Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+
Community in Israel
Inna Blus-Kadosh, Avner Rogel, Ruth Blatt, and Gilly Hartal
Contents
1 Introduction: LGBT+ Homonationalism in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Perspectives on LGBT+ Progress: Activist Realms and Institutional Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 LGBT+ Activism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 LGBT+ Healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 LGBT+ Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4 Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Abstract
LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and other sexual and gender expressions)
politics in Israel are contradictory; at times progressive, and at other times
reflecting a reserved liberal policy of delimiting LGBT+ sexualities to the private
sphere. Since the turn of the twenty-first century, there have been tremendous
gains for LGBT+ people in Israel. These gains were produced and bolstered by
neoliberal politics that manifested in a homonational discourse. Homonationalism
refers to a politics of normalization through neoliberal notions of consumerism
and domestication combined with national assimilation. Although Israeli neoliberal politics have translated into uneven gains for the trans community and others,
the trans community continues to experience material disadvantages, violence,
and discrimination, and hard-won activist gains are perpetually under threat by
the anti-trans coalition. The chapter focuses on activist processes and on two
Inna Blus-Kadosh
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Avner Rogel
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
R. Blatt · Gilly Hartal (*)
Gender Studies Program, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
e-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023
P. R. Kumaraswamy (ed.), The Palgrave International Handbook of Israel,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0_101-1
1
2
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
institutional settings – the healthcare and education systems – to further explore
privatization processes and individualist perspective on LGBT+ people. This
framework is informed by the local understanding of post-homonationalism,
reflecting a privatized urban belonging and normativity based on the value
LGBT+ people produce for urban spaces rather than on promoting pro-LGBT+
legislation. This, once again, reflects a reserved liberal policy that addresses the
specific needs of LGBT+ people while rendering them so specific as not to
undermine the policy’s nationalist and homonormative import.
Keywords
LGBT+ · Queer · Activism · LGBTphobia · Homonationalism · Neoliberal
politics
1
Introduction: LGBT+ Homonationalism in Israel
In 2019, former Minister of Education Rabbi Rafi Peretz made offensive remarks
that justified conversion therapy for LGBT+ youth, only to retract his statement
subsequently (Riklis and Naaman 2019). (LGBT+ are initials of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and trans, whereas the plus sign represents other gender expressions,
sexual orientation, and identities to denote inclusiveness.) These contradictory
messages represent a reserved liberal policy regarding LGBT+ sexuality that seeks
to delimit it to the private sphere. This perspective contradicts the homonational
reading of the LGBT+ community and its achievements that have dominated the
discourse on Israel in the past two decades (Gross 2015; Hartal 2020; Hartal and
Sasson-Levy 2016, 2018).
This chapter focuses on the case of LGBT+ progress and challenges in Israel; first
highlighting these aspects in the activist realm and then discussing them in institutional settings. It asks how contradictions between progress and challenges for
LGBT+ manifest in contemporary Israeli society. Israeli society has one of the
inherent contradictions: it is mostly conservative and familialist, with a religious
and right-leaning Jewish majority. In addition, it is a militarist society where
masculinity plays a focal role in constructing identities that produce participation
in and belonging to the state (Kimmerling 1993; Lomsky-Feder and Sasson-Levy
2017; Smooha 2021). Moreover, Israeli society is highly segregated along
ethnoreligious lines between the Jewish majority and the Muslim and Christian
Palestinian-Arab minority.
Adopting a bottom-up as well as a top-down perspective – through its analysis of
the activist and institutional spheres, respectively – this chapter reveals how Israeli
institutions, primarily the healthcare and education systems, articulate and implement the homonational politics that has resulted from LGBT+ community activism
since the turn of the twenty-first century. However, homonationalism, which links
discourses of LGBT+ rights to a hegemonic nationalist ideology (Puar 2007), does
not paint a complete picture, as a narrative of progress is inapplicable to all sections
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
3
of the LGBT+ community. As this chapter shows, LGBT+ politics in Israel are
contradictory, at times progressive, and at other times reflecting a reserved liberal
policy of delimiting LGBT+ sexualities to the private sphere.
Israel’s powerful pro-natalist and nationalist discourse have enabled the inclusion
of LGBT+ subjects in certain aspects of Jewish mainstream culture through participation in the two major pillars of society: reproduction and military service (Gross
2015). This sort of constrained inclusion of LGBT+ individuals is referred to as
homonormativity (Duggan 2002) – a neoliberal politics of gay assimilation – and
homonationalism (Puar 2007, 2013), LGBT+ nationalism and citizenship practices
(Bell 1994; Bell and Binnie 2006; Richardson 2000; Seidman 2001), combined with
assimilationist homonormative politics (Mowlabocus 2021). Homonationalism thus
refers to a combination of national inclusion (and exclusion) and neoliberal assimilation processes (i.e., homonormativity) (Puar 2007).
Since the 1990s, Israeli LGBT+ campaigns have managed to bring about equal
opportunity legislation, change military regulations toward full inclusion of sexual
minorities, and create paths to parenthood through sperm donation and secondparent adoption for lesbians and through surrogacy services and parenthood decrees
for gay men. Progress in trans* community rights, however, has lagged. (Trans
refers to people whose gender identity differs from the gender assigned to them at
birth, with the asterisk indicating the array of identities that fall under this umbrella
term.) Trans people in Israel face difficulties accessing surrogacy services and
negotiating parenthood status in courts (Katri 2021).
Overall, homonationalism plays a focal role in the political, demographic, and
social struggles for inclusion and assimilation into the heteronormative society in
Israel, resulting in a nuanced landscape of integration and normativity. These
homonational struggles are intertwined with economic forces that create and reinforce hierarchies of value and power. Accordingly, Israeli homonationalism has been
produced and developed mainly in Tel Aviv (Hartal 2015; Hartal and Sasson-Levy
2016, 2018), reflecting its absence in other cities and spaces, especially Jerusalem
and rural spaces.
