Pinkwashing advertisement in NY, brought to you by Birthright

Israel/Palestine
on 37 Comments

A friend sent this mural from the West Village in New York; snapped it while running. It looks like some alumni of Birthright put it up–

wedding
Who would you want at your wedding? Photo by Michael Ratner

And it’s a pinkwashing appeal, stating that gays have much more freedom in Israel than they do in neighboring countries– including Gaza, which by the way is Israeli occupied territory. Sarah Schulman of course exposed this argument in her famous pinkwashing op-ed in the Times of a year ago, in which she said that Israel used an “image of modernity” — gay freedom — to cover up its denial of human rights to Palestinians. Israel advertises these freedoms in order to justify what it does. As does birthright! 

I look on Schulman as a teacher; and still this gay rights argument resonates in the U.S. –as would a women’s rights mural with a similar message. I know liberal Americans who are swayed by it. Quick answers: Palestinian culture being traditional doesn’t justify apartheid and human rights violations; political freedom for Gazans is bound to generate freedom in other realms; fundamentalist Christians and Jews are hardly tolerant of gays. And it’s not like the United States is there either, by the way…

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

37 Responses

  1. ColinWright
    September 29, 2012, 10:44 pm

    Whoops. They put it up on a wall in Little Rock. Support for Israel plummets.

    • AlGhorear
      September 30, 2012, 6:04 pm

      My thoughts exactly. Put it up in the red states and the religious nuts will have to decide whether their messianic view of Israel out trumps their homophobia.

  2. yrn
    September 30, 2012, 5:22 am

    “including Gaza, which by the way is Israeli occupied territory”

    well……… reality is that, “Gaza was captured by Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967, but in 1993, the city was transferred to the Palestinian National Authority.”

    • Shmuel
      September 30, 2012, 5:56 am

      The legal test for occupation in international law is “effective control”. Israel’s position that it no longer exercises such control because it lacks a permanent ground troop presence in the area is untenable.

      See “Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza: “http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/Report%20for%20the%20website.pdf

      From the “Executive Summary”:

      ISRAEL CONTINUES TO EXERCISE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OVER THE GAZA STRIP
      Israel’s withdrawal of settlements and its permanent military ground installations from the Gaza Strip did not end Israeli control of Gaza but rather changed the way in which such control is effectuated. These forms of control have contributed to an unprecedented deterioration in the economic and social welfare of Gaza residents.

      Israel continues to control Gaza through:

      • Substantial control of Gaza’s land crossings;
      • Control on the ground through incursions and sporadic ground troop presence (“no-go zone”);
      • Complete control of Gaza’s airspace;
      • Complete control of Gaza’s territorial waters;
      • Control of the Palestinian population registry (including who is a “resident” of Gaza);
      • Control of tax policy and transfer of tax revenues;
      • Control of the ability of the Palestinian Authority to exercise governmental functions;
      • Control of the West Bank, which together with Gaza, constitute a single territorial unit.

      • Shmuel
        September 30, 2012, 6:07 am

        And from the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (Goldstone) Report (posted by tree on another thread on this very subject):

        276. Israel has without doubt at all times relevant to the mandate of the Mission exercised effective control over the Gaza Strip. The Mission is of the view that the circumstances of this control establish that the Gaza Strip remains occupied by Israel. The provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention therefore apply at all relevant times with regard to the obligations of Israel towards the population of the Gaza Strip.

        277. Despite Israel’s declared intention to relinquish its position as an occupying Power by evacuating troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip during its 2005 “disengagement”,162 the international community continues to regard it as the occupying Power.163

        278. Given the specific geopolitical configuration of the Gaza Strip, the powers that Israel exercises from the borders enable it to determine the conditions of life within the Gaza Strip. Israel controls the border crossings (including to a significant degree the Rafah crossing to Egypt, under the terms of the Agreement on Movement and Access164) and decides what and who gets in or out of the Gaza Strip. It also controls the territorial sea adjacent to the Gaza Strip and has declared a virtual blockade and limits to the fishing zone, thereby regulating economic activity in that zone. It also keeps complete control of the airspace of the Gaza Strip, inter alia, through continuous surveillance by aircraft and unmanned aviation vehicles (UAVs) or drones. It makes military incursions and from time to time hit targets within the Gaza Strip. No-go areas are declared within the Gaza Strip near the border where Israeli settlements used to be and enforced by the Israeli armed forces. Furthermore, Israel regulates the local monetary market based on the Israeli currency (the new sheqel) and controls taxes and custom duties.

