Pols 443 Final Draft IV

0
ISRAEL AND THE PINK DOLLAR: DECONSTRUCTING THE SETTLER
HOMONATIONALIST DISCOURSE EMBEDDED IN ISRAELI-LGBT-PROPAGANDA FILMS
REPRESENTED BY “THE INVISIBLE MEN”
Jeffrey Ingold
Pols 443: Gender and Globalization
April 9, 2013

1
In late December 2008, the Israeli government launched a three-week armed conflict in the
Gaza Strip that killed over 1,000 Palestinians.1 The increasingly aggressive attitude of Israel towards
Palestine has become relatively routine in international politics. However, the 2012 documentary by
Yariv Moser, “The Invisible Men,” epitomizes the antithesis to Israel’s terrorizing behaviour. This
documentary highlights stories of gay Palestinian men seeking refuge in Tel Aviv from their hostile
homeland, while ignoring any details regarding Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The rise of Israel’s
gay equality agenda is concomitant with the increasing repression towards Palestine.2 These two
conflicting images of Israel reflect how the politics and narratives of truth are irrevocably intertwined
with social construction and public seduction.3 The implications of this transnational issue can be
localized in the screening of the documentary at the Kingston ReelOut festival. A panel discussion
featuring Sarah Schulman and John Greyson regarding Queer Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
(BDS) strategies preceding the film’s screening raised awareness to the political motives behind this
film and the need to collectively renounce the Israeli occupation.4
The contested public image of Israel provides a foundation from which to engage in greater
critical analysis. This paper’s analysis will address the need to demonstrate how local venues can be
politicized in a manner that works to justify ongoing global colonial projects. The purpose of this
paper is to situate and discuss intersections of race, gender and class representations projected by the
Israeli state regarding queer people. Specifically, the paper seeks to question and assess the impact of
such representations of Palestinian queers and what they mean vis-à-vis the US supported “Brand
Israel” campaign. This investigation will unpack and contextualize pinkwashing discourses
propagated by the Israeli government, while simultaneously illuminating what is obscured by such
messages. Doing so requires a tripartite critical analysis achieved by: contextualizing “The Invisible
Men” as an integral facet of a broader pinkwashing production, unpacking the queer discourses

2
within the product and questioning the engagement of film festival audiences with the film’s
messages and discourses.
Pre-Production of “The Invisible Men”: Contextualizing the Movie
It is necessary to situate this documentary within a broader process of homonationalist
pinkwashing discourses before proceeding to unpack “The Invisible Men.” The official movie
synopsis purports to tell “the untold story of persecuted gay Palestinians who have run away from
their families and are now hiding illegally in Tel Aviv... [and] their only chance for survival – to seek
asylum outside Israel and Palestine.”5 Showcased at various film festivals across North America, the
movie has won a plethora of audience and best documentary awards, including “Outstanding
Documentary Feature” at the San Francisco International LGBT Film Festival.6 The overwhelmingly
positive reception to this film suggest that the problematic discourses of race, gender and class
presented in the film are being presented as unquestioned truths about life in the Middle East.
Importantly, the analysis of gender in this paper is grounded in Damien W. Riggs’s work on the
gendered nature of sexuality and is thus, focused on how representations of certain sexualities over
others are tied to gendered discourses of power.7
Classifying “The Invisible Men” as a documentary lends itself well to providing the audience
with a sense of a more honest truth. The film is supposed to be interpreted as journalism, not
propaganda. This should, however, be questioned. Documentaries are created for a specific
purpose, as footage is selectively pieced together as an argument, rather than a transmission of pure
truth, if there even can be a single “truth.” The audience consumption of the film is the final step of a
complex production process that begins with Israel’s cultivation of a more amicable international
image. Exploring the Israeli pinkwashing campaign and its corresponding theoretical concepts not
only serves to position this documentary as a strategic element to Israel’s image reconstruction in the
eyes of Western settler nations, but also allows for an enhanced analysis of the film.

