"to Normalize the Abnormal"- Political Rhetoric and the LGBT Community

In the last two decades, there has been a noticeable increase in the visibility of LGBT people in the public sphere, along with significant social changes in policies and legislation concerning lesbians, gays, transgender, and bisexual individuals in Israel. On the conservative side, right-wing governments, Arab cabinet members, and religious community leaders reveal and reinforce conservative stereotypes. They strongly oppose the LGBT community, further stigmatizing it and imposing social sanctions. This exacerbates confusion and pressure among young people engaged in processes of self-acceptance, self-disclosure, and identity formation.

The study's purpose study is to critically analyze and interpret how politicians and public figures promote a social agenda that opposes the LGBT community, shaping a public discourse that reinforces negative perceptions, restricts its freedoms, curtails its rights, and obstructs legislative efforts. The research draws on queer theory (Butler, 1993; 2007; Ziv, 2020), as well as discourse analysis, style, and rhetoric in a conservative social context (Getty & Levy, 2019).

The analysis of the findings reveals three main focal points in the extreme and blatant rhetorical discourse that the conservative side aggressively promotes to its audience: (1) Society: resistance to progressivism—opposition to LGBT rights, queer normalization, and societal change; (2) Religion: adherence to religious ideology; and (3) Family: the perceived threat to traditional family structures and values.Politicians and public figures address their audience directly and, through rhetoric of confrontation and conflict, employ metaphors and intertextuality to create an atmosphere of tension, discomfort, and fear of social, cultural, and religious transformations. They repeatedly emphasize the perceived dangers and uncertainties posed by external, foreign influences, which they claim threaten national and religious cohesion. By highlighting the contrast between the "good" and "old" that must be preserved and the new, enlightened, and seemingly liberal, they craft a narrative of protectionism and resistance to change.