This process has been deeply affected by another aspect of homonationalism – the
neoliberal market and the urban power it produces for LGBT+ subjects. In this
process, Israeli homonationalism is privatized, enabling the state to take a step back
and be less involved in promoting LGBT+ rights. Instead, municipalities are taking
up these spaces, producing local regulations on LGBT+ issues by promoting and
funding local LGBT+ activities in schools, culture, healthcare, and more. The
municipal agenda is not based solely on the promotion of rights; rather, it is based
on urban profit. This produces post-homonationalism, which represents this dual
process in which homonationalism reflects a commitment to and identification with
state logic and national belonging but with reservations about the state’s role in
adopting pro-LGBT+ legislation. This policy is justified through the market prism –
it views LGBT+ subjects as profitable for urban spaces and uses this value-centered
logic to promote homonationalism that is urban rather than national.
In Israel, this process occurs mainly in Tel Aviv, particularly through the promotion of gay tourism by both the municipality and national government (Hartal 2020).
4
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
In 2009, the Tel Aviv Municipality opened the LGBTQ Center, a culture and support
center for LGBT+ individuals, and in 2022, two trans centers were opened. Such
municipal support is perceived in the Israeli LGBT+ discourse as the epitome of
municipal support and encouragement, setting an example for other municipalities.
By 2022, LGBT+ centers have been active in several cities such as Haifa, Beersheba,
and Kfar-Saba, and an official municipal LGBT+ coordinator has been appointed in
many other cities and rural municipalities (Hartal 2020).
Even though Tel Aviv, Israel’s urban center, is different in many ways from the
country’s overall sociocultural climate regarding issues related to sexualities and
individual freedoms in general, notions of tolerance toward LGBT+ people as an
integral part of the nation-state are growing in importance countrywide. One of the
markers of this process is the growing number and scope of pride events outside the
three main cities of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. Pride events have long been
considered a major factor in the construction and presence of LGBT+ identities, politics,
and activism in public space (Gamson 1995). The first Israeli pride parade took place in
Tel Aviv in June 1998. The city is generally considered by Israelis as an appropriate
place for LGBT+ individuals, offering a sense of belonging and multiple cultural,
economic, consumer, and sexual opportunities. Since 1999, Tel Aviv pride events
have been partly sponsored by the municipality. In 2010 the first pride parade took
place in Rishon-LeZion, Tel Aviv’s largest suburb and the fourth largest city in Israel,
and Beersheba, the metropolitan center of the south. Since then, more cities and towns
have held their parades. Some became annual events. Mostly, they are organized by
local LGBT+ individuals without any municipal support. This expansion has encountered some resistance in remote towns such as Netivot and Mitzpe Ramon in the Negev,
spearheaded by ultra-Orthodox, conservative, and ethnic anti-LGBT+ discourses that
produce anti-gender narratives and heteroactivisms (Browne and Nash 2017).
The growing tolerance shown to LGBT+s by the Israeli state and Tel Aviv
Municipality is not matched by the Jerusalem Municipality, to say the least. The
Jerusalem Open House (JOH), a local LGBT+ NGO, is the only body in charge of
organizing the annual pride parades in the city, and it is forced to cope constantly with
local dilemmas, focusing on LGBT+ visibility in an intolerant space and responding to
the non-LGBT+-friendly Palestinian and Jewish ultra-Orthodox communities in Jerusalem (Hartal 2016). Hostile attitudes toward LGBT+s have been apparent during the
publicized protests against holding the Jerusalem WorldPride Parade in 2006 (ibid).
Antagonism toward LGBT+ individuals in Jerusalem have also been expressed in
multiple violent incidents, alongside years of municipal discrimination in the form of
withholding financial support, refusal to provide security or even allow a pride parade,
and the city’s reluctance to hang rainbow flags on the streets on the day of the pride
parade. Scholars have observed a heightened sense of spatial alienation and estrangement among LGBT+ individuals in Jerusalem (David et al. 2018; Fenster and Manor
2010), culminating in a general feeling of unsafety. This feeling was reinforced at the
2005 Jerusalem pride parade, when ultra-Orthodox Jew Yishai Schlissel stabbed three
marchers, and then again in 2015, when the same person, just three weeks out of
prison, stabbed 16 year-old Shira Banki to death and wounded five others during the
parade (David et al. 2018; Hartal and Misgav 2021).
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
5
The year 2009 marks a major shift in LGBT+ politics of inclusion in many
aspects, following the brutal attack on an LGBT+ youth center, the Bar Noar at
the heart of Tel Aviv, resulting in the death of two, Nif Katz and Liz Troubishi, and
severe injury of many others. This incident, which occurred at the center of Tel Aviv,
produced a collective shock that rippled beyond the boundaries of the LGBT+
community and hastened political processes of LGBT+ integration into the Jewish
mainstream, bringing politicians to take part in political events and driving parts of
the LGBT+ community to reach out, beyond the borders of the major cities (Hartal
and Misgav 2021).
2
Perspectives on LGBT+ Progress: Activist Realms
and Institutional Settings
2.1
LGBT+ Activism
The decriminalization of sodomy in Israel in 1988 paved the way for an LGBT+
political movement in Israel. Organizations such as the Israeli National LGBTQ
Task Force (Aguda, est. 1975) and ALEF (Hebrew acronym of Lesbian Feminist
Organization, est. 1978) had until then focused on decriminalizing homosexuality.
During the 1980s and 1990s, additional organizations, such as CLAF (Hebrew
acronym of Lesbian Feminist Community) and the JOH, were established. These
were mostly political organizations that incorporated self-help practices to promote
social change. By the turn of the century, numerous LGBT+ rights had become
legally protected in Israel, including protecting employees against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation (Gross 2015). Although Israel still does not
recognize same-sex marriage, it does recognize LGBT+ relationships and a range of
related rights.
