(I was unsure where to publish this article: the Gay Forum? the thread on Condaleza? or as its own thread? As you can see I chose the latter)

Gay Rights Before Palestinian Statehood

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/kirchick/kirchick6.html

By James Kirchick

First published, in a slightly different form, in In Newsweekly on November 2, 2005.

Much criticism has been leveled at gay organizations for their reluctance to make much ado about the Iranian government's public hanging of two gay youths this past summer. The incident was not a rarity in the Islamic world, but the availability of photographs documenting the murder stunned a gay community complacent when it comes to the rights of gays abroad-perhaps because of our own, relatively tame, struggles here at home.

While the outrage over gay organizations' indifference to the plight of Iranian gays was necessary, it ought to be directed toward a political situation where gay Americans can have more influence: the Arab-Israeli conflict.

In this tumultuous dispute, there is plenty of room for debate about the control of land, whether or not Israeli responses to terror are too aggressive, and what the final political settlement should entail. But let there be no mistake: In Israel, gays enjoy the freedoms and tolerance of a liberal, Western democracy. In the disputed territories run by the Palestinian Authority, gays are routinely harassed, tortured and murdered.

A 2002 article in The New Republic documented the dire predicament of several gay Palestinians. A 21-year-old recalled that he "was forced to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see." One man fled to Tel Aviv, only to be captured by the Palestinian police upon his return to Nablus, a city in the West Bank.

"They put him in a pit," a friend of the man recalled. "It was the fast of Ramadan, and they decided to make him fast the whole month but without any break at night. They denied him food and water until he died in that hole."

Tel Aviv, Israel's flourishing gay hub, has become for Palestinian gays what Miami is for Cubans: a refuge of freedom from tyranny.

In August, Israel evacuated settlers from the Gaza strip, helping to make way for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. But what would a Palestinian state actually look like? That is a question that the United States and Israel must ask before acceding to its creation. Surely, the United States should not expect Israel to agree to live alongside a neighbor that is highly militarized, territorially aggressive, and run by Islamic extremists.

Imagine if Canada fit this profile: would we not have serious problems with such a prospect?

Comments earlier this month from Hamas's man in Gaza-newly emboldened by the Israeli pullout-are not encouraging. On the question of gay rights, Mahmoud Zahar recently said, according to the Times of London, "Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?" Hamas is a major player in Palestinian politics; in January, it won 76 out of 118 Gaza municipal council seats in the first-ever election held in the territory.

Granted, gays are oppressed in most areas of the world, so why should the United States pay any particular attention to Palestinian ones? Because our involvement in the Arab-Israeli peace process gives us the ability to influence Palestinian politics.

Advocating that the creation of a Palestinian state be conditioned on human rights, and specifically gay rights, is one step gay groups can take.

The United States is intimately involved in the creation of a two-state solution, and it would be an affront to the ideals of this country were we to encourage, never mind preside over, the creation of an Islamist regime intent on murdering gay people.

For the same reason that we must see democracy through in Iraq-in order to leave that country behind in a better state than in which we found it-the United States and the international community have the exact same obligation in helping Israelis and Palestinians.

Not surprisingly, gay rights groups have ignored gay Palestinians, as has the pre-eminent human rights organization, Amnesty International. The Palestinian "struggle" has long been a cause celebre for the left and it is tempting to view the Palestinians as an oppressed underdog fighting the imperialist, apartheid Israeli state.

As difficult as life may be for the Palestinians (a predicament caused almost entirely by their support for terrorism and corrupt leaders), nothing can excuse their systematic oppression of gays. By standing up for the rights of gay Palestinians, groups like Amnesty and the Human Rights Campaign may lose support from their more radical members. But these organizations are worth nothing if they remain indifferent to the fates of people they are intended to protect-all for the purpose of maintaining harmony on the left.

Primitive lot arent they.

(I was unsure where to publish this article: the Gay Forum? the thread on Condaleza? or as its own thread? As you can see I chose the latter)

Gay Rights Before Palestinian Statehood

      http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/kirchick/kirchick6.html

      By James Kirchick

      First published, in a slightly different form, in In Newsweekly on November 2, 2005.