3
Due to Israel’s growing international reputation as an “imperial aggressor,” the nation has
ranked poorly on surveys ranking nation perceptions.8 The nation’s foreign ministry launched a
large-scale, massively funded and US supported Brand Israel campaign in an effort to improve
Israel’s public image. The campaign depicts a progressively democratic Israel as “relevant and
modern” through branding Tel Aviv as “an international gay vacation destination.”9 A fundamental
aspect of this campaign is financing pro-Israeli movie screenings at lesbian and gay film festivals
worldwide. Undoubtedly, the Israeli government’s funding of “The Invisible Men” is contingent
upon the images and messages of the film reinforcing the framework created by the Brand Israel
campaign. The 2012 announcement of Tel Aviv as the “Top Gay Tourist Destination” is evidence of
a successful public relations campaign.10 Israel’s projection of a liberal society premised upon
homosexual tolerance is rightfully criticized as pinkwashing over human rights abuses.
Defining the Main Concepts Embedded in the Film’s Production
Sarah Schulman defines pinkwashing as “a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing
violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”11
A gay friendly nation is equivocated with being modern, developed and democratic. Israeli
pinkwashing is a potent method of justifying the Israeli occupation of Palestine by framing
Palestinians as barbaric, homophobic and uncivilized. Homosexual acceptance has become the
symbol of civilisational aptitude.12 Israel is hailed as the only gay-friendly nation in an otherwise
hostile Middle East. The nation’s seemingly liberal attitude toward gays justifies Israeli violence
against Palestinians who are too “backwards” to have their own state and treat homosexuals
properly. The question remains as to why gay rights specifically have become the beacon of progress
on human rights and not for example, developing an international feminist solidarity. The answer is
found in the connecting pinkwashing to the U.S. phenomenon of homonationalism.

4
Homonationalism is defined by Jasbir Puar as the “process by which certain forms of gay and
lesbian sexuality are folded into the national body as the Muslim/Arab Other is cast as perversely
queer.”13 This theoretical concept ensures that any discussion of US or Israeli action towards
Palestine is tied to gay and lesbian rights. Homonationalist thought developed from 9/11 and the
subsequent US war on terror. The US nation-state needed to suspend its heteronormative image to
consolidate national consensus on the war by incorporating some, not all, homosexual subjects into
its new homonormative portrayal.14 The US government made supporting the war on terror
synonymous with ‘liberating’ homosexuals in the backwards Middle East. Meaning that mobilizing
support for a neo-colonial mission entailed a biopolitical project that sanctions some homosexualities
as patriotic. Homonationalism is irretrievably involved in biopolitics which regulates and defines
what and whose lives are deemed politically relevant.15
For this paper, Foucault’s notions of biopower and biopolitics are used to discuss practices of
the modern nation state that mark certain queer bodies as worthy of life and subjugate “other” queer
populations who are placed under terrorizing state control.16 White gay men embrace the us-versus-
them rhetoric of US patriotism in a way that aligns themselves with racist and homophobic
construction of orientalist “Muslim sexuality.”17 The dichotomy between a “good” homosexual and a
“bad” homosexual is exemplified in the comparison of Mark Bingham and Osama Bin Laden.
Bingham’s heroic action on United 93 tied his heterosexuality to whiteness, masculinity and US
patriotism, while bin Laden’s terrorism linked his racialized body to perverse, feminized, stateless
homosexuality.18 White, settler, gay men became endorsed as an integral image of America’s
progressive sexuality. Thus, the inclusion of certain gay subjects into the national legislative fold of
the US was at the expense of racialized subjects.19 The US nation disciplines and normalizes a
particular queer body and positions that image as better than other queers.

5
Similarly, the inclusion of Israeli gays in national promotional images inherently excludes
Palestinians. Israel’s biopower in regulating queerness allows the nation to decide to accept Israeli
gays and ignore perverse Palestinians.20 Defining who should live/die is accomplished under the
guise of promoting gay Israeli rights. The political rhetoric of the US and Israel creates an
exclusionary homonationalist image. The previously alluded to Western support for the Brand Israel
campaign is epitomized in Hillary Clinton’s UN speech emphasizing gay rights as human rights
which justifies US support for the Israeli oppression of Palestine.21 Clinton’s speech can be read as
saying that: The US protects those who are detained because they are gay, but does not protect a
Palestinian queer from detainment due to their race.22 This notion of who belongs necessitates
exploring the colonial influence on homonationalist thought.
As Scott Morgensen argues, settler societies constituted the biopolitics of settler colonialism
through imposing the hegemony of settler sexuality, which sought to eliminate Indigenous sexuality
and also incorporate it into settler sexuality modernity.23 Certain forms of queerness become
acceptable through settler colonialism and, subsequently, are complicit in the erasure of Indigenous
history, culture and sexuality. Such actions are pervasive in settler states whereby queer rights
claims are made through an individualized liberal framework and are dependent upon state
sanctions.24 These sanctions come at the expense of others. The unearned moral authority of white
queers in settler nations manifests itself in the emphasis placed on equal rights rhetoric that
contributes to the ongoing colonial oppression of indigenous groups disenfranchised by the state.25
Appeals to the state are premised upon colonial histories implicating queers in excluding Indigenous
groups. Settler homonationalism entails queer reproductions and naturalizations of colonial processes
and legitimizes the colonial-nation-state. Indigenous peoples are positioned as being in the past and
settlers, whether American, Canadian or Israeli, are entitled to a globalized world where settler
colonialism remains naturalized.26 The normalization of Israel as a Jewish settler state endorses the

