre, barbarie (nazie de préférence: barrière ou opérations d’autodéfense) ou archaïsme d’un autre âge (dénonciation du mariage pour tous) …

Soit, sous forme de sionisme vert ou rose, comme vulgaire et cynique opération de séduction (opérations humanitaires: falashas, tsunami, etc) …

Mais où surtout le seul fait, en une région qui en est si friande, de ne pratiquer ni lapidation, pendaison ou persécution pour ses femmes, homosexuels ou chrétiens …

Vous voit immédiatement suspecté des plus noirs desseins …

Haruki Murakami

Pink Anti-Semitism Is No Different from Brown Anti-Semitism

Alan M. Dershowitz

February 26, 2013

This burlesque of an argument first surfaced in a New York Times op-ed that claimed that Israel’s positive approach to gay rights is « a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life. » In other words, the Jew among nations is now being accused of feigning concern over the rights of gay people in order to whitewash – or in this case pinkwash – its lack of concern for Palestinian people.

The core characteristic of anti-Semitism is the assertion that everything the Jews do is wrong, and everything that is wrong is done by the Jews. For the anti-Semite every rich Jew is exploitive, every poor Jew a burden on society. For the anti-Semite, both capitalism and communism are Jewish plots. For the anti-Semite, Jews are both too docile, allowing themselves to be led to the slaughter like sheep, and too militant, having won too many wars against the Arabs. For the anti-Semite, Jews are too liberal and too conservative, too artsy and too bourgeois, too stingy and too charitable, too insular and too cosmopolitan, too moralistic and too conniving.

To the anti-Semite, every depression, war, social problem, plague must have been the fault of the Jews. Whenever the Jews appear to be doing something good – giving charity, helping the less fortunate, curing the sick – there must be a malevolent motive, a hidden agenda, a conspiratorial explanation beneath the surface of the benevolent act.

Now the very twisted illogic that has characterized classic anti-Semitism is being directed at the Jewish state, which for the anti-Semite has become « the Jew » among nations. When Israel sent help to tsunami and hurricane victims, the Jewish state was accused of merely trying to garner positive publicity calculated to offset its mistreatment of Palestinians. When Israeli medical teams save the lives of Palestinian children, they must be up to no good. When it was disclosed that the Israeli army has the lowest rate of rape against enemy civilians, radical anti-Zionists argued that this was because Israeli soldiers were so racist that they did not find Palestinian women attractive enough to rape! Nothing the Jew or the Jew among nations does can be praised, because its purpose is always to « manipulate, » to « conceal, » to « divert attention away from » or to « distort » the evil that inheres in all Jewish actions and inactions.

That is the bigoted thesis of a new anti-Israel campaign being conducted by some radical gay activists who absurdly claim that Israel is engaging in « pinkwashing. » This burlesque of an argument first surfaced in a New York Times op-ed that claimed that Israel’s positive approach to gay rights is « a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life. » In other words, the Jew among nations is now being accused of feigning concern over the rights of gay people in order to whitewash – or in this case pinkwash – its lack of concern for Palestinian people.

How this pinkwashing is supposed to work, we aren’t told. Is the media supposed to be so obsessed with Israel’s positive policies toward gays that it will no longer cover the Palestinian issue? If so, that certainly hasn’t worked. Are gays around the world supposed to feel so indebted to Israel that they will no longer criticize the Jewish nation? That surely hasn’t worked, as evidenced by increasingly rabid anti-Israel advocacy by several gay organizations.

Well, to the unthinking anti-Semite, it doesn’t matter how the Jewish manipulation works. The anti-Semite just knows that there must be something sinister at work if Jews do anything positive. The same is now true for the unthinking anti-Israel bigot.

In Israel, openly gay soldiers have long served in the military and in high positions in both government and the private sector. Gay pride parades are frequent. Israel is, without a doubt, the most gay friendly country in the Middle East and among the most supportive of gay rights anywhere in the world. This, despite efforts by some fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians to ban gay pride parades and legal equality for gays. In contrast to Israel are the West Bank and Gaza, where gays are murdered, tortured and forced to seek asylum – often in Israel. In every Arab and Muslim country, homosexual acts among consenting adults are criminal, often punishable by death. But all this doesn’t matter to the « growing global gay movement » against Israel, which according to The New York Times op-ed, regards these positive steps as nothing more than a cover for malevolent Israeli actions.

The pinkwash bigots would apparently prefer to see Israel treat gays the way Israel’s enemies do, because they hate Israel more than they care about gay rights. Nor do these pink anti-Semites speak for the majority of gay people, who appreciate Israel’s positive steps with regard to gay rights, even if they don’t agree with all of Israel’s policies. Decent gay people who have themselves been subjected to stereotyping, recognize bigotry when they see it, even – perhaps especially – among other gay people. That’s why so many prominent gay leaders and public officials have denounced this « pinkwashing » nonsense.

