Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Progress and Challenges of the LGBT+ Community in Israel

2023, The Palgrave International Handbook of Israel

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0_101-1

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

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