        279. The ultimate authority over the Occupied Palestinian Territory still lies with Israel. Under the law and practice of occupation, the establishment by the occupying Power of a temporary administration over an occupied territory is not an essential requirement for occupation, although it could be one element among others that indicates the existence of such occupation.165 In fact, as shown in the case of Denmark during the Second World War, the occupier can leave in place an existing local administration or allow a new one to be installed for as long as it preserves for itself the ultimate authority. Although Israel has transferred to the Palestinian Authority a series of functions within designated zones, it has done so by agreement, through the Oslo Accords and related understandings, keeping for itself “powers and responsibilities not so transferred”.166

        When Israel unilaterally evacuated troops and settlements from the Gaza Strip, it left in place a Palestinian local administration. There is no local governing body to which full authority has been transferred. In this regard, the Mission recalls that the International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, regards the transfer of powers and responsibilities by Israel under various agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as having “done nothing” to alter the character of Israel as an occupying Power.167

    • traintosiberia
      September 30, 2012, 6:25 am

      yrn
      Israel is amazing ? Isn’t it? Or is it us who are stupefied by Israel’ amazing display of verbal capacity by a multi-forked tongue?
      Indonesian army left East Timor. Israel left GAZA. Hilary can plant US flag facing China on E Timor. She can do it even in the inaccessible part of South Sudan. Try it on GAZA. Even NAM leaders cant get entry pass from Israel. Last time Falk and a few Irish were told to get lost in the Sinai desert for trying to see the human cost of Israeli unilateral disengagement. Before that Flotialla murder and prior to that Operation Cast after apparent disengagement .
      Spain disengaged from W Sahara and has never been seen on that part of Africa again. Indonesian did not have a validating roles on E Timor election to decide who would who came to power and neither Sudan had one on S Sudan.

    • lyn117
      September 30, 2012, 1:55 pm

      @yrn, you’re claiming that:
      a) Gaza is a city
      b) Because it was transferred to the PNA, it’s no longer occupied?

      Do you realize that the PNA’s seat is in Ramallah, which is in the occupied West Bank? How does transferring administrative duties for some territory to an organization existing under occupation by Israel and ultimately answerable to the Israeli military authorities make that territory not under occupation?

      • yrn
        October 1, 2012, 4:37 am

        lyn117
        Read some history 1993 PNA were incharge, Hamas was not incharge then

      • talknic
        October 4, 2012, 10:56 am

        yrn October 1, 2012 at 4:37 am

        Like all good little Ziobots instead of learning, it moves the argument to another irrelevant point not mentioned by lyn117.

  3. jon s
    September 30, 2012, 5:50 pm

    Some questions :
    1.If you were an openly gay person, where would you rather be, Tel Aviv or Gaza?
    2.Phil’s caption is “brought to you by Birthright”. Yet in the text it says “looks like” something put out by an alumni of Birthright. So what is it? Does Birthright have anything to do with the mural?
    3. How can Gaza be under the control of the PA or under Israeli occupation, when in reality it’s under effective Hamas rule?

    • Shmuel
      October 1, 2012, 1:59 am

      jon,

      1. The question of “where you would rather be” is a distraction, a PR stunt intended to boost Israel’s “brand” without saying anything of substance about the human rights that Israel does violate. See Schulman or Katherine Franke on the subject: link to mondoweiss.net
      2. Both the headline and the sentence “It looks like some alumni of Birthright put it up” refer to the “signature” in the top-left corner “brought to you by alumni of birthright Israel”.
      3. See my comments and link above, on the concept of “effective control”.

      • jon s
        October 1, 2012, 2:45 am

        Shmuel,
        1.I’m well aware of , and troubled by, the human rights violations here. And even on the issue of gay rights, the situation is far from perfect. We had the murder at the Bar Noar, the gay youth center, a few years ago, which to this day hasn’t been solved. Of course that couldn’t happen in Gaza, mainly because there’s no “gay youth center ” there. My question wasn’t ment as a distraction , but as a means to inject some balance into the discussion here, which rarely mentions any positive aspect of Israeli society. Avoiding the question is in itself an answer of sorts.
        2. Thanks for pointing out that “signature”. I hadn’t noticed it.
        3. The reality, the concrete ,on-the-ground situation , as opposed to this or that outdated report, is that Hamas effectively controls Gaza.
        חג שמח

      • Shmuel
        October 1, 2012, 3:11 am

        Avoiding the question is in itself an answer of sorts.