Now this pinkwashing campaign is coming to the City University of New York. A pinkwashing conference is being sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Studies Center at The Graduate Center on April 10-11, 2013. It will be yet another hate-fest against Israel, but this time it will cross the line into classic anti-Semitic tropes. Don’t be fooled by its benign pink hue, or its academic pretext. At its core, the newly-fashioned charge of pinkwashing is little different from the old-fashioned charges leveled by brown-shirted anti-Semites – namely, that neither the Jews nor the Jewish state ever does good things without bad motives. And this time, the hate conference is being co-sponsored by the Philosophy and Psychology Departments and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, as well as by the Center for The Study of Gender and Sexuality at New York University.

Shame on anyone who exploits his or her sexual orientation to promote anti-Semitic bigotry. And shame on anyone who sponsors those who practice pink anti-Semitism.

Voir aussi:

The Real “Pinkwashing” Scandal

Seth Mandel

Commentary

06.17.2013

When Sarah Schulman’s November 2011 op-ed on “pinkwashing” appeared in the New York Times, I had a conflicted reaction. There was the urge to respond, since such pseudo-academic fraudulence is not merely anti-intellectual at its heart but a voluble and angry protest against honest intellectual pursuit and thus threatened to further embarrass American academia. But there was also the understanding that no response was needed, because the column revealed that the idea of “pinkwashing”–the assumption that Jews grant rights to gays merely to manipulate them as part of Israel’s globalized chicanery–collapses immediately on its own expression.

For example, in one sentence Schulman criticizes Israel’s gay-friendly culture as a ruse because some in Israel’s public life are supposedly “homophobic.” But in the next sentence, she writes that Israeli pinkwashing “not only manipulates the hard-won gains of Israel’s gay community, but it also ignores the existence of Palestinian gay-rights organizations. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in the West Bank since the 1950s, when anti-sodomy laws imposed under British colonial influence were removed from the Jordanian penal code, which Palestinians follow.” In other words, Schulman’s own protestation against Israeli pinkwashing engages in thorough pinkwashing of Palestinian culture.

What this revealed was not only the unserious nature of Schulman’s “scholarship” but that the purpose of her op-ed was not about calling out pinkwashing; indeed, the op-ed is, to date, the clearest example of pinkwashing in print. Instead, Schulman was simply attacking Israel on behalf of the Palestinians from another direction. Call it the triumph of hope over experience, but I expected that since this was so obvious, the academic left wouldn’t sully its reputation any more by embracing this nonsense. I was wrong, of course, having given the academic left too much credit. In April the City University of New York hosted a conference on pinkwashing at which, as James Kirchick reports in detail, Schulman’s anti-Israel animus was made undeniable:

The CUNY conference promised to be a “pioneering, historic event, uniting a uniquely diverse array of speakers from many countries, ethnicities, nationalities, genders, ages, communities, universities, and academic fields in discussion around a new arena of thought.” Noticeably absent from this list of diverse and welcome attributes, however, was any allowance for the thoughts and real-life experiences of gay Israelis, American Jews, and others who might diverge in any way from Schulman’s message—as a look at several papers rejected by the conference reveals. And Schulman’s interactions with the people who submitted these snubbed paper topics seem to confirm that any proposal that challenged the existence of “homonationalism” and “pinkwashing” as parts of an Israeli government plot, or that even offered some nuance in discussing gay rights in Israel, never had a chance of being aired. When asked why Schulman had rejected these critical proposals, she wrote that they were themselves examples of the problem she is trying to combat: “We rejected proposals that were pinkwashing. The conference was a critique of pinkwashing. So, for example, if the conference had been about dismantling homophobia in the family, we would not have welcomed papers from ‘family values’ religious groups who saw homosexuality as a sin.”

Leave aside, for the moment, the fact that Schulman is openly acknowledging here that the purpose of the conference was not enlightened debate but pure, unadulterated pro-Palestinian propaganda. The fact remains that her explanation is just plain untrue. Not only were papers that challenged the existence of pinkwashing rejected, but even papers that embraced the premise were rejected on the grounds that they allowed for a motivation of Israel’s pinkwashers beyond a desire to oppress Palestinians.

Among the papers Schulman rejected were those that criticized Israel’s trumpeting of its gay-rights accomplishments as cynical attempts to drum up tourism. Attacking Israel for manipulating human rights to make money would seem to be suitably antagonistic toward the Jewish state for a conference devoted to gobsmackingly dim-witted conspiracy theories about Jewish racialist domination. But it was not. One author whose paper was rejected but who was nonetheless sympathetic to Schulman’s work seems to have been screened out of even attending the conference (an experience shared by others).