The Bar Noar shooting in Tel Aviv and the Pride Parade stabbings in Jerusalem
strongly impacted LGBT+ activism in Israel. For example, following the Bar Noar
incident, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the Tel Aviv LGBTQ Center
for the first time to offer his condolences. In addition, President Shimon Peres and
several parliament members and ministers, including the Minister of Education,
Gideon Saar, from the right-wing Likud party, spoke at the rally. These incidents
broadened the scope of social movements’ activism, influenced public opinion on
LGBT+ issues, and increased politicians’ public support of the LGBT+ community
(Hartal and Misgav 2021). They also led to improved coordination between state and
local authorities, community activists, and LGBT+ organizations (Hartal 2020).
Israeli LGBT+ social movements fit into a wider trend of NGO-ization in Israel
(Benjamin 2016). In 2022, there are 22 LGBT+ organizations in Israel, almost all
located in Tel Aviv (Hartal 2020). This proliferation reveals a fragmentation process
based on identity politics. At the same time, it reveals an economic and legal context
favorable to new organizations. Emerging in the early 2000s, these include two of
the largest organizations that have branched out of the Aguda: Hoshen, the Israeli
LGBT+ education organization, and IGY, Israeli LGBT+ Youth Movement. Other
6
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
notable examples are bisexual organizations (such as Panorama); trans organizations
(Gila Project, Maavarim, and Pride of Lionesses); asexual organizations; lesbian
immigrants from the former Soviet Union (Raduga); as well as various identity
subgroups within the Tel Aviv LGBTQ Center such as the gay elderly men’s group
(Misgav 2016) and the religious LGBT+ community (Hartal 2020).
Although trans issues are now included in prominent LGBT+ organizations such
as the Aguda, trans activists have criticized these umbrella organizations for pursuing the homonormative agenda of European-Jewish, middle-class respectability that
privileges gay men at the expense of the interests of materially disadvantaged trans
people (Hartal 2020). For example, on 22 July 2018, the trans community organized
a march in response to the stabbing of trans woman Maya Hadad. With about 1500
participants, it was the largest trans march to date (Plotnik 2018). Yet the event was
eclipsed by a large rally for gay surrogacy rights and received little activist or media
attention. For the trans community, the LGB community’s failure to divert attention
away from surrogacy to the urgent safety needs of trans people, especially in light of
the swift and large-scale response to the Bar Noar shooting and Shira Banki
stabbing, was a painful reminder of its marginal position in the LGB activist agenda.
In response, some LGB activists criticized the trans community for splitting the
movement and scheduling their march at a time that competed with the rally on the
“more central issue” of surrogacy (ibid).
Historically, trans activists in Israel have faced many obstacles, including stigma
and marginalization, preventing them from engaging in effective collective political
action (Engelstein and Rachamimov 2019). Yet in the past 20 years, the trans
movement has gained momentum, focusing its activities on the following core
issues: self-determination, de-pathologization, discrimination or anti-discrimination,
and the material needs of trans individuals. A key turning point was in 2008 when a
group of trans people interrupted a medical conference entitled “Transsexuality and
Unclear Genitalia,” bearing the slogan “Nothing about Us Without Us” and demanding to be included in discussions determining their own access to healthcare (Katri
2021). Within a few years, several trans organizations were founded, including the
Gila Project for Trans Empowerment (2011), Maavarim (2014), Pride of Lionesses
(for parents of trans children 2016), and Transwomen Israel (2018). These have
made impressive gains with respect to trans rights and are still working to
de-pathologize trans people, loosen the grip of the medical establishment on their
lives, revise protocols regarding trans healthcare, change public registration procedures, and improve the conditions of incarcerated trans individuals (Katri 2021).
Addressing discrimination, employment, housing, and the material needs of trans
people has been a key goal of the trans movement in Israel. Trans people in Israel are
disproportionately affected by poverty, unemployment, criminalization, harassment,
assault, and police brutality (Goldin 2020). A 2019 survey of 300 trans people found
that most made less than the minimum wage. Less than 50% had a full high school
diploma, and less than 20% had higher education degrees. Twenty-six percent of
Israeli Trans women engaged in sex work, with 13% reporting that it was their only
source of income (Goldin 2020). Thirty-two percent of trans people in Israel are
unemployed; of those employed, 96% have experienced employment
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
7
discrimination, 61% have been at the receiving end of jokes at work, and 54% have
reported harassment and verbal assault (Israel Ministry of Economy and Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission 2016). Nevertheless, trans individuals rarely
file discrimination lawsuits as they do not trust the courts to protect them (Katri
2016). Violence against trans people is prevalent: 2021 saw an increase of 33% in
reports of transphobic attacks compared with the year before; these are generally not
complaints filed with the police (Aguda Israeli LGBTQ Task Force 2021). Finally,
60% of trans people in Israel suffer from chronic anxiety and depression, and 48%
reported a suicide attempt (Goldin 2020).
The only law in Israel that protects the rights of trans people is the Students
Rights Act, amended in 2013 to prohibit discrimination of K-12 students on the basis
of gender identity. Yet a report prepared for the Israeli parliament reveals that the law
has not been implemented uniformly across the educational system (Becker 2015).
Beyond that, most achievements for the trans community have been secured through
courts and lobbying efforts of trans activists. These include easing access to proper
identification documents and affirmative medical care (Katri 2021). Yet the status of
these advancements is precarious. Although trans people appear to be increasingly
accepted by the Israeli public, the state provides them limited rights and protections.
Moreover, as we show in the next sections, many gains have been overshadowed by
a recent hostile backlash against the trans community, demonstrating the contradictions embedded within the current liberal policy regarding the LGBT+ community in
Israel and how they reflect on the activist realm.
