As if Lula’s conjectures about the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which put Brazil in the shameful position of the opponent of the only democracy in the Middle East, were not enough, it is now Itamaraty’s own technical staff who contribute to the country’s repertoire of unjustified statements in connection with the problems in the Gaza Strip.
The Carioca Frederico Salomao Duque Estrada Meyer, 70 years old, was recognized by the Senate as Brazilian ambassador to Israel in May this year. An experienced diplomat, he began his career in 1978 and served as Brazil’s ambassador to Kazakhstan and Morocco. He served as Consul General of Brazil in Guangzhou, China, and was spokesman for Itamaraty from 2015 to 2016. He has also worked in Baghdad, Moscow, Geneva, Georgetown, Havana and New York (UN) at various stages of his career.
Even with so much career, Meyer said in an interview with the UOL portal on Friday the 24th that he did not understand why the terrorist group Hamas began releasing hostages. The ambassador said:
“Purely personal opinion: I still don’t understand Hamas’ position. Because these hostages are a bargaining chip there. I cannot understand what interest Hamas has in releasing these kidnapped people. After all, what will be the subject of negotiations after these kidnapped people are handed over?”
“To speak personally again: This will give Israel the freedom to take even stronger action in Gaza. Because one of the things holding back Israel’s actions is the fear that you might strike the hostages. Would Israel be free to attack as much as it wants since there are no more hostages? I don’t know.”
The statements are surprising because they give the impression of moral legitimation of the kidnappings, which caused a flood of criticism on social media, and because Hamas’ position, even if unjustifiable, is very easy to understand:
Meyer could have at least read the Hamas leaders’ own statements, Yahya Sinwarin October:
“We are ready to immediately conclude an exchange to release all prisoners in the prisons of the Zionist enemy in exchange for all hostages in the hands of the resistance.”
In an interview with Deutsche Welle, a German public communications company equivalent to the BBC for the British, Meyer responded this Monday the 27th to the official Brazilian position in the conflict with platitudes of the Miss Universe contestant:
“We are against it. We are for peaceis our position. We are for negotiations. We are for the ceasefire. For the benefit of both states. That is our position. We have never changed our position.”
Since Israel is clearly opposed to the conflict and is responding to a terrorist attack that killed more than 1,200 innocent people and which has offered recognition of a Palestinian state several times in the past in return for the Arab community’s recognition of Israel the theory is that Brazil’s position would be exactly the same as in the country Benjamin Netanyahubut that’s where the similarities end.
PT governments have always had a hostile attitude towards Israel and aligned themselves with the international far left, and this time was no different. In 2014, in another conflict between Israel and Hamas, the PT government of Dilma Rousseff called the Brazilian diplomat in Tel Aviv for clarification an attitude of retaliation by one country against another. In response, Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman at the time said: Yigal Palmorcalled Brazil “diplomatic dwarf” in an interview with the Jerusalem Post.
By the end of November, the deaths of three Brazilians at the hands of Hamas terrorists in the October 7 attacks were confirmed: Ranani Glazer, 23, Karla Stelzer, 42, and Bruna Veleanu, 24. Brazil was directly affected by Hamas terrorism, innocent Brazilians were killed brutally murdered at a music festival, but the lack of empathy for the victims and their families is obvious.
Brazil has hundreds of ambassadors, but in critical situations like this one in the Middle East, we have proven that we can do nothing more than rhetorical messages to use free diplomacy to score another goal against the country’s integration into the international community.