6
ongoing regulatory biopolitical project to eliminate persons who deviate from naturalized colonial
norms, such as Palestinians.27 Queers become complicit in protective state violence through
homonationalist participation in colonizing projects on the promise of belonging to their settler
homeland. The in-depth explanation of these concepts is absolutely crucial in grounding “The
Invisible Men” as a pinkwashing project within settler homonationalist ideology.
Analysis of the Messages Presented in the Film
Understanding settler homonationalism is fundamental for critically unpacking the discursive
representations and messages of this documentary and whose bodies are impacted by these theories.
One of the key themes of this film is that oppressed Palestinian queers are desperately crying out for
a Western savior. The main character, Louie, is severely physically abused by his father when he
found about Louie’s sexual orientation.28 At Tel Aviv University, Louie is told that his safety can
only be guaranteed by another Western savior granting him asylum.29 Implying Israel to be a
Western state means justifying its imperial domination through queer acceptance and progress.
Louie’s father is perceived as a primitive, savage homophobe and this orientalist trope is
essentialized to all of Palestine. Therefore, the gay friendly Israel must be democratic and developed
as it works to save queers, while the “third world” Palestine hunts them. These pinkwashing products
focus on the plight of queer Palestinians, as if LGBT Israelis are totally safe and free from their
society’s homophobia.30 This discourse pervades much of the film has serious implications to be
explained.
The movie universalizes Louie’s story to all Palestinian queers whereby all Palestinian queers
need to be saved by Western states, which impels Western sense of obligatory intervention.31 This
“savior” notion is instrumental for Israel to validate the nation’s violence towards Palestinians who
need to be civilized. A consequence of the film juxtaposing Israel and Palestine’s treatment of queers
is that it obfuscates any evidence of queer oppression in Israel and resistance within Palestine. The

7
film conveniently glosses over the 2009 killings of gay and lesbians in Tel Aviv, as well as the
rampant homophobia within Orthodox Jewish communities where most believe homosexuality to be
a perversion.32 The rhetorical denial of violence against queers in Western nations helps construct
themselves as safe havens. The façade of being truly safe for queers by Western nations is
fundamentally undermined by stories of LGBT youth suicide and hate crimes within the state.
Moreover, the film leaves out any information about the gender and sexual rights movements in
Palestine via Al-Qaws and Palestinian Queers for BDS.33 Ignoring any Palestinian resistance serves
to create a narrative of sexuality and gender based on Palestinian absence and disappearance.34 By
rendering Palestinian resistance invisible, Israeli intervention and Western support is rationalized as
the only means of helping queers in need. Reproducing orientalist tropes of Palestinian sexual
backwardness denies the impact of Israel’s occupation on degrading Palestine’s cultural norms and
values.35 Consequently, the international queer communities have aligned with Israel and are guilty
of helping sustain the colonial occupation of Israel in Palestine.
Another necessary facet of the film to deconstruct is the choice of characters shown and not
shown. The three featured characters, Louie, Abdu and Fares, are all men who must be read as the
closest Middle-Eastern bodies can get to Western homonationalism. These men are all light-skinned,
fond of facebook, dance-clubs, spiritual (not religious) and willing to reject their homeland for a
“better” life.36 The male homosexual body dominance in the film erases the experience of other
queer bodies, such as lesbians, who are further marginalized in regions of contentious women’s
rights. Therefore, other queer stories are not as important because they are not as salient to the
homonationalist image and thus, gay men come to regulate the relevance of other queer bodies.
There is no need to discuss other queers because only gay men link a nation to modernity. Thus, the
invisibility of other bodies signifies both the sustained dominance of maleness and the irrelevance of
accepting other queer bodies to being perceived as progressive. The male characters resonate with