As if that weren’t enough, Kirchick explains that those who accused Israel of trying to make money rather than subjugating Palestinians were accused by Schulman of being “Israeli government operatives.” Kirchick’s detailed account of it should be read in full, but he is surely correct when he writes: “Schulman’s behavior—accusing someone (by all accounts falsely) of being a spy for a foreign government and then compiling a dossier full of inaccurate ‘evidence’ when challenged on the veracity of her claim—is the work of an activist, or of a secret policeman in the old Soviet-bloc states, not a scholar.”

The reason for that is that Schulman’s work isn’t scholarship–something that was clear as day from her infamous New York Times op-ed. More concerning is how readily Schulman was accepted into the ranks of the academic left based solely on her hostility to Israel. It wasn’t deemed surprising that all it took was a creative–if fantastically silly–new angle from which to demonize Israel to win her approval from those circles. And that, surely, is the real scandal.

Voir encore:

Israel and ‘Pinkwashing’

Sarah Schulman

The New York Times

November 22, 2011

“IN dreams begin responsibilities,” wrote Yeats in 1914. These words resonate with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who have witnessed dramatic shifts in our relationship to power. After generations of sacrifice and organization, gay people in parts of the world have won protection from discrimination and relationship recognition. But these changes have given rise to a nefarious phenomenon: the co-opting of white gay people by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim political forces in Western Europe and Israel.

In the Netherlands, some Dutch gay people have been drawn to the messages of Geert Wilders, who inherited many followers of the assassinated anti-immigration gay leader Pim Fortuyn, and whose Party for Freedom is now the country’s third largest political party. In Norway, Anders Behring Breivik, the extremist who massacred 77 people in July, cited Bruce Bawer, a gay American writer critical of Muslim immigration, as an influence. The Guardian reported last year that the racist English Defense League had 115 members in its gay wing. The German Lesbian and Gay Federation has issued statements citing Muslim immigrants as enemies of gay people.

These depictions of immigrants — usually Muslims of Arab, South Asian, Turkish or African origin — as “homophobic fanatics” opportunistically ignore the existence of Muslim gays and their allies within their communities. They also render invisible the role that fundamentalist Christians, the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Jews play in perpetuating fear and even hatred of gays. And that cynical message has now spread from its roots in European xenophobia to become a potent tool in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In 2005, with help from American marketing executives, the Israeli government began a marketing campaign, “Brand Israel,” aimed at men ages 18 to 34. The campaign, as reported by The Jewish Daily Forward, sought to depict Israel as “relevant and modern.” The government later expanded the marketing plan by harnessing the gay community to reposition its global image.

Last year, the Israeli news site Ynet reported that the Tel Aviv tourism board had begun a campaign of around $90 million to brand the city as “an international gay vacation destination.” The promotion, which received support from the Tourism Ministry and Israel’s overseas consulates, includes depictions of young same-sex couples and financing for pro-Israeli movie screenings at lesbian and gay film festivals in the United States. (The government isn’t alone; an Israeli pornography producer even shot a film, “Men of Israel,” on the site of a former Palestinian village.)

This message is being articulated at the highest levels. In May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress that the Middle East was “a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted.”

The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation has named these tactics “pinkwashing”: a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life. Aeyal Gross, a professor of law at Tel Aviv University, argues that “gay rights have essentially become a public-relations tool,” even though “conservative and especially religious politicians remain fiercely homophobic.”

Pinkwashing not only manipulates the hard-won gains of Israel’s gay community, but it also ignores the existence of Palestinian gay-rights organizations. Homosexuality has been decriminalized in the West Bank since the 1950s, when anti-sodomy laws imposed under British colonial influence were removed from the Jordanian penal code, which Palestinians follow. More important is the emerging Palestinian gay movement with three major organizations: Aswat, Al Qaws and Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. These groups are clear that the oppression of Palestinians crosses the boundary of sexuality; as Haneen Maikay, the director of Al Qaws, has said, “When you go through a checkpoint it does not matter what the sexuality of the soldier is.”

What makes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies so susceptible to pinkwashing — and its corollary, the tendency among some white gay people to privilege their racial and religious identity, a phenomenon the theorist Jasbir K. Puar has called “homonationalism” — is the emotional legacy of homophobia. Most gay people have experienced oppression in profound ways — in the family; in distorted representations in popular culture; in systematic legal inequality that has only just begun to relent. Increasing gay rights have caused some people of good will to mistakenly judge how advanced a country is by how it responds to homosexuality.