2.2
LGBT+ Healthcare
Access to basic healthcare in Israel is a fundamental right. Under the 1994 National
Health Insurance Law, Israeli citizens may join one of four health maintenance
organizations (HMOs) that provide free or reduced-cost healthcare, and these organizations receive government funding proportional to their patient base. The scope
of services provided, such as access to physicians, surgical procedures, and
discounted medications, is encompassed by the Healthcare Basket and updated
annually by the Ministry of Health (MoH). Despite its availability to all Israeli
citizens, many LGBT+ people are less likely to seek medical attention or preventive
healthcare services for fear of experiencing inequity based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression (SOGIE). In 2021 alone, there were
237 reported cases of medical LGBT+-phobia in Israel (Aguda Israeli LGBTQ
Task Force 2021). Furthermore, studies show that the overall mental and physical
health of the LGBT+ community is lower than that of the general population
(Johnson et al. 2008). These disparities are often caused by medical staff’s discriminatory behaviors and failure to recognize health issues specific to the LGBT+
population, such as the increased risk of blood clots associated with hormone
replacement therapy (HRT) (Streed Jr et al. 2017).
The first organization to highlight the importance of medical issues in the LGBT+
population was the Committee to Fight AIDS. This NGO was established in 1985
8
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
and strived to provide support and better healthcare to people with HIV. Since then,
the progress was largely driven by a small number of physicians from within the
system, who offered “gay-friendly” medical services, provided medical training
specific to LGBT+ medicine, and advocated for healthcare reforms (Riklis and
Naaman 2019). The first official LGBT+ clinic was opened in 2009 by the Clalit
HMO at the initiative of two primary care physicians, Dr. Gal Wagner-Kolosko and
Dr. Ruth Gophen (ibid). In 2017, the Maccabi HMO followed suit. In addition, 2017
saw the establishment of the Society for LGBTQ Medicine in the Israeli Medical
Association, aiming to improve knowledge on LGBT+-inclusive healthcare (ibid).
Recent years saw a surge in the promotion of issues related to LGBT+ medicine.
In 2021, Dr. Roy Zucker, the first Israeli physician to complete a fellowship
dedicated to LGBT+ medicine in the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, was
appointed to the newly created position of Director of LGBT+ Medicine in Clalit
(Zucker 2022). In addition, Clalit and Maccabi steadily expanded both the scope of
services provided in their LGBT+ clinics and the accessibility to “friendly”
healthcare, mainly in the greater Tel Aviv area. Furthermore, in 2022, PrEP, an
HIV preventive drug and voice therapy for trans people, were added to the
Healthcare Basket.
Perhaps one of the best examples of the progress made in the field of LGBT+
medicine is the outbreak of monkeypox in Israel. Even though monkeypox is
common among men who have sex with men, a population previously neglected
in the medical sphere, the MoH acted quickly by monitoring the virus’ spread in
Israel and making vaccines available within a few months following the outbreak.
This effort was led by a group of physicians who promoted awareness not only in the
MoH but in the LGBT+ community as well (Sheffer et al. 2022).
Despite the growing visibility and advancement of LGBT+-inclusive medicine,
several key issues remain unresolved. Aside from webinars on LGBT+ healthcare
and an online PrEP certification course developed by the Society for LGBTQ
Medicine, there are currently no organized transversal training programs on the
subject. While several activist organizations and a handful of physicians offer talks
and seminars targeted at medical students and staff, these activities fail to reach a
wide audience, often due to a lack of funding and bureaucratic difficulties. Thus,
LGBT+-friendly healthcare largely depends on the willingness of each physician to
educate themselves on the subject in their free time. This results in a lack of
standardization of what constitutes “friendly” medicine and difficulty in finding
physicians mindful of one’s SOGIE. In addition, most medical services aimed at
the LGBT+ community are offered in the greater Tel Aviv area, and while LGBT+
medicine does exist outside Tel Aviv, it is very limited. Therefore, many people
either commute to Tel Aviv or rely on word of mouth regarding physicians in their
area when seeking inclusive healthcare, a practice that further highlights the precariousness of the medical setting for LGBT+ people (Aguda Israeli LGBTQ Task
Force 2021; Zucker 2022).
Treatment of the trans population is a key issue in LGBT+ medicine. For a long
time (Katri 2016), “transgenderism” has been categorized as a psychiatric condition,
resulting in negative stereotypes, misunderstandings, and unfavorable attitudes by
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
9
the healthcare system toward its trans patients. While more than 50% of trans people
delay or avoid medical treatment due to medical transphobia (Goldin 2020), others
rely on the healthcare system to accommodate their gender identity through medical
procedures, even if this means receiving partial or humiliating care. Furthermore,
although the Health Insurance Law covers gender-reaffirming surgeries and HRT, its
applications are limited. Most surgical procedures must be approved by a medical
gender reassignment committee, which poses a major obstacle to trans-affirming
care (Engelstein and Rachamimov 2019). The committee, which until 2014 has not
included a trans member, serves the gatekeeping function of discerning “real” trans
people eligible to receive gender-affirming medical services (Katri 2016).
Additionally, while chest surgeries for individuals assigned male and female at
birth are performed in several hospitals, genital surgeries are performed only on the
former group and only in one hospital. These conditions result in over three years of
waiting and navigating through complicated bureaucracy to receive state-funded
medical care (Stoler 2021). All options, such as genital surgeries for individuals
assigned female at birth or surgical procedures without the committee’s approval,
must be privately funded and sometimes require travel abroad, rendering genderaffirming procedures unaffordable for many trans people (ibid). Accordingly, one of
the main goals of trans activism in Israel, as elsewhere, has been to move away from
the medical affirmation model and gain autonomy and control of trans identity, its
meaning, and associated medical care. This once again reveals that while overall
gains in LGBT+ medicine have been made, many needs specific to the trans
population remain unmet.
