'Queers for Palestine' is not a coherent movement but a contradiction!

This is fundamentally a political conflict about land, sovereignty, and national identity. Injecting LGBT advocacy into this debate is not only irrelevant but also a form of virtue signaling. It shifts attention away from the actual issues at hand. The focus should remain on resolving the political conflict, not conflating it with social justice causes that have no bearing on the core dispute.

Palestinian territories, particularly Gaza, are governed by laws and social norms that severely persecute LGBT individuals.

'Queers for Palestine' activists conveniently ignore or minimize this reality, choosing to focus solely on Israeli policies. This selective advocacy exposes a double standard: they demand accountability from Israel for human rights violations but excuse or overlook systemic homophobia in Palestinian society. This is not solidarity, it’s ideological cherry-picking.

here are some of their arguments :

LGBT rights are secondary to Palestinian liberation.

This argument effectively tells queer Palestinians that their rights are not a priority, that they must wait for freedom from occupation before being treated with dignity. However, history shows that liberation movements don’t always result in equality for marginalized groups. For example, many post-colonial societies continued to uphold patriarchal or oppressive structures after gaining independence.

Queer Palestinians don’t just suffer from Israeli policies; they’re also oppressed by their own society. Ignoring this reality undermines the universality of queer advocacy. If “Queers for Palestine” claim to fight for human rights, they should not selectively postpone the rights of LGBT individuals to align with their political priorities.

Israel’s occupation exacerbates homophobia in Palestine.

While the occupation undoubtedly impacts many aspects of Palestinian life, it’s misleading to blame Israeli policies for homophobia in Palestinian society. Homophobia in the region is rooted in cultural, religious, and social norms that predate the conflict. For example, laws criminalizing homosexuality in Gaza are derived from Sharia law, not Israeli military law. Similarly, societal attitudes toward LGBT people are shaped by deeply ingrained traditions, not external political factors.

By blaming homophobia entirely on the occupation, this argument deflects responsibility from Palestinian leaders and society to address these issues internally. It also risks perpetuating the false idea that queer Palestinians’ oppression will automatically disappear once the occupation ends—a highly unlikely outcome given the existing legal and cultural framework.

Solidarity is about resisting colonialism, not endorsing internal policies.

Solidarity should be based on shared values and principles. If “Queers for Palestine” activists claim to support human rights, they cannot turn a blind eye to the oppression of LGBT people within Palestinian society. True solidarity would involve advocating for the rights of all marginalized groups, including queer Palestinians.

Moreover, ignoring Palestinian homophobia undermines the credibility of the movement. It sends a message that LGBT rights are negotiable when they’re inconvenient for a broader political goal. This is not principled advocacy, it’s selective outrage. Queer Palestinians are part of the Palestinian population; their struggles cannot simply be dismissed as internal issues unrelated to the broader fight for freedom.

Israel’s LGBTQ+ record is just pinkwashing.

Even if Israel’s promotion of its LGBT record is strategic, it doesn’t change the fact that Israel remains one of the most LGBT friendly countries in the Middle East. Queer people in Israel enjoy legal protections, marriage recognition, adoption rights, and open cultural acceptance, rights that are almost unheard of in neighboring states or Palestinian territories.

Accusing Israel of “pinkwashing” while ignoring Palestinian homophobia is a glaring double standard. If the goal is to advocate for queer rights, why dismiss Israel’s successes while excusing the failures of Palestinian society? This critique also fails to acknowledge the agency of queer Israelis who have fought for these rights and continue to push for equality.

Lastly, the claim of pinkwashing doesn’t help queer Palestinian, it only distracts from their struggles. If “Queers for Palestine” care about LGBT rights, they should focus on tangible ways to support queer Palestinians rather than using Israel’s policies as a convenient scapegoat