Before all else, the secondary claims must be removed from the argument concerning the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade. First and foremost, a decision must be made that the fact that there are extreme ultra-Orthodox Jews who threaten violence and denigrate would-be marchers in the parade should not invalidate the rights of others to continue to object to the event. Just as the murder of Yitzhak Rabin should not nullify the claims of people who oppose the Oslo Accords, and just as the existence of Palestinian terror does not negate the validity of Palestinian claims to a state or human rights.

We must fight terror, Palestinian or ultra-Orthodox, while separately and thoroughly considering those population's demands. Moreover, if the liberal left is prepared to concede to Muslim terror - concerning such issues as Jews praying on the Temple Mount - and it remains firm only "in the face of religious Jews" - then the left, itself, will be inviting terror on the part of ultra-Orthodox Jews, "so that they will fear us, too."

Second, the "slippery slope" aspect of the argument ("If we give in now, who knows where this will all lead?") is highly problematic. It mainly serves the side that lacks a sufficiently substantive claim. And also, the slope tends to slip in both directions: Just as secular Jews fear that they will set precedents by making concessions, ultra-Orthodox Jews fear that permitting a gay parade in the heart of Jerusalem will give rise to sexual exhibitionism in the ultra-Orthodox bastion of Mea Shearim.

	Advertisement

Third, the argument does not focus on the right of homosexuals to live their lives as they see fit. It is reasonable to assume that most of the factions that oppose the parade would like to deny them this right. If that was really the crux of the argument, however, every humanist, religious or secular, would have had to fight it. That is not currently the subject at hand, and any attempt to grapple with this controversy by means of principled claims of the right for a person to maintain same-sex relations would be demagoguery.

The principle issue that has been put to the test is the character of the Israeli public domain: Is the liberal camp the only one with the right to determine the character of the public domain, or may other sectors also shape that character?

The liberal stance is prepared to recognize the rights of Orthodox Jews to live as they choose in their homes, synagogues and neighborhoods, but denies them the right to interfere in the general public domain that "belongs" only to liberals. That gives rise to repeated arguments regarding billboards, commerce on Shabbat and also the parade. That is a stand the religious public, particularly the national-religious one, cannot nor should accept in principle. Not only would such a viewpoint possibly preclude the participation of national-religious Jews in the general Israeli arena (we would later ask ourselves why they isolated themselves "like the ultra-Orthodox"): It also transforms the liberal stance that frequently opposes ultra-Orthodox rigidity into another form of zealous Orthodoxy.

Instead, the liberal approach must return to its humanist roots and maintain its focus on reality and real people rather than abstract principles: in other words, the determined battle for the rights of same-sex couples to maintain relationships, but not necessarily the inflexible demand to demonstrate that right in every street in Israel. The fact - emphasized by those who support the parade - that ultra-Orthodox Jews did not always oppose previous similar parades in Jerusalem, actually serves the ultra-Orthodox position. It proves that the provocative aspect of the parade, rather than the event itself, is the bone of contention.

The flap began when the gay and lesbian community failed to limit the event to an ordinary parade and requested that Jerusalem host the international WorldPride parade. That was perceived as a clear provocation. It is true that, in the past, compromise permitted local gay pride parades, but the inertia of the previous struggle remained.

Thus, what is important now is not necessarily cancellation of the parade, but some gesture from "the community" to indicate that it recognizes the special nature of Jerusalem, the nature of its public domain which differs from that of Tel Aviv, and the need to consider the feelings of those who oppose the event. For example, a public expression of limits that parade organizers will impose on themselves, or the replacement of the parade with a rally, or the relocation of the event to the government ministries complex.