The field of LGBT+ medicine largely reflects a process of post-homonationalism
(Hartal 2020), whereby LGBT+ rights are powered and promoted via neoliberal
market forces rather than by legislation. Thus, the advancement of LGBT+-friendly
healthcare reflects a view of LGBT+ individuals as potential customers. This is
evident in the dual position of the MoH and the healthcare providers, who publicly
adopt a pro-LGBT+ stance but do not promote meaningful systemic changes, such as
training programs on LGBT+ medicine or LGBT+ clinics outside Tel Aviv. Instead,
they rely on the voluntary personal initiatives of medical staff or NGOs. This
demonstrates the reserved liberal policy regarding the LGBT+ community identified
in this chapter. While some legislative advancements have been made, they are few
and far apart. For a substantial change to occur, it is vital that LGBT+ healthcare be
recognized as a fundamental service for 10% of Israel’s population rather than as a
niche area of expertise relevant only to Tel Avivians.
2.3
LGBT+ Education
The Israeli education system is relatively centralized. Yet, it comprises several
segregated subsystems: the Jewish-secular, Jewish-Orthodox, and Arab state schools
and the autonomous system of the ultra-orthodox Jews. For state schools, the MoE
provides administrative regulations and budgets and curricula in all classes, determined separately for each subsystem (Hofman et al. 2007).
10
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
The education system is characterized as a whole by SOGIE-related hostility and
violence (Pizmony-Levy et al. 2019). In 2021, 10% of LGBT+-phobia cases were
reported by people under 18 (Aguda Israeli LGBTQ Task Force 2021). Verbal and
physical violence is about twice as high among LGBT+ students than among the
general student population. Yet LGBT+ students with access to support resources
experience a positive school climate. For example, students with at least one teacher
open to talking about SOGIE issues tend to experience a stronger sense of belonging
to the school. Conversely, LGBT+ students not exposed to positive academic content
about the LGBT+ community have lower attendance rates. Moreover, there are
significant gaps in accessibility to LGBT+ support resources between different
schools: Jewish-secular schools in wealthy municipalities, especially Tel Aviv,
tend to offer more support resources than Jewish-religious and Arab schools,
especially in low-income municipalities (Becker 2015; Pizmony-Levy et al. 2019).
This situation may be explained through the mixed effects of liberalization. Sex
education was introduced in Israeli schools in the 1970s, designed to socialize children
and youth into “normative” sexual behaviors. The sex education program was originally meant to “straighten out” certain sexual behaviors perceived as “deviant.” A
landmark decision in this process, made in 1973, was to apply the Program for Sexual
Education and Family Life to all schools (Kavilion 2007; Perl-Olschwang 2008). The
assertion that the sexuality of children and youth was derived from the family roles
intended for them, as reflected in the program title, expressed the prevailing approach
at the time – to educate for sexual behavior in accordance with stereotypical concepts
of femininity, masculinity, and heterosexuality (Kavilion 2007).
This nationalist discourse gradually lost its appeal due to the liberalization of the
education system and the introduction of LGBT+ curricula into sex education at the
turn of the century (Kavilion 2002, 2007; Perl-Olschwang 2008; Rodin 2013; Yadid
et al. 2011). The literature describes the decisive influence of sociopolitical discourses in Israel, such as the national discourse, in shaping education policies and
sex education in particular. This discourse promotes heterosexuality and the obligation of starting a family to ensure reproduction and establish a strong Jewish majority
in Israel for security purposes (Perl-Olschwang 2008).
The national discourse was replaced by the liberal discourse, which promoted a
universal concept of individual development and uniqueness. The process of liberalization proceeded as follows: whereas during the 1970s, LGBT+ issues were
ignored, in the 1980s, references to homosexuality in the curriculum began to appear
concerning the prevention of HIV/AIDS. In the 1990s, an experimental booklet was
published by the MoE under the title “Same-Sex Tendency (Homosexuality and
Lesbianism),” containing theoretical material and suggested activities for counselors
and educators in the upper division in state schools (MoE 1996). Since the 2000s,
educational work on LGBT+ issues have been based on the sex education program,
under the responsibility of the MoE’s Psychological Consulting Service (PCS),
under the Unit for Sexuality and Prevention of Harm to Children and Youth
(Yadid et al. 2011).
The liberal discourse promoted a pedagogical approach to sexuality based on the
distinction between the private and public spheres, such that LGBT+ sexuality was
included but only as belonging to the former. Thus, much of the content related to
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
11
heterosexuality and cisgender people were embedded in subjects such as literature,
history, language, and religion (Rogel et al. in press), while the LGBT+ sexuality
remained almost exclusively within the scope of treatment of the Unit for Sexuality
and Prevention of Harm. The liberalization process meant the abandonment of the
comprehensive goals of the original sex education program and the transfer of sex
education in the late 1980s to the responsibility of the PCS (Perl-Olschwang 2008).
The shift marked the grounding of LGBT+ sexuality issues in a “therapeutic” frame.
An example is the lack of MoE policy for protecting LGBT+ students at school
from bullying and respecting their gender identities or expressions. Recently
published general guidelines for dealing with LGBT+ children and youth still reflect
this tendency (PCS 2022). Much responsibility is placed on the discretion of the
school staff to design individual provisions according to not only to the needs of
these students but also to parental attitudes, the school’s existing options, and the
cultural context of the various school communities. Despite repeated efforts by
LGBT+ organizations, there are still no rules requiring schools to enable students
to change names and pronouns, to choose their outfits from the dress code, to use
compatible restrooms, and to participate in sports based on their gender. References
to LGBT+ content in state education are included in a unit for Jewish-secular middle
schools as part of a “Life Skills” program provided since 2008. LGBT+ content is
offered within the sex education program but is usually ignored in practice (Becker
2015; Perl-Olschwang 2008; Weissblai 2010).