8
Western queer organizations as they are most “like us” and thus, gain sympathy and acceptance.
They do not threaten our safety in the world, becoming sexual subjects of life and acceptance “by
joining a colonial biopolitics of modern sexuality that functions to produce modern queers as sexual
subjects.”37 By being willing to fully assimilate into Western culture, these men ensure citizenship in
Western nation-states whose military service and government support the Israeli occupation of
Palestine. Therefore, Louie, Abdu and Fares become complicit in the regulatory biopolitical project
of these nations who seek to subjugate Indigenous Palestinian people portrayed as perversely
racialized and sexualized to normalize settler societies.38 Belonging signified by citizenship
homogenizes and dichotomizes the good queers and the “other queers.”
Palestinians are represented as what Puar calls the “monster-terrorist-fag”: archetypal racial
and cultural images of a terrorist as a brown-skinned man wearing a turban.39 The film perpetuates
this discourse by not showing Louie’s father. Even the title of the movie, meant to highlight how
Palestinian gays must hide in Israel, serves to further segregate those bodies that remain invisible
throughout the film. With no description of Louie’s father, the audience is allowed to construct an
image of this invisible enemy. If Louie represents those needing to be saved, then his father
embodies the homophobic Middle Eastern people who must be civilized. The movie coalesces the
stereotypical image of a terrorist with that of the backwards Palestinian population. Those who do
not fit the “good homosexual” image become subject to insidious policing. These “good
homosexual” archetypes are reproduced in Israeli tourism advertising campaigns.40
The colonial mission hidden behind a homonationalist ideology is deeply interwoven in the
profitable queer tourism industry of Israel. The commercialization of same-sex desires allow
stigmatized sexual behaviour to enter consumer culture without problematizing the visibility of
certain queers as dictated by race, ethnicity, class, gender, and nation.41 The characters of “The
Invisible Men” reinforce the Brand Israel advertising message that white/light-skinned, gay, upper-

9
class, Western men are accepted in Israel. The inclusion of these groups in Israel exemplifies the
power of the pink dollar to promote Israel as a new nation in the queer world. The economic access
for certain privileged male queer consumers is rightly mistaken as social acceptance and comes at the
expense of queers of color/natives who become constructed outside the national “good homosexual”
body politics.42 Thus, propaganda films such as “The Invisible Men” become an integral part of
Israel’s colonial regulatory project that implicates those who uncritically consume the movie and
travel to the nation as part of the conquest over Palestinian people and settling on their land.
Deconstructing “The Invisible Men” as a product uncovers the politically stigmatizing mechanisms
that construct the messages delivered to the film’s audience.
“The Invisible Men” at Film Festivals: Assessing the Product’s Consumption
Analyzing the way Israel has used film festivals to screen this movie and the implications of
these venues represent the consumption stage of the production process. In order to analyze the
consumption process, the successes of “The Invisible Men” with respect to various film festival
audiences must be outlined along with consideration of the implications of such victories. Further, it
is necessary to situate the presentation of the film locally at ReelOut within a broader dialogue of
other film festival’s experience in screening the documentary.
As previously stated, the film has been met with positive reception at many festivals. This
suggests that North American audiences want to celebrate “progress”, rather than watch a
documentary about terrible atrocities. Meaning, even though the documentary problematizes
Palestinian queer rights, the film remains focused on depicting the situation in Israel. The absence of
any documentaries on Palestinians being prosecuted in Israel or in their own nation suggest that
manufacturing a sense of queer solidarity can only be achieved by celebrating North American
progress. One can logically infer that when various documentaries/films portray how oppressed
queers are in other countries it sustains the Western state of exceptionalism discourse that