      Much criticism has been leveled at gay organizations for their reluctance to make much ado about the Iranian government's public hanging of two gay youths this past summer. The incident was not a rarity in the Islamic world, but the availability of photographs documenting the murder stunned a gay community complacent when it comes to the rights of gays abroad-perhaps because of our own, relatively tame, struggles here at home.

      While the outrage over gay organizations' indifference to the plight of Iranian gays was necessary, it ought to be directed toward a political situation where gay Americans can have more influence: the Arab-Israeli conflict.

      In this tumultuous dispute, there is plenty of room for debate about the control of land, whether or not Israeli responses to terror are too aggressive, and what the final political settlement should entail. But let there be no mistake: In Israel, gays enjoy the freedoms and tolerance of a liberal, Western democracy. In the disputed territories run by the Palestinian Authority, gays are routinely harassed, tortured and murdered.

      A 2002 article in The New Republic documented the dire predicament of several gay Palestinians. A 21-year-old recalled that he "was forced to stand in sewage water up to his neck, his head covered by a sack filled with feces, and then he was thrown into a dark cell infested with insects and other creatures he could feel but not see." One man fled to Tel Aviv, only to be captured by the Palestinian police upon his return to Nablus, a city in the West Bank.

      "They put him in a pit," a friend of the man recalled. "It was the fast of Ramadan, and they decided to make him fast the whole month but without any break at night. They denied him food and water until he died in that hole."

Tel Aviv, Israel's flourishing gay hub, has become for Palestinian gays what Miami is for Cubans: a refuge of freedom from tyranny.

      In August, Israel evacuated settlers from the Gaza strip, helping to make way for the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state. But what would a Palestinian state actually look like? That is a question that the United States and Israel must ask before acceding to its creation. Surely, the United States should not expect Israel to agree to live alongside a neighbor that is highly militarized, territorially aggressive, and run by Islamic extremists.

Imagine if Canada fit this profile: would we not have serious problems with such a prospect?

      Comments earlier this month from Hamas's man in Gaza-newly emboldened by the Israeli pullout-are not encouraging. On the question of gay rights, Mahmoud Zahar recently said, according to the Times of London, "Are these the laws for which the Palestinian street is waiting? For us to give rights to homosexuals and to lesbians, a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick?" Hamas is a major player in Palestinian politics; in January, it won 76 out of 118 Gaza municipal council seats in the first-ever election held in the territory.

      Granted, gays are oppressed in most areas of the world, so why should the United States pay any particular attention to Palestinian ones? Because our involvement in the Arab-Israeli peace process gives us the ability to influence Palestinian politics.

      Advocating that the creation of a Palestinian state be conditioned on human rights, and specifically gay rights, is one step gay groups can take.

The United States is intimately involved in the creation of a two-state solution, and it would be an affront to the ideals of this country were we to encourage, never mind preside over, the creation of an Islamist regime intent on murdering gay people.

      For the same reason that we must see democracy through in Iraq-in order to leave that country behind in a better state than in which we found it-the United States and the international community have the exact same obligation in helping Israelis and Palestinians.

      Not surprisingly, gay rights groups have ignored gay Palestinians, as has the pre-eminent human rights organization, Amnesty International. The Palestinian "struggle" has long been a cause celebre for the left and it is tempting to view the Palestinians as an oppressed underdog fighting the imperialist, apartheid Israeli state.

      As difficult as life may be for the Palestinians (a predicament caused almost entirely by their support for terrorism and corrupt leaders), nothing can excuse their systematic oppression of gays. By standing up for the rights of gay Palestinians, groups like Amnesty and the Human Rights Campaign may lose support from their more radical members. But these organizations are worth nothing if they remain indifferent to the fates of people they are intended to protect-all for the purpose of maintaining harmony on the left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality.

If this rumour is wrong, does anyone know where it originated (except for the traditional idea that women are viewed as 'receivers' and men as 'givers' in sex)?

If TM thinks I have hijacked his thread with this question I will create a separate thread or move this to the gay forum, since it is not my intention to hijack the thread (neither do I intend to offend anyone with the question - I am just genuinely curious, because the notion sounds a bit bizarre to me, and as an excuse for 'givers').