The main sex education program for Jewish-religious schools, “Home and Family,” is intended for grades 7–12. In 2015, for the first time, it included a recommendation to deal with homosexuality, justified by the Jewish imperative of pikuach
nefesh – preserving human life – due to the risk of teenage suicides (Becker 2015).
Thus, the program not only excluded LGBT+ sexuality from “normative sexuality”
but also pathologized it. In Arab and ultraorthodox-Jewish schools, there is no
official reference by the MoE to LGBT+ content, not even in the form of recommendations (Hochhäuser et al. 2019).
In 2017, the PCS provided for the first time a dedicated budget for outreach
activities on LGBT+ issues for students in state middle and high schools to be
conducted by LGBT+ NGOs. This was the MoE’s response to the abovementioned
murderous violence directed at LGBT+ youth and to the dismal findings about the
educational climate in schools. Since then, the related ordinance has been published
every year, defining the purpose of these activities as allowing “the educational staff
and students to get to know members of the LGBT+ community and thus contribute
to the creation of a more tolerant space” (PCS 2019: n.p.).
These activities are conducted more frequently in state schools located in wealthier Jewish municipalities than in state-religious and Arab schools or in Israel’s
geosocial periphery (Pizmony-Levy et al. 2022). This is partly due to the fact that
the program is a voluntary budgetary support option, depending on the goodwill of
school staff. Students report that these one-time educational activities do not fundamentally change the discourse on sexuality or the marginality of LGBT+ issues at
school. Moreover, the activities are based on a “personal story” by an LGBT+
facilitator from outside the school, allowing the school to present itself as a more
tolerant space while identifying LGBT+ people as its “others.”
12
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
This trend of privatizing Israeli LGBT+ people within the education system is
accompanied by a hostile backlash against the trans community specifically. On
26 June 2022, parents of a second-grade class in the town of Herzliya received a
letter informing them that a child in the class would announce that they were
transitioning from one gender to another on the following day. The letter was leaked
and quickly spread across social media. Roni Sassover, of the conservative anti-trans
group Parents for Tradition Forum and a political candidate of the right-wing party,
staged a protest (Kadari-Ovadia 2022). Literary critic Doron Koren (2022) wrote an
op-ed in the leftwing newspaper Ha’aretz in which he warned of the dangers of
childhood gender transitions, citing faulty statistics that up to 97.8% of childhood
gender dysphoria dissipates over time and sharing vivid tales of trans adults who
regret their transitions.
Similarly, author and prominent media personality Irit Linor (2022) used her broad
platform to warn of the dangers posed by the new trans ideology to “innocent
children.” In September 2022, parents in a religious school in Givat Shmuel discovered
that one of the second-grade boys was trans. The family and the child, who was outed
without consent, became the target of a smear campaign. Some parents did not send
their children to school and protested in front of the building (Times of Israel 2022).
The anti-trans backlash reflects a coalition between feminist organizations such
as Gender Critical Israel and conservative religious organizations such as Family
Forum and right-wing religious Zionist parties. These organizations partner in
organizing protests such as the protest at Givat Shmuel and anti-trans conferences
in which rabbis and social workers speak against the trans movement (Times of
Israel 2022). For example, on 28 September 2022, Tal Croitoru, a member of Gender
Critical Israel and a licensed therapist (MSW), participated in a conference in Givat
Shmuel advocating against gender-affirming treatments for transgender youth, organized by anti-gender activists from the religious right.
The lack of a binding regulatory policy directed toward the various sectors of Israeli
society leaves the pedagogical reference to LGBT+ outside the public agenda. The
justification for this is the purported “sensitivity” of certain populations to the topic
and the need to maintain their educational autonomy. This logic reproduces the
marginalization of LGBT+ identities and their association with the private sphere
and fuels disagreements about the need for such programs among teachers and parents
(Perl-Olschwang 2008; Weissblai 2010). The education system policy of turning a
blind eye to LGBT+ people is based on the ongoing tendency to identify them as a
“problematic” population needing individual treatment (Perl-Olschwang 2008). As a
result, the pedagogical content of SOGIE focuses on tolerance, identity issues, dangers, or individual adjustments and acceptance of the other, rather than being integrated with all subjects of study (Becker 2015; Kavilion 2002; Rodin 2013).
3
Conclusion
Israeli homonationalist discourses and processes originally stemmed from the LGBT
+ community’s past collective traumas and impacted LGBT+ organizations and
activism. Initially, the traumas and homonationalism that stemmed from it were
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
13
thought to be a springboard for the LGBT+ community. However, as this chapter
demonstrates, this has not been the situation for all sections of the LGBT+ community; ongoing politics transformed in diverse ways in different institutional settings
and for diverse sections of the community. This fragmentation framework manifests
the reserved discourse on LGBT+ people revealed in institutional settings. Within
this framework, some LGBT+ people are perceived as “a problem” and thus need
management. This reflects reserved liberal policies that address the specific needs of
LGBT+ people and render them so specific that such policies do not undermine the
policy’s nationalist and homonormative import.
The review of LGBT+ inclusive healthcare in Israel indicates that although
services tailored to the LGBT+ community are increasing, they are mainly the result
of private initiatives rather than government policies. An examination of the education system indicates localized gains, mostly within secular state schools, which do
not spread further because of the absence of binding LGBT+ inclusive policy by the
MoE. These processes reveal a nuanced movement between the personal needs of
the LGBT+ community and the national agenda.
Homonationalism, in its current Israeli form of post-homonationalism, is a
framework that adopts the neoliberal logic of a value-centered understanding of
belonging and a minimal commitment to promoting pro-LGBT+ legislation. This
framework highlights privatization and value and the identities and communities
that produce money and value. No doubt, then, that underprivileged sectors within
the LGBT+ community, such as trans people, benefit less from this political
formation.
