William Douglas: The constitutional obligation of impartiality and the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran x Israel conflict |

The Brazilian government’s approach to the conflict between Israel and Iran and their “proxies”, Hamas and Hezbollah, is a cause for deep concern. It is necessary to notice and correct a series of violations of the Constitution. Obviously, what Brazilians want is peace and security for everyone. The question is whether Brazil will help or hinder the pursuit of these objectives.

After the unfortunate declaration that equated the war with the Holocaust (the Shoah), which has not yet been corrected, the lack of historical correction and exemption has been repeated. We will cite two more recent cases. The first, the statements by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mauro Vieira, in the article “Ceasefire and Palestine at the UN, urgent needs”, published in the newspaper “O Estado de São Paulo”, on 2/25/2024. The second, the bias perceived from the comparison between the MRE Notes in the face of Israel’s attack on the building attached to the Iranian Embassy in Syria and the Iranian attack on Israel. Israel’s one-off attack was the subject of words such as “(Brazil) condemns the air attack” and the second, on a much larger scale and which affected civilians, deserved the words “(Brazil) follows with grave concern, reports of sending drones and missiles.” The term “send”, very appropriate for letters, is a regrettable and revealing understatement.

It should be commonplace for authorities to understand the delicate moment and complexity intrinsic to the Middle East conflict. Equally important, the approach must be impartial and balanced, as required by the Brazilian Constitution, seeking fair solutions that promote peace and stability in the region. This, if it occurs, will place Brazil in a position of respect in the international community. If it does not occur, in addition to violating the Greater Law, it will diminish the credibility and respectability of our country.

It is disturbing and unacceptable to treat the situation with partiality, without taking into account the wishes of the vast majority of Brazilians or the geopolitical implications of the conflict – and, even less so, the failure to comply with the provisions of the Federal Constitution. This lack of neutrality and equality is revealed in seven points.

1. The Minister of Foreign Affairs visited Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the West Bank, which he considers “four of the indispensable protagonists of any future peace solution for the Middle East”. Now, just as the phrase “From Rio to the Sea” arbitrarily ignores and excludes Israel, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE) seems to forget that an indispensable protagonist was no longer visited. Do you imagine that Israel’s position should be ignored? This stance disregards a State that occupies the region and has almost 10 million people, 21% of which are Arab-Israelis.

2. In the article cited, Minister Mauro Vieira reports that some “consensual conclusions emerged naturally”. It is very easy to reach consensual conclusions when talking to only one side involved in a conflict. It would be the same as meeting only with Russia and Belarus or just seeking Ukraine’s opinion and claiming to have reached a consensus.

Likewise, there is no way to compare a surgical strike on a place where the Iranian military helped Hezbollah attack civilians and a massive attack on Israeli cities.

3. Among the “consensual conclusions” that emerged, naturally, is that Brazil has a secure place in the debate on Palestine. But the conclusion of the visited countries about our country comes more from Brazilian partiality in favor of them, than from an effective contribution to alleviating or reaching a formula that allows the conflict to end. One gets the impression that this position of “relevance” is sought more out of vanity and the need for reaffirmation than as a result of coherent analysis. If the real interest is to promote peace, Brazil will only be relevant if it obtains the trust of both sides, something evidently unfeasible at the moment, due to the absolute lack of neutrality demonstrated so far.

4. The MRE mentioned 6 thousand Palestinians of Brazilian origin living in the West Bank and 22 thousand Brazilians and descendants living in Lebanon, 4 thousand of them on the border with Israel. Great to know! However, the MRE failed to say how many Israelis of Brazilian origin live in Israel. It remains to be said how many Brazilians and their descendants are in the border area with Lebanon and were displaced because of Hezbollah missiles. It was still necessary to ask Iran and Hezbollah to stop attacking civilian targets in northern Israel. The counting and mention of the number of Brazilians in the West Bank and Lebanon combined with the silence about those who live in Israel is symbolic and revealing. Would it be a case of considering predilection, impartiality or even a failed act of anti-Semitism? These are urgent and necessary reflections.

The inequality of treatment is so evident that it would be advisable for the MRE to listen to the brilliant speech by the illustrious Minister Silvio Almeida, of Human Rights: “You exist and are valuable to us”. Does this apply to Brazilians of Israeli origin? Based on their behavior so far, Jewish Brazilians do not exist or do not matter, or matter less than other citizens.

