The Pinkwashing Libel

I feel compelled to respond to the piece published by the Palestine Working Group in yesterday’s Morningside Post.

Let me first declare that I am the “faculty member in question” who attempted to engage in a productive discussion with representatives of the Palestine Working Group and SSOC about the Intersections in Activism panel of the Intersectionality Conference. USP had agreed to co-sponsor this SSOC event, as we have routinely done whenever requested. When I read the description of the panel, I was concerned that its focus was on “pinkwashing” and featured two individuals who stridently support that particular libel against Israel. This seemed inappropriate for a conference on intersectionality at a school like SIPA.

What is pinkwashing? The article by the PWG accurately describes it as an allegation that Israel has adopted progressive policies with respect to the LGBTQIA+ community simply for the purpose of deflecting criticism of its policies with respect to Palestinians. The suggestion is ludicrous on its face! Is it credible that a nation state would be so cynical as to accord equal rights to a community that suffers oppression throughout the Middle East geographic region solely as a public relations ploy? The proponents of the pinkwashing libel are really saying that Israel is incapable of acting in the best interests of any community; that even when it does the right thing, it does so for the wrong reason. To paint Israel as motivated exclusively by its public relations concern in connection with the conflict with the Palestinians, even when Israel supports policies that are politically and socially progressive, is purely and simply the demonization of the Jewish State.

What can Israel to do to counter the libel of pinkwashing? Should it withdraw equal and fair treatment of the LGBTQIA+ community? Should it follow the lead of some of its neighbors in the region and imprison members of that community; or beat them; or murder them; or should Israel follow Iran’s lead and simply declare that there are no gay people in Israel? We all know that those “solutions” to the pinkwashing libel are out of the question. I offer them simply to demonstrate that the pinkwashing libel itself is a cynical allegation asserted only to drive a wedge between Israel and the LGBTQIA+ community. It has no public policy implications or purpose whatsoever other than disparaging Israel and Israelis.

The PWG suggests that pinkwashing is in fact not an attack on Israel and all Israelis, but instead is a critique of a handful of bad actors within “Israeli society” who may be attempting to “exploit its progressive stance.” This is a spurious defense. It is well known that the essential argument of the pinkwashing slander has always been and continues to be that it is a premeditated policy of Israel, and that the Jewish State should be condemned for it. If it were, as PWG now suggests, merely the misconduct of a few Israeli individuals, then it would hardly justify the focus of entire panel.

The conference on Intersectionality is important. But we need to acknowledge that a conference is a forum in which participants can exchange differing points of view and learn from one another. A conference is not a rally or a political demonstration, where it is expected and appropriate that only one side of complicated issues will be heard. To provide valuable context to the discussion, I suggested that an eminent sociologist who specializes in feminism, intersectionality, and anti-Semitism be included on the panel. The PWG decided that such nuance was inconsistent with their one-sided political agenda and not only rejected my recommendation but declined to consider adding any additional voices to the panel. While the PWG is free to invite whomever it wants to their panels, the PWG should understand that its refusal to let participants hear views in opposition to their one-sided disparagement of Israel on this subject is inconsistent with a policy school that values the open exchange of points of view on challenging issues of public importance. For that reason, I stand by my decision to withdraw USP‘s co-sponsorship of the pinkwashing panel, while maintaining our co-sponsorship of the conference.

Professor Ester R. Fuchs

Director of the USP Concentration