This chapter shows that while there have been tremendous gains for LGBT+
people, produced and bolstered by a homonational discourse, Israeli neoliberal
politics have translated into uneven gains for the trans community and others. The
trans community continues to suffer from material disadvantages, violence, and
discrimination, and hard-won activist gains remain threatened by the anti-trans
coalition. Although this chapter has not specifically addressed the Palestinian
LGBT+ community and specific segments within the Jewish LGBT+ community,
such as religious LGBT+s, LGBT+ immigrants to Israel, disabled LGBT+s, and
more, their story further reveals the individualistic understanding of LGBT+ as
individuals requiring special treatment.
4
Cross-References
▶ Femicide and Israel
▶ Israeli Health Care System and Policies
▶ Religious Debates in Israel
▶ Sexual Harassment, Divorce Law and Women’s Exclusion: Gender Reality in
Israel
▶ The Failings of Israel’s Religion-State Relations: A Secular View
▶ The Third Sector in Israel: The NGO
▶ Women in the Military in Israel
14
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
References
Becker, Ehud. 2015. Programs for the recognition and study of a different gender identity in the
education system. Jerusalem: Knesset Research and Information Centre. [Hebrew].
Bell, David J. 1994. In bed with the state: Political geography and sexual politics. Geoforum 25 (4):
445–542.
Bell, David, and Jon Binnie. 2006. Geographies of sexual citizenship. Political Geography 25 (8):
869–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.09.002.
Benjamin, Orly. 2016. Gendering Israel’s outsourcing: The erasure of employees’ caring skills.
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Browne, Kath, and Catherine Nash. 2017. Heteroactivism: Beyond anti-gay. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 16 (4): 643–652.
David, Yossi, Gilly Hartal, and Lital Pascar. 2018. The right to Jerusalem: The danger of queer safe
spaces. Borderlands Journal 17 (1) https://webarchivenla.gov.au/awa/20190302151304/http://
borderlands.net.au/issues/vol17no1.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2022.
Duggan, Lisa. 2002. The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. In Materializing democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics, ed. R. Castronovo et al., 175–194.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Engelstein, Gil, and Iris Rachamimov. 2019. Crossing borders and demolishing boundaries: The
connected history of the Israeli transgender community 1953–1986. Journal of Modern Jewish
Studies 18 (2): 142–159.
Fenster, Tovi, and Itay Manor. 2010. Spatial citizenship as a negotiation process: The gay community in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Israeli Sociology 2 (1): 135–153.
Gamson, Joshua. 1995. Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Social Problems
42 (3): 390–407.
Goldin, Sigal. 2020. Israeli trans community’s characteristics and needs with a focus on health and
welfare: Summary report of a national survey. Tel Aviv: Levinsky Clinic, Tel Aviv District
Health Office.
Gross, Aeyal. 2015. The politics of LGBT rights in Israel and beyond: Nationality, normativity, and
queer politics. Columbia Human Rights Law Review 46 (2): 81–152.
Hartal, Gilly. 2015. Becoming periphery: Israeli LGBT peripheralization. ACME: An International
E-Journal for Critical Geographies 4 (2): 571–597.
———. 2016. The politics of holding: Home and LGBT visibility in contested Jerusalem. Gender,
Place & Culture 23 (8): 1193–1206.
———. 2020. Israel’s LGBT movement and interest groups. In Oxford research encyclopedia of
politics, ed. W.R. Thompson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hartal, Gilly, and Chen Misgav. 2021. Queer urban trauma and its spatial politics: A lesson from
social movements in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Urban Studies 58 (7): 1463–1483.
Hartal, Gilly, and Orna Sasson-Levy. 2016. Being [in] the center – Sexual citizenship and homonationalism at Tel Aviv’s Gay-Center. Sexualities 20 (5–6): 738–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1363460716645807.
Hartal, Gilly, and O. Sasson-Levy. 2018. Rereading homonationalism: An Israeli spatial perspective. Journal of Homosexuality 65 (10): 1391–1414. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.
1375364.
Hochhäuser, Michal, Yulia Zaitsev, Irenna Feldman, and Stella Klontrov. 2019. Intervention programs for healthy sexuality in the education system in Israel compared to developed countries in
the world: A review. The Educational Consultation 21: 57–80. [Hebrew].
Hofman, Amos, Bracha Alpert, and Izhak Schnell. 2007. Education and social change: The case of
Israel’s state curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry 37 (4): 303–328.
Israel Ministry of Economy and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2016. Feelings and
experiences of discrimination against LGBT employees in the Israeli labor market (2015).
[Hebrew]. Retrieved from https://employment.molsa.gov.il/Research/Documents/
Lahatab2015.pdf
Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel
15
Johnson, Carey V., Matthew J. Mimiaga, and Judith Bradford. 2008. Health care issues among
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) populations in the United States:
Introduction. Journal of Homosexuality 54 (3): 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00918360801982025.
Kadari-Ovadia, Shira. 2022, 8 July. Israel’s education system revolutionized its approach to
transgender students, but still has a ways to go. Haaretz. Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.
com/israel-news/2022-07-08/ty-article/.premium/israel-revolutionized-its-approach-to-transAccessed
students-but-still-has-a-ways-to-go/00000181-dcf8-d2e3-a7b7-ddfc12980000.
1 Dec 2022.
Katri, Ido. 2016. Transgendered rights at a crossroad. In LGBTQ rights in Israel: Gender identity,
sexual orientation and the law, ed. E.H. Morgenstern, Y. Lushinsky, and A. Harel, 727–776.
Zafririm: Nevo. [Hebrew].
———. 2021. The protection of trans rights in Israel. In Trans rights and wrongs: A comparative
study of legal reform concerning trans persons, ed. I.C. Jaramillo and L. Carlson, 305–332.
Cham: Springer International.
Kavilion, Gabriel. 2002. Changes in the definitions of homosexuality in the texts of sexual
education: Nothing new under the sun? College 13: 77–96. [Hebrew].