In Israel, gay soldiers and the relative openness of Tel Aviv are incomplete indicators of human rights — just as in America, the expansion of gay rights in some states does not offset human rights violations like mass incarceration. The long-sought realization of some rights for some gays should not blind us to the struggles against racism in Europe and the United States, or to the Palestinians’ insistence on a land to call home.

Sarah Schulman is a professor of humanities at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York.

Voir enfin:

Le pinkwashing, ou le « sionisme rose »

Partie 1

Lucien

26 février

Dans le panel des méthodes d’influence et de guerre culturelle, la « récupération » de causes morales joue un grand rôle. Dans le vocabulaire de l’Intelligence économique et stratégique, on parle de « gestion offensive de l’image » ou de « management de la réputation ».

En général, cela consiste à récupérer une cause, l’écologie, l’homosexualité, les femmes battues, parce que son image est jugée bonne, soit qu’elle jouisse d’un potentiel de sympathie dans l’opinion publique, soit qu’elle permette d’endosser le rôle de la victime, minoritaire et/ou persécutée, donc faible et incapable de nuire, de sorte à inhiber le jugement critique à son encontre, stratagème essentiel dans tout rapport de forces.

La sociologie anglo-saxonne a inventé un terme pour désigner les effets sociétaux de cette tendance : la culture des « cry babies », traductible par « culture des pleurnichards ». Ce principe d’ingénierie des perceptions fondé sur l’imitation du statut de victime cherche à faire changer la perception d’un acteur économique ou politique dominant en hameçonnant les consciences par le façonnage d’une image de faiblesse simulée de cet acteur. Le fort se fait passer pour le faible, et le vrai faible est accusé d’être fort. Cette inversion de la perception du réel se performe notamment par l’affichage ostensible de tous les signes extérieurs de l’adhésion à une cause morale « politiquement correcte », toujours la cause des minorités ou des opprimés, mais en continuant d’agir fondamentalement contre elle. On soutient d’une main ce que l’on détruit de l’autre. « Faites ce que je dis, mais pas ce que je fais ».

Les mouvements de gauche et d’extrême gauche, politiques, associatifs, syndicaux, sont passés maîtres dans l’imitation faussaire de la lutte contre une domination au service de laquelle ils se placent dans les faits. On a vu, par exemple, le NPA et divers syndicats soutenir les guerres néocoloniales menées par l’OTAN, Israël et les pétro-monarchies wahhabites contre la Libye et la Syrie. Pour paraphraser Lénine, on peut dire que la Gauche est aujourd’hui le stade suprême du capitalisme. Le « greenwashing », ou éco-blanchiment, ou « capitalisme vert », est également bien connu dans cette perspective. D’après Wikipédia : « L’écoblanchiment, ou verdissage, est un procédé de marketing ou de relations publiques utilisé par une organisation (entreprise, administration publique, etc.) dans le but de se donner une image écologique responsable. La plupart du temps, l’argent est davantage investi en publicité que pour de réelles actions en faveur de l’environnement. »

Par exemple, une entreprise polluante disposera des produits labélisés « commerce équitable » dans ses distributeurs de boissons et de friandises, de sorte à s’attribuer une image respectueuse de l’environnement, estampillée « développement durable ». Dans le cas de l’écoblanchiment, l’objectif est purement économique. Dans d’autres cas, il possède aussi une implication sociétale : il suffit d’ouvrir au hasard un magazine féminin clamant haut et fort son féminisme pour comprendre que ce type de presse est en fait l’ennemi n°1 des femmes. On se reportera sur ce sujet à la « théorie de la Jeune-Fille » du collectif Tiqqun et son commentaire dans « Gouverner par le chaos. Ingénierie sociale et mondialisation ».

Dans le cas du pinkwashing, traductible par « homo-blanchiment », il existe aussi un motif géostratégique de propagande de guerre. Un pays est à l’avant-garde du pinkwashing : Israël. Des militants LGBT de Palestine, Haneen Maikey et Ramzy Kumsieh, étaient invités à Paris en 2012 pour une conférence sur ce thème. À cette occasion, ils ont décrit comment l’entité sioniste instrumentalise le mouvement LGBT pour tenter de se donner une bonne image, progressiste et tolérante car féministe et « gay friendly », au contraire des pays arabes et musulmans alentour, qui seraient d’horribles dictatures où les femmes et les homosexuels seraient maltraités :

