The recent Debate on the State of the Region in Madrid has been the scene of an intense exchange of accusations and statements that have put the use of the rights of the LGTBIQ+ community in the context of the war in Gaza at the center of the debate. The President of the Community of Madrid, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, has generated controversy by using arguments that, for the Arcópoli association, constitute an inadmissible instrumentalization of the group to justify the Palestinian genocide. But, to what extent is it legitimate to link a war conflict with the situation of emotional-sexual diversity in other countries?
Homonationalism: A veil for violence?
During her speech, President Ayuso questioned the opposition about the lack of boycott of countries where homosexuality is persecuted, questioning their selectivity. “There are 60 countries, they have a long list to put up the banner, a very long list,”, he stated.
Arcópoli, an organization with a long history of defending LGTBIQ+ rights, has been forceful in its rejection. Although they recognize and have actively denounced the persecution suffered by the group in various parts of the world, they emphasize that this reality cannot become an excuse to legitimize violence and genocide elsewhere. Is the defense of LGTBIQ+ rights a valid argument to silence other human rights violations? The association calls the comparison between participation in international events and silence in the face of a massacre a “serious fallacy” and a “cheating comparison,” an equation that, in its opinion, “offends both the victims of LGTBI+ hatred and the Palestinian population that suffers violence.”
Tel Aviv vs. Gaza: An LGTBIQ+ paradise?
The controversy intensified when the President suggested that her interlocutors take a walk through Gaza and Tel Aviv to compare the situation of LGTBIQ+ people and women. “What I am clear about is that the Palestinian scarf is not feminism, that it is not LGTBI and I encourage you to walk a few days through Gaza and other days through Tel Aviv and tell me homosexuals, transsexuals and women how they have found themselves in one place and how they have found themselves in the other”, declared Ayuso.
Arcópoli’s response is emphatic: the statement ignores the harsh reality of Gaza, a territory under constant bombardment, where the civilian population is a victim of displacement and murder. The possibility of “walking freely” is, today, a chimera. Furthermore, presenting Tel Aviv as an oasis of freedom for the LGTBIQ+ community ignores the discrimination and violence that thousands of Palestinians – including members of the group – suffer there.
Arcópoli denounces what is known as pinkwashing, a strategy used by Israel to show partial progress in LGTBIQ+ rights and, thereby, try to hide its war crimes and its apartheid policy. “Using the lives of LGTBI+ people to support this narrative is a cruel manipulation that threatens our dignity and our rights,” says the association.
Human dignity as a priority: Are there limits to political instrumentalization?
The organization emphasizes that, although they are aware of the difficulties that LGTBIQ+ people go through globally, this reality can never be a justification for genocide. They remember that societies and cultures evolve, giving as an example the historical persecution of Christianity towards homosexual people and its subsequent evolution. If Christianity could change, why not other societies? The focus, according to Arcópoli, must always be the defense of universal human rights, and not the violent imposition of a State.
Luis Fernando Rosales, General Coordinator of Arcópoli, summarizes it clearly: “Appealing to the rights of LGTBI+ people to justify the death of thousands of Palestinian civilians, mostly boys and girls, is an obscene manipulation and a reflection of Ayuso’s contempt for our group. At Arcópoli we defend the life and dignity of all people: neither in Gaza, nor in Madrid, will our rights serve to justify genocides.”
This debate invites us to reflect on the responsibility of political representatives when using topics as sensitive as human rights and LGTBIQ+ diversity. Can we allow the defense of one group to be used to justify violence against another? Where do we draw the line between genuine concern and political instrumentalization?
Arcópoli reiterates its commitment to the defense of universal human rights, understanding that they are inseparable, and firmly denounces the use of the LGTBIQ+ collective as a political weapon in speeches that seek to whitewash war crimes. The question that remains in the air is: Are we citizens sufficiently alert to detect these manipulations and demand from our representatives a genuine commitment to the dignity of all people?