———. 2007. The background for the institutionalization of sex education and sex information in
Israel. College 19: 105–146. [Hebrew].
Kimmerling, Baruch. 1993. Militarism in Israeli society. Theory and Criticism 4: 123–140.
[Hebrew].
Koren, Doron. 2022, 5 July. Not only the trans child N.’s wellbeing is at stake. Haaretz. [Hebrew].
Retrieved from https://www.haaretz.co.il/blogs/doronkoren/2022-07-05/ty-article-opinion/.pre
mium/00000181-cdbf-d83b-a3d3-ddff409e0000
Linor, Irit. 2022, 30 June. Doctor, define me. Israel Hayom. Retrieved from https://www.
israelhayom.co.il/magazine/hashavua/article/11957639
Lomsky-Feder, Edna, and Orna Sasson-Levy. 2017. Women soldiers and citizenship in Israel:
Gendered encounters with the state. London: Routledge.
Ministry of Education. 1996. Same-Sex Tendency (Homosexuality and Lesbianism): Information
brochure for counsellors and educators in the upper division of state schools. Jerusalem:
Ministry of Education
Misgav, Chen. 2016. Gay-riatrics: Spatial politics and activism of gay seniors in Tel-Aviv’s gay
community center. Gender, Place and Culture 23 (11): 1519–1534.
Mowlabocus, Sharif. 2021. Interrogating homonormativity: Gay men, identity and everyday life.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perl-Olschwang, Dalia. 2008. Sex education in Israel: Coping with stress and policymaking gaps
(Ph.D. dissertation). Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. [Hebrew].
Pizmony-Levy, Oren, Avner Rogel, and Guy Shilo. 2019. Pride and the true colors of the holy land:
School climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in Israel. International
Journal of Educational Development 70 (C): 102082.
Pizmony-Levy, Oren, Avner Rogel, and Orphee Senouf-Pilpoul. 2022. School climate research
2021: Experiences of LGBT+ students in Israel. Tel Aviv: Magnus Hirschfeld Institute.
[Hebrew].
Plotnik, Meital. 2018, July 24. You’re fighting for surrogacy, we’re fighting poverty and violence.
Ha-Makom. [Hebrew]. Retrieved from https://www.ha-makom.co.il/post/plotnik-transgender
Psychological Consultative Service. 2019. Call for proposals: Publication to education institutions
for budgeting meetings dealing with sex orientation and gender identity as part of a program for
sexuality: A letter to district superintendents and school principals. [Hebrew].
———. 2022. Guidelines for providing a sense of protectiveness and a benevolent response for
LGBT children and youth and families of the rainbow in the education system. [Hebrew].
Puar, Jasbir K. 2007. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Durham: Duke
University Press.
16
Inna Blus-Kadosh et al.
———. 2013. Rethinking homonationalism. International Journal of Middle East Studies 45 (2):
336–339. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002074381300007X.
Richardson, Diane. 2000. Constructing sexual citizenship: Theorizing sexual rights. Critical Social
Policy 20 (1): 105–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/026101830002000105.
Riklis, Tami, and Yonit Naaman. 2019, 19 July. It’s time to talk about LGBT medicine. HaOkets.
[Hebrew]. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ycy2ufmz
Rodin, Shay. 2013. A tale of two princes: Queer literature for children and youth in Israel: Between
queerphobic literature and implied queer literature. Children and Youth Literature 134: 66–33.
[Hebrew].
Rogel, Avner, Orphee Senouf-Pilpoul, Rinat Kiperman, and Shira Marshall. in press. History of
exclusion: Queer representation in Israeli high school textbooks. Comparative Education
Review.
Seidman, Steven. 2001. From identity to queer politics: Shifts in normative heterosexuality and the
meaning of citizenship. Citizenship Studies 5 (3): 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13621020120085270.
Sheffer, Rivka, Michal Savion, Naama Nuss, Ziva Amitai, and Matanelle Salama. 2022. Monkeypox outbreak in the Tel-Aviv District, Israel, 2022. International Journal of Infectious Diseases
128: 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2022.12.023.
Smooha, Sammy. 2021. The Jewish ethnic divide and ethnic politics in Israel. In The Oxford
handbook of Israeli politics and society, ed. R.Y. Hazan et al., 195–210. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stoler, Michal. 2021. Public versus private healthcare utilization among transgender persons in
Israel seeking to undergo gender-affirming surgeries (MA thesis). Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Beersheba, Israel. [Hebrew].
Streed, Carl G., Jr., Omar Harfouch, Francoise Marvel, S. Blumenthal Roger, S. Martin Seth, and
Monica Mukherjee. 2017. Cardiovascular disease among transgender adults receiving hormone
therapy: A narrative review. Annals of Internal Medicine 167 (4): 256–267. https://doi.org/10.
7326/M17-0577.
The Aguda Israeli LGBTQ Task Force. 2021. LGBTQ-phobia in Israel: Status Report #9. Retrieved
from https://user-1723486.cld.bz/aguda-lgbtophobia/LGBTQ-PHOBIA-STATUS-REPORTIN-ISRAEL-9
Times of Israel. 2022, 16 September. Defying ministry, rabbis tell school to put transgender boy in
female-only class. Retrieved from https://www.timesofisrael.com/defying-ministry-rabbis-tellschool-to-put-transgender-boy-in-female-only-class/
Weissblai, Eti. 2010. Sexual education in the education system. Jerusalem: Knesset Research and
Information Center. [Hebrew].
Yadid, Neta, Yael Rimon, and Shush Zimmerman. 2011. The Ministry of Education’s policy on
LGBT: Between “open cards” and the General Director’s circular against homophobia. Mifgash:
Journal of Social-Educational Work 33: 211–221. [Hebrew].
Zucker, Roy. 2022. Why do LGBTs need their own medicine? Ynet. [Hebrew]. Retrieved from
https://www.ynet.co.il/health/article/bjxxx7moj