« Selon The New York Times, dès 2005, et ce avec l’aide de directeurs marketing américains, le gouvernement israélien a déployé une vaste campagne, « Brand Israel », en direction principalement des hommes entre 18 et 34 ans : cette campagne a été mise en œuvre en vue d’offrir à cet État colonial un visage attractif et moderne. En 2009, The Israel Project a publié un dictionnaire des « mots qui marchent » pour défendre la politique d’Israël en mettant l’accent sur le fait que la « démocratie » israélienne respecte « les droits des femmes ». Ce plan marketing s’est progressivement dirigé à l’attention de la « communauté LGBT ». Dès lors, en 2010, ce sont 90 millions de dollars qui ont été investis par l’office de tourisme de Tel Aviv pour se donner des allures de destination de vacances sur mesure pour les gays du monde entier. Ce type de financement fleurit, souvent à la faveur d’un arsenal culturel, pour donner un visage gay-friendly à Israël. Les ambassades israéliennes financent des festivals de films gays et lesbiens, aux États Unis comme en Europe. En France, la venue d’une cinéaste israélienne au festival de films féministes et lesbiens Cineffable avait donné lieu à un partenariat entre les organisateurs et organisatrices du festival et l’ambassade d’Israël – l’ambassade finançait en effet la venue de la cinéaste. La campagne pour le Boycott culturel de l’État d’Israël (PACBI) a révélé en 2008 que les contrats qui relient les artistes israéliennes à leur gouvernement, lorsque celui ci finance leur déplacement, contiennent une clause qui définit le but de la collaboration : « promouvoir les intérêts politiques de l’État d’Israël […] et créer une image positive d’Israël. » Un mouvement grandissant à l’échelle internationale dénonce cette tactique de pinkwashing : une stratégie délibérée pour occulter la violation systématique des droits des Palestiniennes derrière un visage moderne, symbolisé par la vitalité des espaces gay en Israël. »

Le pinkwashing, ou le « sionisme rose »

Partie 2

Lucien

27 février

Ce que l’on pourrait appeler le « sionisme rose », le « pink zionism » après le pinkwashing, semble avoir de beaux jours devant lui.

La construction de camps géopolitiques antagonistes sur la base d’un clivage « gay friendly or not » nous est détaillée par Jean Birnbaum :

« Le soupçon a surgi de l’intérieur et c’est de l’intérieur qu’il prolifère maintenant. Un soupçon d’autant plus douloureux qu’il a été formulé de façon spectaculaire par Judith Butler, icône mondiale du mouvement LGBT (lesbien, gay, bi et trans). Le 19 juin 2010, lors de la Gay Pride de Berlin, la philosophe américaine a semé le trouble en refusant tout net le Prix du courage civique que les organisateurs s’apprêtaient à lui remettre. Elle, l’égérie de la théorie queer, a alors proclamé que la lutte contre l’homophobie avait dégénéré en action xénophobe et même raciste. « Nous sommes enrégimentés dans un combat nationaliste et militariste », a-t-elle lancé devant une foule médusée. Depuis lors, parmi les militants et les chercheurs, les questions se bousculent : le mouvement LGBT est-il rongé par l’ »homonationalisme » ? Est-il devenu la lessiveuse d’un nouveau nationalisme qu’il viendrait « blanchir », à tous les sens du terme ? Autrement dit, ses revendications sont-elles instrumentalisées par les hérauts d’un Occident qui mène ses opérations militaires (en Orient) et ses descentes policières (en banlieue) au nom de la démocratie sexuelle ? (…) Dans cette hypothèse, la France deviendrait à son tour l’un des champs de bataille du front « homonationaliste ». Chacune et chacun serait alors sommé de choisir entre deux camps : celui des homophobes et celui des xénophobes. Car telle est bien l’alternative infernale où nous enfermerait ce que certains nomment déjà le clash sexuel des civilisations. »

Pendant les guerres mondiales du 20ème siècle, les banquiers cosmopolites qui finançaient tous les belligérants utilisaient les médias pour construire les ennemis en produisant de l’homogénéité cognitive dans chaque camp, de sorte à fabriquer le consentement de chacun à l’agression de l’autre.

Aujourd’hui, dans cette perspective de construction de deux camps antagonistes, le sionisme rose cherche à faire croire qu’Israël est forcément dans le camp du Bien puisqu’on y prend le parti des minorités et de la liberté individuelle :

« La preuve, dira un propagandiste, les homosexuels et les femmes sont libres chez nous ! » (même si les femmes ne sont pas une minorité). « Et voyez ces pays comme l’Iran, où les homosexuels sont persécutés et la sexualité des femmes est réprimée ! Ne faudrait-il pas déclarer la guerre à ces dictatures islamiques pour libérer les gays et les femmes du régime infâme qui les menace, et qui nous menace également par ricochet ? »

Le but de ce management des perceptions consiste à fabriquer la perception d’une menace à partir de rien. De fait, l’Iran ne représente aucun problème rationnel à aucun niveau objectif. Il faut alors inventer de toute pièce le « casus belli » en communiquant sur des points de détail apolitiques tels que la liberté sexuelle individuelle.