        Neither Schulman nor Franke, nor other Gay rights activists – including Palestinians – “avoid the question”. The point of the ad in Soho and the entire pinkwashing campaign is to improve Israel’s image, thereby defusing legitimate and necessary criticism. “Balance” is entirely beside the point.

        The reality, the concrete ,on-the-ground situation , as opposed to this or that outdated report

        Israel’s status as occupier is a matter of international law, determined on the basis of specific criteria. Despite certain changes since these two reports were written, the basic elements of effective Israeli control over Gaza (“effective control” as a legal concept, not a layman’s impression), remain as they were – regardless of the role played by Hamas in governing the territory. This is clearly explained in both reports. As in previous threads on this subject, you are muddying the waters – ignoring legal distinctions and making fuzzy use of language and terminology.

        Happy Sukkot to you too.

      • jon s
        October 1, 2012, 4:06 am

        Shmuel,
        So if the question is not being avoided- what’s the answer? Where would you rather be if you were an openly gay person? I’m trying to pin you down here. (Metaphorically).
        The Gisha report is from 2007, the Goldstone report has been dead ever since Justice Goldstone himself repudiated it. The reality is Hamas rule.

      • Shmuel
        October 1, 2012, 4:58 am

        So if the question is not being avoided- what’s the answer?

        Franke:

        While it may seem natural for gays to side with Israel, after all they have such good gay rights laws, this support reflects a major weakness of so many human rights movements that tend to prioritize their own struggles without considering the ways in which all forms of discrimination are linked. In Israel/Palestine gay rights and human rights more broadly are necessarily connected to one another, and treating one domestic minority well does not excuse or diminish the immorality of the state’s other rights abridging policies. Had South Africa enacted good gay rights laws during the Apartheid era no one would have seen that as excusing their treatment of black and colored people.

        link to blogs.law.columbia.edu

        The Gisha report is from 2007, the Goldstone report has been dead ever since Justice Goldstone himself repudiated it. The reality is Hamas rule.

        More obfuscation. What has changed, specifically, to invalidate the Gisha report, and can you cite another, more recent report or legal opinion that explains why these criteria of “effective control” – although they may have applied in 2007 – no longer apply? Goldstone’s “repudiation” made no mention of Israel’s status as occupier, but referred only to questions of war crimes and intentionality. I repeat: The “reality [of] Hamas rule” does not, in and of itself, determine whether Israel is an occupying power in Gaza or not. There are specific legal criteria – presented by Gisha and the Goldstone report – which you have failed to address. ‘It looks like the occupation is over to me’ is not a valid argument.

      • Shmuel
        October 1, 2012, 5:58 am

        Here is Gisha’s updated position paper on the current state of Israeli control over the Gaza Strip, entitled “Scale of Control: Israel’s Continued Responsibility in the Gaza Strip” (November 2011): link to gisha.org

        From the “Executive Summary”:

        In 2007, Gisha published “Disengaged Occupiers: The Legal Status of Gaza”, a position paper in which it argued that the law of occupation continues to apply to all Israeli actions toward the Gaza Strip due to the significant control it still exercises over Gaza. “Scale of Control: Israel’s Continued Responsibility in the Gaza Strip” updates our previous legal analysis and adapts it to reflect the changes on the ground and in the patterns of control exercised over the Gaza Strip by the various actors since 2007, including as a result of the Hamas movement’s takeover of internal control in Gaza.

        This position paper illustrates how despite recent developments, Israel continues to control Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters, the Palestinian population registry and passage of goods and people to and from Gaza. Israel still collects customs and value added tax for goods entering the Gaza Strip and maintains some physical presence in the Strip. Israel also controls Gaza’s infrastructure by virtue of its control over supply of electricity and other inputs to the system.