If TM thinks I have hijacked his thread ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No problem.

I could say plenty Mr Merton, but decorum prohibits me.

By your own posts you have an agenda - why would I, or in fact anyone care what you say.

I could say plenty Mr Merton, but decorum prohibits me.

By your own posts you have an agenda - why would I, or in fact anyone care what you say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It never ceases to amaze me, how those who do not care or have no agenda, always find the time to tell us this irrelevant fact.

Why do they waste their time?

And then thay accuse others of having an agenda.

Curious.

Sorry, you tell us all you are a Gay Jew.....

Why are you trying to belittle my point rather than answer my conjecture ????

Sorry, you tell us all you are a Gay Jew.....

Why are you trying to belittle my point rather than answer my conjecture ????

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You may think of me as a Gay Jew. I see no shame in this title.

However I am not - being happily married to a lovely Thia wife.

BTW can I call you a Homophobic Anti-Semite?

<snip>BTW can I call you a Homophobic Anti-Semite?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think so.

Firstly, and try to look at my posts, I am a supporter of freedom for gay people, so don't try that one.

Secondly, I don't care where you are born, you can also look through my post history for that also.

What I do take exception to is your political agenda, and your desire to belittle anyone who does not agree with you.

<snip>BTW can I call you a Homophobic Anti-Semite?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think so.

Firstly, and try to look at my posts, I am a supporter of freedom for gay people, so don't try that one.

Secondly, I don't care where you are born, you can also look through my post history for that also.

What I do take exception to is your political agenda, and your desire to belittle anyone who does not agree with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would you be so kind as to prove this allegation.

Bearing in mind if anyone attacks me, I usually give as much as I take.

Answer the question then

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality.

If this rumour is wrong, does anyone know where it originated (except for the traditional idea that women are viewed as 'receivers' and men as 'givers' in sex)?

Absolutely true.

Worked in the ME a fair bit and can confirm that premise.

Answer the question then

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dunno - you tell me?

Like I care - I asked you a direct question that you obviously do not want to answer.

Why do you want to turn it back to me ?

Personally - I see you as a person with an agenda, and as you don't want to answer the questions, all we can see you as is a TROLL.

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality.

If this rumour is wrong, does anyone know where it originated (except for the traditional idea that women are viewed as 'receivers' and men as 'givers' in sex)?

Absolutely true.

Worked in the ME a fair bit and can confirm that premise.

I always thought that as long as they're not married to their future wifes it would be considered acceptable. Boys will be boys as the UK saying goes.

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality.

If this rumour is wrong, does anyone know where it originated (except for the traditional idea that women are viewed as 'receivers' and men as 'givers' in sex)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely true.

Worked in the ME a fair bit and can confirm that premise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just more of the hypocrisy from Islamic culture (not to say there isn't fair amounts of hypocrisy in other cultures as well). Everyone knows that Arafat died of complications from late stage AIDS. But no one will publicly admit that he used to bugger and get bj's from his bodyguards and staff. Doesn't change the facts. Just sweeps the problems under the carpet. Just symptomatic of the larger problem in the ME. No one wants to look at and address the situation realistically.

Like I care - I asked you a direct question that you obviously do not want to answer.

Why do you want to turn it back to me ?

Personally - I see you as a person with an agenda, and as you don't want to answer the questions, all we can see you as is a TROLL.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...ndpost&p=553126

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality.

If this rumour is wrong, does anyone know where it originated (except for the traditional idea that women are viewed as 'receivers' and men as 'givers' in sex)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutely true.

Worked in the ME a fair bit and can confirm that premise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just more of the hypocrisy from Islamic culture (not to say there isn't fair amounts of hypocrisy in other cultures as well). Everyone knows that Arafat died of complications from late stage AIDS. But no one will publicly admit that he used to bugger and get bj's from his bodyguards and staff. Doesn't change the facts. Just sweeps the problems under the carpet. Just symptomatic of the larger problem in the ME. No one wants to look at and address the situation realistically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a new to me. Did he really? How do we know this?

...Everyone knows that Arafat died of complications from late stage AIDS...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone? If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: don't exaggerate!

...Everyone knows that Arafat died of complications from late stage AIDS...

Everyone? If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: don't exaggerate!

Does this look like a guy who died of old age?

All we need is Sharon gone and the worlds a better place.

...Everyone knows that Arafat died of complications from late stage AIDS...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone? If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: don't exaggerate!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this look like a guy who died of old age?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

to true!

poison, could of been the other way he died

All we need is Sharon gone and the worlds a better place.

...Everyone knows that Arafat died of complications from late stage AIDS...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Everyone? If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: don't exaggerate!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Does this look like a guy who died of old age?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard the rumour that Arafat was gay quite some time ago, from what I believe was a reliable source. As for his death, who knows? It could be true.

The thing mentioned above (the "active/top" partner is not gay, the "passive/bottom" partner is gay) is quite common all over Asia, including Thailand. Though it doesn't go in line with strictly PC definitions of "gay" in the states, I think it does remove a lot of homophobia from male-male relations in this region.

"Steven"

The current U.S. government is controlled by the Republicans who are captives of the religious right, so "dreaming" of gay rights being advocated or impletmented in the ME by this administration is just that, dreaming.

You will also note that muslims are not up in arms over the mass slaughter of their brothers in the former Yugoslavia, while they get apoplectic when a single fellow Arab muslim dies, regadless of where, by Western action.

Would like to hear from those in the know about this dichotomy and the why of it.

The great thing about this religion,is you can interpret in so many different ways.

Usualy to bend it to your point of view...agenda.

Lets face it,in a lands where the majority are simple frustrated and fearful Religion has always been most powerful

This religion like all others before has more than its share of cynics,hypocrites,and frauds.

Unfortunately the western media is stupid enough to print anything.

The current U.S. government is controlled by the Republicans who are captives of the religious right, so "dreaming" of gay rights being advocated or impletmented in the ME by this administration is just that, dreaming.

You will also note that muslims are not up in arms over the mass slaughter of their brothers in the former Yugoslavia, while they get apoplectic when a single fellow Arab muslim dies, regadless of where, by Western action.

Would like to hear from those in the know about this dichotomy and the why of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality.

If this rumour is wrong, does anyone know where it originated (except for the traditional idea that women are viewed as 'receivers' and men as 'givers' in sex)?

Absolutely true.

Worked in the ME a fair bit and can confirm that premise.

I don't know if this is myth or not but i was once told that Muslims believe that the next Prophit will be born from Man and so this is why it is OK for men to have sex together and it is not neccessarily viewed as being Gay.

Can anyone confirm or not?

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, if I understand you correctly, the buggerer may not be gay, but the buggeree is?

I have been led to believe, but it is still just an unconfirmed rumour, that in some Arab cultures, only the man who 'receives' is considered a homosexual, whereas the 'giver' is considered as just expressing a normal form of sexuality....

So, if I understand you correctly, the buggerer may not be gay, but the buggeree is?

A Wally Woofter?

It's a different way of defining maleness- as a sexual role and as related to machismo. This way of defining masculinity is also quite common in Hispanic cultures (the word comes from Spanish, after all), so you see a lot of macho men with girly-girl katoey-esque types.

Many traditional North American cultures (i.e. the Indians) were considered to have 3 sexes; male, female, and, well, kathoey (the French, who first documented the phenomenon, referred to them as "berdaches.") A young boy who seemed soft was given a ritual of choice upon entering puberty- one that I recall is that he was put into a tent with men's tools (bow and arrows) and women's tools (pots and sewing) and the tent was ritually set on fire. If he came out with the men's tools he took the male role as an adult, if he came out with the women's tools he was a berdache. Berdaches would dress and have the same duties as a woman in the tribe, and could also become medicine men and shamans. Men could be married either to a woman or a berdache, without bringing any shame on themselves.

Equivalent figures among native tribes in South America had a specialised role in raising children in the tribes. Among many aboriginal Australian groups, they were regarded as having two souls, and also played imported spiritual roles in group life.

Male-male sexuality has a much grander and more complex history and present-day expression than most people know.

"Steven"

For additional illumination into how male/female genders came into being, check here