Ce faisant, on participe à la montée de l’insignifiance et du hors-sujet en politique, comme dirait Castoriadis, puisque, faut-il le rappeler, le fondement du geste politique consiste toujours à soumettre la liberté individuelle à l’intérêt collectif et à son ordre, à rebours complet du mouvement dépolitisant de l’individualisme libéral-libertaire. Le sionisme rose devra en outre passer sous silence le programme raciste et machiste de stérilisation des femmes juives d’origine éthiopienne mené en Israël en toute impunité, de même que ses alliances géopolitiques avec d’authentiques dictatures islamiques répressives des femmes et des gays tels que l’Arabie saoudite ou le Qatar.

Pour conclure par la France : quelle que soit sa finalité ultime, la récupération d’un combat moral en faveur de certaines minorités alors qu’on en assassine d’autres, voire qu’on assassine la majorité, est à l’ordre du jour dans notre pays depuis Mai 68, et surtout depuis les années 1980. Les persécutions hétérophobes et christianophobes vont redoubler en France dès que la loi sur le « mariage pour tous » sera votée. Il faut donc s’organiser mais sans perdre de vue que ce n’est qu’un élément d’un arsenal dirigé contre l’espèce humaine dans sa globalité. Après les hétérosexuels ou les chrétiens, le transhumanisme visera aussi les homosexuels, les athées et les autres religions. Aujourd’hui, ce sont peut-être des alliés du Pouvoir, mais demain ce seront ses nouvelles cibles. Gardons la main tendue et travaillons sans relâche à leur faire comprendre qu’ils ne seront pas épargnés par la véritable stratégie à l’œuvre, celle du mondialisme, du capitalisme tout-puissant et de l’automatisation robotique et cybernétique généralisée.

Voir de plus:

Alicia Keys, Israel and Civil Rights

The analogy between African-Americans in the era of segregation and Palestinians today is a false one.

Richard Friedman

WSJ

June 9, 2013

Birmingham, Ala.

Alice Walker, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author, has lately garnered more attention for her unhinged political views than for her writing. She has compared Fidel Castro to the Dalai Lama. She refused to allow her book « The Color Purple » to be translated into Hebrew. But perhaps nothing was more off-base—at least morally speaking—than the open letter Ms. Walker wrote in late May to singer-songwriter Alicia Keys. Ms. Walker, writing at the website of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, urged Ms. Keys to cancel a July 4 performance in Israel.

Ms. Walker wrote: « you are putting yourself in danger (soul danger) by performing in an apartheid country. » The writer then compared the plight of the Palestinians to that of blacks in the American South prior to the civil-rights movement. « You were not born when we, your elders who love you, boycotted institutions in the U.S. South to end an American apartheid less lethal than Israel’s against the Palestinian people. »

The analogy is false: « Apartheid » is a more apt description for the systemic discrimination against women across the Arab world than the only democracy in the Middle East. But this comparison is also an insult to the courageous civil-rights activists who risked their lives in Birmingham, Montgomery and elsewhere in the South to attain full rights for black Americans.

What characterized the civil-rights movement was its strict adherence to the philosophy of nonviolence. Even when attacked with fire hoses and police dogs, civil-rights demonstrators courageously refused to retaliate.

The Palestinian leadership, by contrast, for decades has used violence whenever missile attacks or suicide bombers suit its aims. It is Israel that has shown an inclination to absorb punishment, though the country’s tolerance stretches only so far before it responds militarily to attacks.

The comparison that Ms. Walker and her comrades in the boycott-Israel movement make to the civil-rights movement is false in other ways. Unlike the American South decades ago, when local governments enacted laws and policies to prevent U.S. citizens from attaining full rights, Israel has tried repeatedly to reach an agreement with the Palestinians in the West Bank that would grant them sovereignty. In 2005, Israel even withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip. We all know how that turned out.

Those civil-rights activists who participated in the movement of the 1950s and 1960s—as well as others who remember the era—owe it to that noble cause to speak out when Ms. Walker and others distort and misuse this period in American history to advance an anti-Israel agenda.