        Does this mean Israel is still occupying the Gaza Strip? In this position paper, we refer to the “end of occupation” both in Gaza and in the West Bank as a process that takes place over time. We are currently located somewhere on the spectrum between occupation and the end of occupation, that is, a situation in which Israel has already relinquished some governmental powers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and allows Palestinian authorities to exercise them, yet continues to exercise other governmental powers, to the exclusion of others. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to say that the occupation of the Gaza Strip has ended and therefore, the international law of occupation continues to apply to Israel in the spheres in which it continues to exercise control over the lives of Palestinian residents. In the spheres in which Israel has transferred or relinquished powers and allows others to exercise them, its responsibility toward the civilian population is diminished or extinguished.

        In addition, for a transitional period, Israel continues to owe obligations in spheres in which it relinquished control, until the representatives of the Palestinian people are able to exercise their sovereignty independently. These obligations are owed according to the post -occupation doctrine which provides protection to the civilian population during the transition from occupation to fulfillment of lawful sovereignty. Israel also has obligations under human rights law wherever actions by its official agents have a significant and direct impact on Gaza’s residents.

        Despite the fact that the Palestinian authorities are non-state actors (and recognition of a Palestinian state as such will not turn them into state actors), they owe obligations in the spheres they control under human rights law and the law of armed conflict.

        Israel currently interprets its obligations toward residents of the Gaza Strip (and to a lesser degree, the West Bank as well) as limited to the “minimum” standard required under the law of armed conflict. As a result of this position, Israel allows passage of people only in “exceptional humanitarian cases” and has restricted passage of goods to those “essential for the survival of the civilian population”. In contrast, we argue that under the law of occupation and post-occupation, Israel is obligated to allow the movement of people and goods at the level required to maintain normal life. Israel may restrict movement only in order to meet concrete security needs, and even then while balancing the restrictions against the needs and rights of Gaza’s residents.

        Israel must fulfill its obligations under international law by allowing free passage of goods and people to and from the Gaza Strip, subject to individual security checks and subject to arrangements that meet both Israel’s security needs and its obligation to facilitate normal life in the Gaza Strip. Because social and economic development, family unification and access to education and proper medical care largely depend on the ability to travel and transport goods, Israel must allow freedom of movement at a level that extends beyond survival and allows for prosperity, development and the realization of individual rights.

        And the vid: link to youtube.com

      • jon s
        October 1, 2012, 6:50 am

        Shmuel,
        Why do I get the idea that you’ve avoided that question for the third time?
        Why is it so hard to say something like: “Honestly, I have to admit that if I were openly gay, I would prefer TelAviv”? (and one could add :”without diminishing my criticism of the occupation, human rights violations, etc.”)

        On Gaza you seem to be saying that some outdated legal opinion is more important than reality on the ground . What are you, a lawyer? (I don’t mean to offend…)

      • Annie Robbins
        October 1, 2012, 8:08 am

        jon, i don’t think you’re listening. shmuel explained to you right off the bat the question itself is a distraction, a pr stunt. that should clue you in he has no intention of ever catering to what he rightly characterizes as a pr distraction.

        speaking of evasions i noticed you ignored: What has changed, specifically, to invalidate the Gisha report, and can you cite another, more recent report or legal opinion that explains why these criteria of “effective control” – although they may have applied in 2007 – no longer apply?

      • Shmuel
        October 1, 2012, 8:11 am

        Why do I get the idea that you’ve avoided that question for the third time?

        Beats me.

        Why is it so hard to say something like: “Honestly, I have to admit that if I were openly gay, I would prefer TelAviv”?

        Why is it so hard to understand “While it may seem natural for gays to side with Israel, after all they have such good gay rights laws … [i]n Israel/Palestine gay rights and human rights more broadly are necessarily connected to one another, and treating one domestic minority well does not excuse or diminish the immorality of the state’s other rights abridging policies”?

        On Gaza you seem to be saying that some outdated legal opinion is more important than reality on the ground.

        I provided a legal opinion from 2011 that considers the complete reality on the ground in terms of “scale of control”, as well as legal definitions of occupation and post-occupation responsibilities. What you describe as “reality on the ground” is in fact only part of the circumstances that must be taken into account when determining Israel’s obligations in Gaza.

        What are you, a lawyer? (I don’t mean to offend…)
        I am but a humble translator, but even I know that on legal matters (and the status of occupation/end of occupation is a matter of international law), one should seek … legal opinions. Where do you get your medical advice?

