Argument · heard from pro-Palestinian voices
“Israel doesn't even have gay marriage — its gay-friendly image is pinkwashing.”
Israel markets Tel Aviv Pride to the world, yet same-sex couples can't marry in Israel and religious parties sit in government. The rainbow image is a PR campaign to make Israel look modern and liberal while it occupies Palestinians: pinkwashing.
Common pro-Palestinian argument — e.g. Sarah Schulman
Where it's been said
“A deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians' human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”
Traps in play:◆ The strict enemy frame◆ The exception as proof
Why people find it convincing
- No same-sex marriage can be performed inside Israel, and the Orthodox rabbinate controls Jewish marriage.
- Israeli government and tourism campaigns have promoted Tel Aviv's gay scene abroad as part of 'Brand Israel' efforts.
- Religious parties with openly anti-LGBT positions have sat in recent governments, and a man murdered a teenage girl at the 2015 Jerusalem Pride march.
- Writer Sarah Schulman (New York Times, 2011) defined pinkwashing as 'a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians' human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life'.
What's true
There is no same-sex marriage in Israel, and gay rights have been used in Israel's image-making.
Same-sex couples cannot marry inside Israel, and Israeli campaigns have indeed marketed LGBT life as part of the country's image abroad. Religious influence on Israeli law is real, and LGBT Israelis fight it themselves every year.
advocacy / viewSarah Schulman, 'Israel and "Pinkwashing"', The New York Times, 22 November 2011 (2011) ⚠
Op-ed; quote to verify against the original.
What's left out
Nobody can have a civil marriage in Israel, gay or straight, and the rest of the record is strong.
The reason there's no same-sex marriage is the millet system: Israel has no civil marriage at all, for anyone (see 'A religion doesn't justify having a country'). Since a 2006 Supreme Court ruling (Ben-Ari), same-sex marriages performed abroad are registered, and since 2022–23 court rulings even online 'Utah' marriages, gay or straight, count. LGBT people have served openly in the army since 1993, same-sex couples can adopt, gay men gained access to surrogacy (2021–22), and an openly gay man, Amir Ohana, became Speaker of the Knesset. Across the Green Line the picture is harsher. In Gaza, the British Mandate penal code of 1936, still in force, criminalises gay sex with up to ten years in prison. In the West Bank it's legal, but in 2019 the Palestinian Authority police banned the LGBTQ group alQaws, calling its work 'a violation of the ideals and values of Palestinian society', before withdrawing the statement after a backlash. 'Pinkwashing' treats LGBT Israelis' rights as propaganda and leaves LGBT Palestinians out of the picture altogether.
Traps here:◆ The exception as proof◆ The strict enemy frame
law / courtHCJ 3045/05 Ben-Ari v. Director of Population Administration (Supreme Court of Israel, 21 November 2006) (2006) ⚠
Registration of same-sex marriages performed abroad (6–1); explicitly not recognition of same-sex marriage in Israel as such.
law / courtCriminal Code Ordinance 1936 (British Mandate), s. 152(2), still applied in Gaza (1936) ⚠
West Bank: Jordanian Penal Code 1951, no criminalisation. Verify section number.
pressPalestinian Authority police ban on alQaws activities, August 2019 (later withdrawn) (2019) ⚠
Where it leads if pressed
Every good thing becomes a trick.
The pinkwashing argument turns a real observation (governments advertise their best side) into a rule that no progress in Israel can count, because it must be a cover. That is 'distrust as premise': if gay rights are PR, aid is PR and warnings are PR, nothing Israel does can ever count in its favour. The narrower points hold without it. Israel's gay rights say nothing about the occupation, and the occupation says nothing about whether LGBT Israelis' rights are real. Both can be true, and so can the struggle of LGBT Palestinians, who are the ones this argument leaves out.
Traps here:◆ The strict enemy frame◆ "What about you?"
The usual reply — and its own traps
Arguments travel in pairs. Here is what the other side typically answers. Check whether both lean on the same trick.
heard from pro-Israel voices“'Queers for Palestine' is like chickens for KFC.”