It also wouldn’t hurt to remind people like Ms. Walker that no less a civil-rights leader than Martin Luther King Jr. was a fierce supporter of Israel. Days before his assassination in 1968, he said that « Israel is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. »

Bayard Rustin, who organized the March on Washington in 1963, also believed in Israel’s cause. In the late 1960s, when some black activists began denouncing Zionism and Jews generally, Rustin cautioned against joining « in history’s oldest and most shameful witch hunt, anti-Semitism. »

Perhaps Alicia Keys is more familiar than Alice Walker with the true history of the relationship between the civil-rights movement and Israel. After the writer’s open letter to Ms. Keys appeared, the Grammy Award-winning musician publicly rebuffed Ms. Walker: « I look forward to my first visit to Israel, » she told the New York Times. « Music is a universal language that is meant to unify audiences in peace and love, and that is the spirit of our show. »

So the concert in Tel Aviv will go on. Here in Birmingham, meanwhile, the Jewish Federation is seeking to educate the black community and others about Israel, and it is urging community leaders to speak out against distortions made by Ms. Walker and others who boycott Israel. One local black leader who stepped forward immediately was State Rep. Oliver Robinson, a Democrat and a former All-American basketball player at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Commenting on a Facebook FB +1.07% post commending Ms. Keys for saying no to Ms. Walker, Mr. Robinson wrote: « She made an excellent decision. »

This year, Birmingham is commemorating the 50th anniversary of a pivotal year for the civil-rights movement and for the history of our city. Those of us who live here are particularly obligated to combat the bogus analogy linking the Palestinians and the civil-rights movement—and to continually remind people that Israel remains America’s best friend in the Middle East.

Mr. Friedman is executive director of the Jewish Federation in Birmingham, Ala.

Voir enfin:

Academic boycotts

Wikipedia

Main article: Academic boycotts of Israel

In 2006, two of Britain’s lecturers’ unions, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the Association of University Teachers, voted to support an academic boycott against Israel.[57] The AUT ban was overturned by members at an Emergency General Meeting a few weeks later, while the NATFHE boycott expired when a merger with AUT to form the University and College Union came into effect.[58] In May 2007, the UCU congress passed Motion 30, which called on the members to circulate information and consider a boycott request by Palestinian trade unions.

In 2009, Spanish organizers of an international solar power design competition excluded a team from the Israeli Ariel University Center. The stated reason was that the Ariel university is located in the West Bank, a Spanish official was quoted saying that « Spain acted in line with European Union policy of opposing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land ».[59]

In 2010 the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) announced it had collected 500 endorsements from US academics for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel. The endorsements were seen as a sign of changing US attitudes toward Israel in the wake of an Israeli raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla in the Mediterranean.[60]

In 2011 the University of Johannesburg decided to suspend ties with Israeli Ben-Gurion University, citing the University’s support for the Israeli military. The decision was seen to affect projects in biotechnology and water purification.[61] However, two days later, Ihron Rensburg, vice chancellor and principal of the university issued a statement saying that « UJ is not part of an academic boycott of Israel…It has never been UJ’s intention to sever all ties with BGU, although it may have been the intention of some UJ staff members. »[62]

University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann said in January 2012 that the university « has clearly stated on numerous occasions that it does not support sanctions or boycotts against Israel. » She said that the school was not a sponsor of a BDS conference taking place on campus in February 2012.[63]

In 2013 the Teachers Union of Ireland passed a motion calling for an academic boycott of Israel. Jim Roche, who presented the motion, said « I am very pleased that this motion was passed with such support by TUI members (…) there is no question that Israel is implementing apartheid policies against the Palestinians. » [64]

In May 2013, in what was seen as a major development,[65] Stephen Hawking joined the academic boycott of Israel by reversing his decision to participate in the Jerusalem-based Israeli Presidential Conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres. Hawking approved a published statement from the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine that described his decision as independent, « based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there. »[66] Reactions to Hawking’s boycott were mixed, some praised his boycott as a « peaceful protest » while others condemned his decision and accused him of anti-semitism. [67] [68]