10
rationalizes egregious violence in the name of preserving a way of life for those privileged to live
it.43 These “foreign” films about regressive places serve to cement Western queers as accepted and
safe. Documentaries about Western queers, such as “How to Survive a Plague” present the
oppression of these groups as in the past, much like colonialism. The significance of this is that there
could be documentaries about our own homophobic religious groups or violence towards queers in
Canadian schools, but there is not. Demonstrating that the success of films depicting the problems of
foreign queers upholds the homonationalist image of Western countries where our progress is to be
revered. Critics of the movie have contended that if audiences are unaware of the politicized nature
of the film, the accepting of the movie sustains the Israeli colonial project. This raises provocative
questions about the seemingly apolitical nature of these festivals.
Film festival scholars have argued that “film festivals occupy a position of power within the
film industry and film circulation, influencing the presence, visibility and dissemination of non-
mainstream films.”44 However, to believe that festivals are utopian spaces with unlimited freedom of
expression ignores the commercial and cultural factors that shape the programming.45 Nowhere is
this more vividly illustrated than in the controversies surrounding how various film festivals have
screened “The Invisible Men.” When Toronto’s International Film Festival accepted money from the
Israeli government to show the film, such action elicited angry responses and calls for boycotting the
festival.46 This is just one very public instance of how Palestinians have called on the international
community to boycott Israeli films funded by the government that promote an alternative media
image to their ongoing colonial conflict.47 This boycott has been in place of since 2006 and without
challenging such films support is given to Israeli oppression of Palestine.48 Therefore, the notion of
an apolitical festival ignores the history of arts organizations’ political engagement, suggesting a
need for festivals to be aware of complex Middle Eastern politics.

11
When ReelOut Film Festival screened the film, it was preceded by a panel discussion on the
strategies of resistance aimed at the Brand Israel campaign as a means of mitigating any potential
controversy that could arise from showing the film without contextualizing it.49 Activists of
boycotting strategies have remained adamant that a boycott does not prohibit Israeli films or
filmmakers, but rather for festivals to reject any funding from the Israeli government and to
contextualize what is being shown to the audience.50 Therefore, when I attended the screening of the
movie, the manner in which I interpreted the message of the film was likely much different than that
of an audience with no understanding of the Israeli pinkwashing campaign. I was attuned to how the
film attempted to ignore Israel’s past and present colonial history and served to validate the
occupation and apartheid as a ‘civilising mission’ premised upon a gay-friendly Israel and a
homophobic Palestine.51 Therefore, the representation of queers by Israel in “The Invisible Men”
legitimizes troublesome settler homonationalist discourses.
One of the most difficult barriers to overcome is the analysis of the colonial process. The
pinkwashing campaign embodied in the film “reproduces an essential aspect of settler colonialist
discourse: the erasure of the native experience of displacement, dispossession and
disenfranchisement, by the so-called ‘gay haven.’”52 In critiquing the film, the obliteration of
Palestinian presence as the indigenous people of the land manifests a reminder to other settler
colonial nations of their ongoing process of colonialism. The well-established colonial order in
Canada ignores our ongoing colonization wherein queers live on appropriated land and Indigenous
peoples are denied nationhood and access to their own lands.53 The accusation that watching a film
perpetuates ongoing colonial missions in such settler societies necessitates an acknowledgment that
what is currently happening to Palestinians is also going on in our own nation. However, the idea of
a modern day settler is difficult for many to accept and, thus, explains why this film is so well-
received by audiences of settler colonial nations. Narratives like Israel’s that wipe the colonial slate

12
clean by appealing to gay rights are welcomed by queer non-natives who are complicit in settler
colonialism.54 The discourses and themes of the movie resonate with popularized imaginings of our
nation’s history in which Aboriginals are systematically erased and colonization is in the past.55
Conclusion
The intention of this essay was to contextualize and unpack the race, gender and class
representations of queer people by the Israeli state. Analyzing the Brand Israel campaign lent itself to
examining the impact of particular Palestinian queer representations promoted by Israel, as well as
discussing the implied portrayal of Palestine. Supporting this argument required a threefold analysis
of the production process of “The Invisible Men,” starting with situating the documentary within a
settler homonationalist pinkwashing campaign. From there, the essay applied such discourses to
distinct facets of the film to emphasize the problematic nature of such images. Lastly, the essay
investigated the role of film festivals in screening “The Invisible Men” and examining the
corresponding controversies. It is worth noting that it would be hypocritical for one in the West to
demonize Israel’s pinkwashing campaign without recognizing our own ongoing colonial oppression.
As Morgensen argues, even if Canadians critique the pinkwashing of Israel, the settler-colonial
conditioning of queer politics will be perpetuated if “they do not first critique their own potential
‘pinkwashing’ of Canadian settler colonialism.”56 Doing so also entails a re-imagining of queer
solidarity in accordance with recognizing the burdens and privileges of our histories and locations.57
Judith Butler provides an excellent reframing of queer solidarity wherein “queer people should have
solidarity with those populations whose lives are not considered liveable.”58 This form of queer
solidarity calls for self-reflection of our nation’s history and denaturalizing settler belonging in favor
of engaging with colonial legacies. If this form of solidarity was to develop within Canada and other
settler nations, it would be a positive step towards challenging ongoing colonial processes worldwide
and repositioning Indigenous peoples as a part of modern day societies.