      • amigo
        October 5, 2012, 7:01 am

        If you were openly gay where would you rather be.

        In Israel or say Ireland.

        After all, it is not as if the Religious fanatics are on board your ship of Gay freedom in Israel.

        But I digress.

    • ColinWright
      October 1, 2012, 2:39 am

      jon s says: “3. How can Gaza be under the control of the PA or under Israeli occupation, when in reality it’s under effective Hamas rule?”

      This is about like the Germans claiming that they didn’t rule the Warsaw ghetto.

    • Woody Tanaka
      October 1, 2012, 1:57 pm

      “Some questions :
      1.If you were an openly gay person, where would you rather be, Tel Aviv or Gaza?”

      Here’s a question for you: if you had a magic button that, if pressed, would grant Palestinian homosexuals full and equal rights and protection (including the vote) under PA and Hamas but, at the same time, would require israel to give all the Palestinians under its control, on both sides of the green line, full and equal rights and protection under the law (for all people, regardless of ethnicity and religion) and would require everyone from the Med to the Jordan the right to vote in the israeli government, would you press the button??

      • Elisabeth
        October 6, 2012, 8:38 am

        Very well put (he wouldn’t). And by the way, Jon S: You really do not need to be gay to find life in Gaza unbearably hard… Anyone would prefer to live in Tel Aviv.

    • talknic
      October 4, 2012, 10:58 am

      jon s September 30, 2012 at 5:50 pm

      “If you were an openly gay person, where would you rather be, Tel Aviv or Gaza?”

      What difference would it make to the actual legal extent of Israeli sovereignty? That is the bottom line.

    • Rusty Pipes
      October 4, 2012, 12:19 pm

      If you were an openly gay tourist with a conscience, where would you rather be, Tel Aviv or Beirut?

      If you were an openly gay Israeli, where would you rather be, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem (where the only issue conservative leaders of all three major faiths there agree upon is opposition to the Pride Parade)?

      If you lived in Gaza, would you be more likely to suffer from having your house bombed by an Israeli teen playing video games, to be able to get a drink of clean water or to be able to fish more than 3 miles off shore if you were openly gay?

  4. hophmi
    September 30, 2012, 11:31 pm

    ” stating that gays have much more freedom in Israel than they do in neighboring countries”

    Facts are hard things to deal with, Phil. Sorry.

  5. ColinWright
    October 1, 2012, 3:03 am

    Israel retains the right to block access to and from Gaza. She decides what goods go in, and what goods go out. She kills whomever she pleases there, whenever she pleases.

    She continues to rule Gaza. I’d say asserting the right to put people to death at will is a good measure of sovereignty.

    • jon s
      October 1, 2012, 4:20 am

      Colin,
      Israel seeks to control access from Gaza to Israel, same as other countries control their border. If the US seeks to control its border with Mexico, does it occupy Mexico? The point is to prevent infiltration and terrorist attacks.
      Look at a map. Gaza also borders Egypt, and Israel has no control over whatever goes on on that border.
      By your logic, when Palestinians try to kill Israelis by rocket fire from Gaza, asserting the right to put people to death, they maintain “a good measure of sovereignty”.

      • ColinWright
        October 1, 2012, 3:22 pm

        To jon s: “Colin,
        Israel seeks to control access from Gaza to Israel, same as other countries control their border…”

        Ahem. Israel controls considerably more than merely access to Israel. Witness the Flotilla.

  6. talknic
    October 1, 2012, 5:35 am

    jon s October 1, 2012 at 4:20 am

    “Israel seeks to control access from Gaza to Israel, same as other countries control their border.”

    The US controls Mexico’s territorial waters, airspace, imports and exports and who can travel to different parts of Mexico? WOW!!! That’s AMAZING!!!!!!!

    ” Gaza also borders Egypt, and Israel has no control over whatever goes on on that border.”

    The the 2005 agreement Israel signed with Egypt is worthless, putting the Israeli / Egyptian peace agreement in jeopardy? You’re filled with stuff not even the Israeli Government knows. AMAZING!

  7. talknic
    October 1, 2012, 5:42 am

    Gay rights are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the actual legally recognized sovereign extent of Israel. Completely irrelevant to the continued occupation of the Palestinian people, the illegal settlements, the illegally acquired territory Israel claims, Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem and numerous other war crimes Israel has committed over the last 64 years.