Artistic boycotts

Wikipedia

  • Creative Community for Peace, founded in late 2011, is an organization made up of music executives, talent agents and entertainment lawyers that seeks to counter artist boycotts of Israel.[75]
  • In Ireland, support for boycotting Israel has been voiced since September 2006.[76] The Irish Times has published an open letter in January 2009[77] with 300 signatures, including deputies, senators, political leaders (including Gerry Adams and Tony Benn), union leaders, professors and artists.[78][unreliable source?] In August 2010, 150 Irish artists launched a cultural boycott of Israel, declaring that they would not perform or exhibit in Israel, « until such time as Israel complies with international law and universal principles of human rights ». Organizers explained the boycott was motivated by what they saw as abuse of Palestinian human rights by Israel.[79] In November 2012, the list of Irish artists supporting BDS has reached 237.[citation needed]
  • The Yes Men[80] pulled out of a film festival in 2009 in Israel.
  • In 2010, American singer Devendra Banhart, and Irish singer Tommy Sands cancelled their shows in Israel as a response to Israeli policies.[81] That same year, Carlos Santana also cancelled a performance following pressure from groups critical of Israel.[82] Likewise, Elvis Costello called off planned gigs, citing what he called the « intimidation » and « humiliation » of Palestinians.[83][84] Jazz and spoken word artist Gil Scott-Heron canceled a planned performance in Tel Aviv in 2010, saying he « hated war ».[85] Annie Lennox, states again that she will no longer perform in Israel.[86]
  • Actors Dustin Hoffman and Meg Ryan cancelled their participation to a festival in Israel in 2010, after the attack of the Gaza Flotilla by the Israeli army[93][94]. British movie director Mike Leigh also cancels a visit in Jerusalem in November to avoid « his arrival (to) be interpreted as support for the government’s policy ».[95]
  • In February 2010, 500 artists from the city of Montreal, including Lhasa, Gilles Vigneault, Richard Desjardins, members of Bran Van 3000 or Silver Mt. Zion, joined the cultural boycott of Israel, saying that Palestinians « face an entrenched system of racial discrimination and segregation, resembling the defeated apartheid system in South Africa. »[99][100]
  • That same year, a hundred Norwegian artists endorse the BDS call.[101]
  • Even in Israel, actors refuse to play in the 1967 occupied territories. They are quickly supported by 150 Israeli intellectuals and artists (including Niv Gordon, Gideon Levy, Shlomo Sand, Zeev Sternhell, David Grossman, A.B. Yehoshua, Amos Oz[102]), then by 150 American artists (including Vanessa Redgrave, Cynthia Nixon, Tony Kushner[103]).
  • French singer Vanessa Paradis cancelled a performance planned for February 2011 in Tel Aviv. According to insider sources, she and her husband Johnny Depp acceded to calls to cancel the show made by Palestinian boycott campaigners, who threatened to boycott them too. Her agent maintained that the concert was cancelled strictly for professional reasons.[104] That same month, the classical singer Thomas Quasthoff cancels the 6 shows he was supposed to give in Israel.[105]
  • American punk artist Jello Biafra, former singer for the Dead Kennedys, cancelled a July 2011 performance in Tel Aviv, citing discussions with pro-Palestinian and Israeli activists, and writing « This does not mean I or anyone else in the band are endorsing or joining lockstep with the boycott of all things Israel ».[106] On this occasion, punks throughout the world create the network « Punks Against Apartheid » to get the cultural boycott message across to other punk artists.[107]
  • In September 2011, Anglo-Egyptian singer Natacha Atlas[108] cancels her tour in Israel and publishes a very explicit statement: « I had an idea that performing in Israel would have been a unique opportunity to encourage and support my fans’ opposition to the current government’s actions and policies. I would have personally asked my Israeli fans face-to-face to fight this apartheid with peace in their hearts, but after much deliberation I now see that it would be more effective a statement to not go to Israel until this systemised apartheid is abolished once and for all. Therefore I publicly retract my well-intentioned decision to go and perform in Israel and so sincerely hope that this decision represents an effective statement against this regime. ».[109]
  • British band Faithless and its leader David Randall confirm their commitment to BDS by publishing the video « Freedom For Palestine »[123] with the collective « One World »[124] that includes Maxi Jazz, Sudha and Andy Treacy (of Faithless), Jamie Catto (of One Giant Leap), Harry Collier (of Kubb), Phil Jones (of Specimen A), Mark Thomas, Lowkey, Michael Rosen, LSK, Andrea Britton, Attab Haddad, Joelle Barker, the Durban Gospel Choir (of South Africa) and members of the London Community Gospel Choir…
  • In 2011, American singer Macy Gray said she regretted playing there.[126]
  • 150 Swiss artists sign an appeal for the cultural boycott of Israel.[127] A group of Indian artists cancel their participation to an exhibition in Israel.[128]
  • The AMARC (international non-governmental organization serving the community radio movement, with almost 3 000 members and associates in 110 countries) joins the BDS campaign.[129]
  • In July 2011, American movie director Barbara Hammer refused a prize from the Foundation for Jewish Culture and the American Academy in Jerusalem, and refused to show her films in places receiving funding from the Israeli government.[130] In October, Irish movie director John Michael Mc Donagh also cancelled his participation to the Haifa film festival.[131]

8 Responses to Antisémitisme: Ce printemps l’antisémitisme se portera rose (Pinkwashing: A country where women are not stoned, gays not hanged and Christians not persecuted can only be up to no good)

  1. […] vote de la loi du mariage pour tous français et semblant confirmer les pires soupçons du nouvel antisémitisme rose […]

    J'aime

  2. […] artistes qui n’ont que le boycott à la bouche, nos militants pro-homosexuels dénoncent pour pinkwashing la capitale la "capitale homosexuelle du Moyen-Orient" […]

    J'aime

Répondre

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur la façon dont les données de vos commentaires sont traitées.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :