Seeing Sarah Schulman speak opened my eyes to a world of politics I had never really given much thought to before–the queer dimensions of international politics. Israel/Palestine and queer politics are both issues that I care about, so there was something very satisfying in discovering them as linked. Schulman herself is an extremely intelligent long-term activist who has worked within the queer movement for a long time, notably as a member of AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACTUP). Her talk and her book Israel/Palestine and the Queer International detail her history growing up Jewish and her relationship to Palestine and her journey, later in life, into activism on the subject.

I found this description of her youth fascinating:

I had never heard, not even once, that Palestinians had had their homeland taken from them by the Israelis. I did not know that they were trying to win this land back. This was never mentioned. I don’t even think that my parents were aware of this. Instead, what I now know to be an occupation was then presented as one long continuation of the persecution that my grandparents and aunts and uncles had endured. Thought my aunts and uncles had been murdered, their children were safely out of Europe, and still someone wanted to kill them. Again. Couldn’t the world just leave us alone?

Though the book is more of a memoir, than anything else, she makes many compelling arguments about the imbalanced power dynamic between Israel and Palestine, as well as dismantles common arguments against BDS: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions–the preferred means of activism against Israel’s breaches of international law:

If the person claiming special persecution had actually come to that conclusion himself, he would have examples. He would first prove that no nation in the world in violation of international law is criticized except Israel. This would be impossible to prove because it’s not factual. But he would also have to go deeper and argue why Israel should be permitted to violate international law because some other violators are not being made accountable. There are few examples in moral argument where someone is allowed to proceed with an unjust action simply because there are others who do it as well. This is the weakest argument in the entire debate, and the one repeated the most. People never claim that Israel’s action does not violate international law. That’s a given. They simple argue that to do so is all right because others do it as well. It is disheartening to see the opposition be so careless and knee-jerk. I want them to have good reasons for their positions.

But, of course, what makes her book most interesting is how she links Israel/Palestine to queer politics. She explains how Israel works hard–spending a great deal of time and money–to “pinkwash” itself as a progressive, attractive nation. She describes how Israel tries to paint Tel Aviv as a gay paradise and therefore paint Israel itself as progressive, when in fact Israel is no great leader in protecting and enhancing gay lives and even if it were, such a position would have nothing to do with the humans rights violations Israel commits at the same time.

She also links Israel/Palestine politics to the phenomenon of “homonationalism”–in which white gay men join with the dominant power structures in countries in which they have gained the rights and privileges of heterosexuals. I found this story, in which a gay pride parade outlawed signs bearing the words “Israeli Apartheid”, to be a particularly persuasive example:

As far as I know, not only had Pride Toronto never excluded any group, but, more important, no government in the world had ever told a gay pride event to exclude someone. The relationship between the Toronto LGBT community and the Canadian government had become so intertwined and cozy that politicians felt free to police queer events. And even more upsetting, Pride Toronto had listened. A movement built in illegality and rebellion had become so enmeshed with the state that it could not imagine running an event without grants from the government. Hence homonationalism.

Schulman, through the process, also maintains a self-consciousness, which inspires a self-consciousness in me. She spends much of the first half of her story looking for Jewish voices to explain Israel and Palestine rather than Palestinian voices, which is something I realize that I have also done and which I realize (and even realized at the time) is the wrong approach. She is also completely conscious that, while she does good work, the presence of her own voice threatens Palestinian voices:

I know that Butler, Klein, and every other Jew who is becoming a spokesperson for BDS and Palestine are fully aware that their own voices are more acceptable to the media than are the voices of the Palestinians themselves. It doesn’t undermine the power of their action. But as with Mad Men or Michael Moore movies, the critique of supremacy ideology also replicates it.

Schulman is an incredible strategist with some really great insights about activist movements. I learned a lot from reading her book and hearing her speak about what makes effective activism, for which I am very grateful. I am at a place in my politics in which I am uncertain of what my next steps are–what concrete actions I can take to improve the world. I relish the advice that is dispensed through her life, her speaking, and her writing as these ideas begin, for me, to settle into place and coalesce into form.