13
Notes
1 Alon Ben-David, “Israeli OffensiveSeeks ‘New Security Reality’in Gaza,” IHS, January 9, 2009,
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065927157.
2 Jasbir Puar,“Citation and Censorship:The Politics of TalkingAbout the Sexual Politicsof Israel,”Feminist Legal Studies
19, no. 2 (2011): 135, http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/tmp/8113261421945746563.pdf.
3 Roxana Galusca,“SlaveHunters, Brothel Busters, and FeministInterventions: InvestigativeJournalists asAnti-Sex-
TraffickingHumanitarians,” Feminist Interventions 24, no. 2 (2012): 3,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/feminist_formations/v024/24.2.galusca.html .
4 Reelout Arts Project Inc., Reelout 14 Queer Film + Video Festival Programme (Reelout Arts ProjectInc., 2013), 12.
5 Mozer Films LTD, “The InvisibleMen: A Documentary Filmby Yariv Mozer,” Mozer Films LTD, Accessed February 13,
2013,http://www.theinvisiblemenfilm.com/
6 Ibid.
7 Damien W. Riggs, Priscilla, (White), Queen of the Desert: Queer Rights/Race Privilege (New York: Peter Lang Publishing,
Inc., 2006),21.
8 Jasbir Puar,“Israel’sGay Propaganda War,” The Guardian, July 1, 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/01/israels-gay-propaganda-war.
9 Sarah Schulman,“Israel and ‘Pinkwashing,’”The New York Times, November 22, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/opinion/pinkwashing-and-israels-use-of-gays-as-a-messaging-
tool.html?_r=3&.&.
10 Aron Heller, “Tel Aviv Emerges as Top Gay TouristDestination,” The Huffington Post, January 1, 2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/tel-aviv-gay-travel-destinations_n_1227888.html
11 Sarah Schulman,“Israel and ‘Pinkwashing,’” The New York Times, November 22, 2011,
tool.html?_r=3&.&.
12 Jasbir Puar,“Citation and Censorship:The Politics of TalkingAboutthe Sexual Politicsof Israel,” Feminist Legal Studies
19, no. 2 (2011): 135, http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/tmp/8113261421945746563.pdf.
13 Ibid.,133.
14 Jasbir Puar,Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times (Durham, North Carolina:DukeUniversity Press,
2007): 3-4.
15 Ibid.,142.
16 Scott Lauria Morgensen, “Settler Homonationalism:TheorizingSettler Colonialismwith Queer Moderniti es,” GLQ: a
Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16, no. 1-2 (2010):108, http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/16/1-2/105.full.pdf.
2007): 46.
18 Jasbir Puar,“MappingUS Homonormativities,” Gender, Place and Culture 13, no. 1 (2006): 70-1,
http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/tmp/5930329673619237725.pdf.
2007): 119.
20 Ibid.,165.
21Hillary Clinton,“Human Rights Day Speech” (Speech at the United Nations Human Rights Council,Geneva, CH,
December 6, 2011).
22 Maya Mikdashi,“Gay Rights as Human Rights:PinkwashingHomonationalism,” Jadliyya, December 16,2011,
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/3560/gay-rights-as-human-rights_pinkwashing-homonationa.
23 Scott Lauria Morgensen, Spaces Between Us: Queer Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Decolonization (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press,2011), 34.
24 Damien W. Riggs, Priscilla, (White), Queen of the Desert: Queer Rights/Race Privilege (New York: Peter Lang
Publishing,Inc.,2006),42.
25 Damien W. Riggs, Priscilla, (White), Queen of the Desert: Queer Rights/Race Privilege (New York: Peter Lang
Publishing,Inc.,2006),72.

