A rolling diplomatic crisis: How Brazil changed the rules of the game with Israel

The political roots of the crisis

During President Lula’s first term (2003–2010), Brazil succeeded in shaping an independent foreign policy, distancing itself from the traditional polarisation between West and East. This approach rested on four core principles: autonomy in political decision-making free from external pressure, the promotion of a multipolar world that curtails the hegemony of major powers, the defence of international law as the fundamental guarantor of balanced international relations, and the centrality of human rights in Brazil’s diplomatic orientation, enshrined in the 1988 Constitution.

With Lula’s return to power in 2023, these principles were revived with greater vigor in an international context marked by rising geopolitical tensions and declining trust in multilateral institutions. The war on Gaza, which erupted in October 2023, became the arena where these principles were put into practice. Yet this positioning clashed directly with Israel’s narrative, which sought to frame its military operations as legitimate self-defence, while Lula presented a counter-narrative describing them as grave violations of international law and a form of genocide. The current crisis, therefore, was not the result of circumstantial statements, but rather a structural outcome reflecting the contradiction between Brazil’s ambition to lead a justice-driven Global South and Israel’s insistence on safeguarding its international legitimacy through military power and Western support.

The outbreak of the crisis: Gaza at the core

The outbreak of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023 served as a decisive test for Brazilian foreign policy. President Lula issued sharp statements, describing Israel’s military operations in Gaza as genocide—a designation carrying significant legal and political weight under international law. The most dramatic escalation, however, came only a few months later during the African Union summit in Addis Ababa in February 2024, when Lula compared what was happening in Gaza to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews.

This comparison triggered an unprecedented diplomatic earthquake in Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as “disgusting and dangerous,” while then Foreign Minister Israel Katz went so far as to declare President Lula persona non grata in Israel.

Gradual escalation

Despite mounting pressure, Lula did not retreat from his position. On the contrary, he consolidated it as part of an ethical vision for an independent foreign policy. In June 2024, he reaffirmed that Israel’s actions in Gaza were not self-defence but rather “organised retaliation” against civilians. In June 2025, during his visit to Paris, Lula again raised the stakes, describing the war as “a programmed extermination carried out by a trained army against women and children.” These statements placed Brazil on a direct collision course with Israel, which saw this discourse as a growing threat to its narrative in international forums.

A turning point came on 29 July 2025, when Brazil announced its withdrawal from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance IHRA, which it had joined under right-wing, pro-Israel President Jair Bolsonaro only a few years earlier. The Brazilian government justified the withdrawal on the grounds that the legal and political obligations associated with IHRA membership compromised the autonomy of Brazilian foreign policy and restricted its ability to freely express positions on international issues, particularly the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

This move provoked anger, especially among global Jewish organisations, which viewed the withdrawal as undermining efforts to combat antisemitism and weakening the moral obligation to preserve the Holocaust memory. Israel, for its part, described the decision as a “hostile act,” considering it a fundamental shift in Brazil’s strategy toward Israel.

The peak: Diplomatic representation in crisis

On 26 August 2025, the crisis reached its peak when Brazil announced its refusal to accredit Israel’s nominated ambassador, Gali Dagan. This refusal was not a mere matter of protocol but rather a clear political message that bilateral relations had entered a phase of structural rupture extending beyond media statements to the very core of official diplomatic channels.

Israel responded by downgrading its diplomatic representation in Brazil to the level of chargé d’affaires, signaling that it no longer regarded Brazil as a reliable political partner but rather as a state adopting increasingly hostile policies since the outbreak of the Gaza war, transforming into a strategic challenge to Israel’s international narrative.

The escalation did not stop there. In a series of posts on the platform X, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz launched a direct attack on President Lula, accusing him of antisemitism and of siding with Iran and Hamas. He went further, publishing an AI-modified image showing Lula as a puppet in the hands of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This was a deliberate attempt to stigmatise Brazil as aligned with what Israel calls the “axis of evil,” signaling a desire to demonise Brazil’s leadership before international public opinion.

Brazil’s response was swift and firm. In an official statement on 26 August 2025, the Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) condemned Katz’s remarks and posts as “unacceptable insults and deliberate falsehoods” targeting Brazil and its president. The statement held Israel directly responsible for the bombing of the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Yunis, which killed twenty Palestinians, including five journalists, calling on Katz to assume political and moral responsibility for those crimes rather than attacking the leaders of other nations.

Thus, the crisis evolved from a dispute over political rhetoric into a comprehensive diplomatic rupture, managed through mutual accusations and insults, reflecting the collapse of trust and the closure of diplomatic horizons between the two sides.

Implications

For the Palestinians, Brazil’s position offered an opportunity for renewed international repositioning and a move from reactive stances to proactive diplomacy. Lula’s Holocaust comparison, moreover, generated unprecedented media and diplomatic momentum, reframing the Palestinian cause as a global human rights issue.

For Israel, the crisis entails the loss of an important regional partner like Brazil and the erosion of its influence in Latin America, further increasing its dependence on traditional Western alliances. Israel’s resort to personal insults and the downgrading of diplomatic ties revealed its limited ability to manage disputes with non-Western powers.

For Brazil, the crisis reflects the will of the Global South to reshape the rules of international legitimacy away from Western dominance. By linking the crisis to the Palestinian issue, Brazil positioned itself at the heart of the global contest over narratives of international law and human rights.

Conclusion

The diplomatic crisis between Brazil and Israel has gone beyond being a transient political dispute, becoming instead a marker of structural transformation in regional and international relations. By adhering to its principles of human rights and international law, Brazil underscores its role as an independent middle power in the Global South, while Israel perceives these positions as a direct threat to its narrative and legitimacy on the world stage.

The significance of this crisis lies in its ability to shift the Palestinian leadership from a position of reaction to one of initiative, while enabling Brazil to leverage its diplomatic, legal, and media tools to enhance its international and regional weight. At the same time, it imposes a new ethical and political framework on the international arena, balancing Palestinian rights with the imperative of regional stability.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.