5. In the same article, the minister celebrates Brazil’s leadership position and that the country is “very welcome”, but does not note that it has become persona non grata for the other side of the conflict. Who can obtain mediator status in this way? Brazil would have much more credibility to mediate the negotiations if it finally asked Iran, or Hamas, for the Red Cross to visit Brazilian Michel Nisenbaum, kidnapped by terrorists and held hostage in Gaza for six months. Or if he demanded an end to missile attacks and stabbings against civilians in Israel, if he apologized for the grotesque comparison between the situation on the strip and the extermination of 6 million Jews, or even if he convincingly lamented the loss of Brazilians Carla Stelzer, Ranani Glazer and Bruna Valeanu in the 7/10 terrorist attacks. After the recent Iranian attack on Israel, Hezbollah once again attacked civilians in the north of the country, causing casualties, and, once again, without demonstrations of repudiation of the MRE.

6. The article talks about civilians in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and the border with Lebanon, but maintains an embarrassing silence about the hostages, including civilians, women, children, babies and the elderly. Very rare sporadic and rhetorical mentions for these, and constant mentions for the Palestinian victims, say between the lines that “the hostages do not exist” or “are less valuable” for the MRE. In the case of the massive Iranian attack, an Israeli Bedouin girl was seriously injured. Is it valuable?

7. Finally, Brazilian diplomacy contradicts itself by defending a two-state solution, by asking for the recognition of Palestine by the UN and not simultaneously asking Arab countries to recognize Israel. This is, therefore, hypocrisy in one of the most glaring diplomatic failures of the Republic.

In 1979, Egypt made a peace agreement, resulting in the return of Sinai. For making this agreement, he was suspended from the Arab League, but peace between Egypt and Israel lasts to this day. In 1994, peace was made with Jordan. Now, we were close to a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia and this was one of the motivations for Hamas, supported by Iran, to promote 7/10. When will Brazil use its influence so that Iran stops disturbing the peace and stops attacking Israel? When will Brazil tell Iran that using Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to attack Jews is not right?

The inevitable conclusion is that Brazilian conduct violates:

e) the opinion of millions of Brazilian Christians, who have equal affection for Palestinians and Jews.

Note the express violation of article 19 of the Constitution, which establishes that “the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities are prohibited from creating distinctions between Brazilians or preferences between them”. Palestinian Brazilians are receiving different and privileged treatment in relation to to Jewish Brazilians. This preference for some over others affects equality, a basic principle of the Republic. We want, and the Constitution requires, that everyone be treated equally well.

Finally, it is also necessary to reflect on the theoretical existence of crimes of responsibility, as defined by Law no. 1,079. In its article 5, the law states that “committing an act of hostility against a foreign nation, exposing the Republic to the danger of war, or compromising its neutrality” and “concluding treaties, conventions or adjustments that compromise the dignity of the Nation”. Neutrality is a principle that cannot be abandoned, especially when one side systematically practices rape, kidnapping and terrorism.

The conversations and visits, that is, the “adjustments” made with only one side, the mentions and Notes in inexplicably different terms and frequency, the preferential treatment with Palestinian civilians and discriminatory treatment with Israeli civilians compromise the dignity of the nation and its credibility in the international scene. The entire work reveals hostility towards Israel and leniency towards terrorists and Iran, which finances them. This compromises the country’s neutrality and equal treatment among Brazilians, obligations imposed by the Constitution and the Responsible Crimes Law.

In short, there is a violation of articles 4 and 19 of the CF, and, in theory, of articles 3, 5 and 6 of Law no. 1,079, it is up to Law professors to point out the error and, for everyone, to hope that it is corrected.

Nelson Mandela, who inspires Brazilian leaders so much, should be remembered at this moment. He taught that “as a movement, we recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism, just as we recognize the legitimacy of Zionism as a Jewish nationalism. We insist on the right of the State of Israel to exist within secure borders, but with equal vigor we support the Palestinian right to national self-determination.”

Brazil’s actions on this matter must be guided by the Federal Constitution, whose rules are not optional. They exist and are valuable to us.