14
University of Minnesota Press,2011), 161.
27 Scott Lauria Morgensen, “Queer Settler Colonialism in Canada and Israel:ArticulatingTwo-Spiritand Palestinian
Queer Critiques,”Settler Colonial Studies 2, no. 2 (2012): 173,
http://ojs.lib.swin.edu.au/index.php/settlercolonialstudies/article/view/340/309.
28 The Invisible Men, Documentary, Directed by Yariv D. Mozer (2012; Israel:Mozer Films LTD).
29 Ibid.
30 Scott Lauria Morgensen, “Queer Settler Colonialismin Canada and Israel:ArticulatingTwo-Spiritand Palestinian
31 Barbara Heron, Desire for Development: Whiteness, Gender, and the Helping Imperative (Waterloo, Ontario:Wilfrid
Laurier University Press,2007),55.
32 Jason Koutsoukis, “Homophobia in Israel Still High butDeclining,Says Survey,” The Sydney World Herald, August 7,
2009,http://www.smh.com.au/world/homophobia-in-israel-still-high-but-declining-slowly-says-survey-20090806-
ebkb.html
33 Sarah Schulman,“Israel and ‘Pinkwashing,’”The New York Times, November 22, 2011,
tool.html?_r=3&.&.
34 Scott Lauria Morgensen, “Settler Homonationalism:TheorizingSettler Colonialismwith Queer Modernities,” GLQ: a
35 Jasbir Puar,“Israel’sGay Propaganda War,” The Guardian, July 1, 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/01/israels-gay-propaganda-war.
36 The Invisible Men, Documentary, Directed by Yariv D. Mozer (2012; Israel:Mozer Films LTD).
37 Scott Lauria Morgensen, “Settler Homonationalism:TheorizingSettler Colonialismwith Queer Modernities,” GLQ: a
University of Minnesota Press, 2011), 43.
39 Jasbir Puar and Amit S. Rai,“Monster TerroristFag: The War on Terrorismand the Production of DocilePatriots,”
Social Text 20,no. 3 (2002):126-7, http://muse.jhu.edu.proxy.queensu.ca/journals/social_text/v020/20.3puar.html.
40 Jasbir Puar,“Circuits of Queer Mobility:Tourism,Travel, and Globalization,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay
Studies 8, no. 1-2 (2002): 126,
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_lesbian_and_gay_studies/v008/8.1puar02.html .
41 Ibid.,111.
42 Jasbir Puar,“A Transnational FeministCritiqueof Queer Tourism,” Antipode 34, no. 5 (2002): 942-3,
http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.queensu.ca/tmp/1958365464195538586.pdf.
2007): 9.
44 Skadi Loist,“Precarious Cultural Work:About The Organization of (Queer) FilmFestivals,” Screen 52, no.2 (2011): 268,
http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/268.full.
45 David Archibald and Mitchell Miller,“FromRennes to Toronto: Anatomy of a Boycott,” Screen 52, no. 2 (2011):278-9,
http://screen.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/2/274.full.
46 Ibid.,274.
47 Ibid.,275.
48 Ibid.,276.
49 Reelout Arts Project Inc., Reelout 14 Queer Film + Video Festival Programme (Reelout Arts ProjectInc., 2013), 12.
50 John Greyson, “‘Pinkface,’” Camera Obscura 27, no. 2 (2012):145-6,
http://cameraobscura.dukejournals.org.proxy.queensu.ca/content/27/2_80/145.full.pdf+html.
51 Nadia Elia,“Gay Rights with a Side of Apartheid,” Settler Colonial Studies 2, no. 2 (2012): 50,
52 Ibid.,58.

15
53 Bonita Lawrence and Enakshi Dua,“DecolonizingAntiracism,” Social Justice 32, no. 4 (2005): 134,
http://search.proquest.com/docview/231894466.
54 Scott Lauria Morgensen, “Queer Settler Colonialismin Canada and Israel:ArticulatingTwo-Spiritand Palestinian
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid.,187.
57 Chandra TalpadeMohanty, Feminism Without Borders (Durham, North Carolina:Duke University Press,2003), 191.
58 Colleen Jankovic and Nadia Awad, “Queer/Palestinian Cinema:A Critical Conversation on Palestinian Queer and
Women’s Filmmaking,”Camera Obscura 27, no. 2 (2012): 137,
http://cameraobscura.dukejournals.org.proxy.queensu.ca/content/27/2_80/135.full.pdf+html.

Pols 443 Final Draft IV

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (14)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Pols 443 Final Draft IV

Similar to Pols 443 Final Draft IV (7)

Pols 443 Final Draft IV