    It’s irrelevant twaddle, perpetuated with only one thing in mind: to influence the US Senate in order to maintain the US Veto vote in the UNSC. Without which Israel would be facing the consequences of the law for once.

  8. chinese box
    October 1, 2012, 9:59 am

    In a choice between the ultra-militaristic apartheid state and any of the other countries listed on the mural, informed gays of conscience would choose “none of the above”.

    And I thought Birthright was supposed to be apolitical?

  9. chinese box
    October 1, 2012, 10:02 am

    off topic: I don’t want to steal anyone else’s thunder, but I hope Phil or one of the other writers can do a story on this article. link to nytimes.com

    • eljay
      October 1, 2012, 10:57 am

      >> I hope Phil or one of the other writers can do a story on this article. link to nytimes.com

      Why just remember “Mom” when you can “Remember the Holocaust!”™

      >> When the tattoo artist, a Russian immigrant, joked that he is “not so patriotic” to do it at a discount, Mr. Diamant quietly seethed.
      >> “This is the reason he sits here, this tattoo and what this number represents,” Mr. Diamant said. “We got the country because of these people.”

      Yes, Mr. Diamant, foreign nationals of the Jewish faith from around the world got a supremacist state in Palestine – and the Palestinians got f*cked over by people like you – because the Germans did nasty things to European Jews.

  10. urihoresh
    October 1, 2012, 4:18 pm

    This mural was featured in the NY Times back in May:

    link to cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com

  11. DICKERSON3870
    October 2, 2012, 4:45 am

    RE: “Palestinian culture being traditional doesn’t justify apartheid and human rights violations; political freedom for Gazans is bound to generate freedom in other realms; fundamentalist Christians and Jews are hardly tolerant of gays.” ~ Weiss

    A RELEVANT FILM: The Bubble (Ha Buah), 2006, UR, 117 minutes
    When a young Israeli named Noam (Ohad Knoller) falls for a handsome Palestinian (Yousef “Joe” Sweid) he meets while working at a checkpoint in Tel Aviv, he recruits his roommates Yelli (Alon Friedman) and Lulu (Daniela Virtzer) to help find a way for the two to stay together. Director Eytan Fox’s poignant film offers a glimpse at life inside the tumultuous borders of Israel, where everyday people are constantly surrounded by conflict. [NOTE: There is some gay sexual content in this film (similar to that in the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain). - J.L.D]
    Language: Hebrew (English subtitles)
    Netflix format: DVD
    • Netflix listing – link to dvd.netflix.com
    • Internet Movie Database – link to imdb.com
    Ha- Buah / The Bubble (2006) – Movie Trailer [VIDEO, 02:05] – link to youtube.com
    The Bubble (Ha-Buah הבועה) – Have No Fear [VIDEO, 07:44] – link to youtube.com
    ENTIRE FILM ON YouTube: The Bubble (Ha Buah) Legendado [VIDEO, 1:53:45] – link to youtube.com
    TO TRANSLATE THE PORTUGUESE SUBTITLES INTO ENGLISH: Left click on the red “CC” closed caption icon (bottom right) and then left click on “Translate Captions BETA”. In the box that appears, select “English – English” and then left click on “OK”.

    P.S. FROM IMDB: Plot Summary for The Bubble (2006)
    The movie follows a group of young friends in the city of Tel Aviv and is as much a love song to the city as it is an exploration of the claim that people in Tel Aviv are isolated from the rest of the country and the turmoil it’s going through. The movie looks at young people’s lives in Tel Aviv through the POVs of gays and straights, Jews and Arabs, men and women. It all begins when Noam, a young Israeli soldier, serves in the reserve forces and meets at a check point a Palestinian young man called Ashraf. Following an incident during which Noam misplaces his ID card at the check point, Ashraf shows up on the doorstep of the apartment that Noam shares with a gay man and a straight woman. How will the meeting affect all of their lives? Written by A.M.

    “The Bubble” is the story of a group of young people who live in Tel-Aviv, Israel. The movie follows the group’s difficulties of living in Israel’s reality. Their routine breaks when a young Palestinian man enters their lives. Written by A.T

Leave a Reply