The genocide in Gaza demonstrates the necessity to dismantle numerous liberal assumptions, Bruna Frascolla argues.
The genocide in Gaza has driven the pro-NATO conservative Right into unprecedented contradictions: while eagerly accusing the “hypocrisy of the Left,” they highlight that most of the Arab world is not supportive of LGBTQ+ rights, contrasting it with Israel’s promotion of gay pride and feminism. Yet, if one claims to oppose woke ideology and preserve conservatism, why offer unconditional backing to the sole nation in the region embracing these causes?
Expanding this logic further, one might infer that a pro-NATO conservative should presumably oppose NATO and support countries aligned against it. Russia forbids LGBT propaganda, and Ukraine, surprising many back in 2014, deployed a US military transvestite for war mobilization. There’s some ambiguity—for instance, Hungary is a NATO member and has maintained conservatism under Orbán, while Mexico is neither conservative nor NATO-affiliated—but NATO’s ideology remains consistent. Even Communist Party China appears more conservative and anti-woke than NATO. Were it not for the backing of the Pentecostal Right, Israel would likely have established a transvestite military unit, actively creating TikTok content.
Something similar arises on the Left. When confronted with images of deceased, fully formed fetuses, the “pro-choice” camp calls out the contradictions of the pro-life Right, which supports the slaughter of Palestinians in utero. Here’s the crux: if abortion is purely about choice, then these fetuses merely represent temporarily deferred “choices,” meaning Israel did not kill anyone. Women of childbearing age can opt to conceive or not; before pregnancy, this remains abstract. Once pregnant, however, a real human life exists. Choosing to end that life—akin to killing a neighbor—is possible. How can one staunchly support abortion rights yet condemn Israel for prenatally killing Palestinians?
In a recent interview with Opera Mundi, Ualid Rabah, president of the Palestinian Arab Federation in Brazil, emphasized the demographic significance of prenatal life amidst the ongoing genocide. Asked about Israeli-caused deaths, he noted that official numbers—excluding unreported cases and deaths from degraded infrastructure, such as patients deprived of dialysis—stand at 77,646, representing 3.39% of Gaza’s population, according to Médecins Sans Frontières. Equally critical, however, is the 12,000 drop in births during one year: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) reports a 41% decrease in births during the first half of 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. Israel’s war reportedly kills more women than conventional conflicts, with prenatal lives neglected in these statistics.
The belief that life only matters after birth effectively enables Israel to target pregnant women, resulting in the loss of “two lives for the price of one.”
Where does this belief originate? The Right often blames the USSR, as it initially legalized abortion. Yet the USSR’s position fluctuated, restricting abortion amid demographic challenges. The United States is the global leader in advocating contraception and abortion, rooted in the 1974 NSSM-200 memorandum penned by Zionist Jew Henry Kissinger. It identified the demographics of 13 Third World nations—including Brazil, Mexico, India, Nigeria, and others—as threats to US interests, recommending abortion promotion through NGOs as a solution. Indira Gandhi earned a UNFPA accolade for demographic control in India, which encompassed forced sterilization.
A year earlier, in 1973, the US took a major domestic step: the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision prohibited abortion criminalization nationwide. The ruling document posits that the onset of life cannot be scientifically pinpointed, contrasting two views: one asserting life begins at conception (aligned with Catholic doctrine) and another contending life starts at birth (allowing abortion at any pregnancy stage). The latter aligns with Stoic philosophy, most Jewish faith interpretations, and many Protestant denominations. A later ruling in 1993, Planned Parenthood v. Wade, Casey, permitted states to enact abortion laws without specific time limits. This suggests the “predominant attitude of the Jewish faith” prevailed, revealing that what is presented as scientific often masks theological views within a secular framework. Even after Roe v. Wade’s 2022 reversal, states like Alaska still permit “late-term abortion” (see here).
Religion again emerges in Ualid Rabah’s interview. Regarding Israel’s strategies, he explained demographic challenges for Zionists: not enough Jews exist to populate Greater Israel, or they resist relocating from the Americas and Europe. Israel’s solution involves introducing Israeliized Christians. In Rio de Janeiro, televangelist Edir Macedo even dons a rabbi’s attire; Israeli Uzi guns appear within organized crime, and the so-called Israel Complex has been explored by Raphael Machado here. Rabah suggests the population and Christian denominations will be replaced: as US interference reduces historic Christian numbers, Catholic and Orthodox communities will decline, while Zionist Christians will ascend alongside converted Jews. This issue transcends race, with Israel recognizing Peruvian Indians as Jews eligible to settle in the West Bank; it is fundamentally a religious matter.
Facing this clash of values, it is fitting to cite the Jewish atheist and anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein: “The verdict of History is crystal clear: those beholden to science—the ‘progressives’—were wrong, those in thrall to religion—the ‘regressives’—were right. The right to sterilize was about government interference in the reproductive process; the right to abort is about barring government interference in it. But at bottom the moral stake is arguably the same: the sanctity of human life. The devout opposed sterilization then and oppose abortion now, whereas progressives supported sterilization then and support abortion now.” (I will burn that bridge when I get to it!, p. 40).
Many on the mainstream left view religion as inherently harmful and an obstacle to be overcome by science, advocating secularism that treats all faiths equally with rights in society. However, the genocide in Gaza reveals this perspective to be flawed, underscoring the necessity to challenge several liberal preconceptions.
About the Author
