The Pugilism of Diplomacy

"When one doesn't want to, two don't fight" popular saying

Lula was disastrous in his comment when he mentioned Hitler and the Jewish people in the same sentence and compared them to the conflict in the Gaza Strip. He made a serious diplomatic error. In fact, when diplomacy, which exists to prevent or halt conflicts, is the cause of a crisis, it means that everything is wrong.

Here's an aside: why is it that every time there is a heated debate on a certain topic, comparisons with Hitler, the Holocaust, and the Nazis appear? Nothing compares to the horrors of war and the scourge of its victims. This is so common that in 1950, American political philosopher Leo Strauss coined the expression “Reductio ad Hitlerum,” which describes the logical fallacy of comparing something to Hitler or Nazism in order to discredit the opposing argument. American lawyer Mike Godwin created the maxim, dubbed "Godwin's Law," according to which "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis approaches 100%." For me, whenever this exaggerated comparison appears, I tend to distrust the original arguments (or lack thereof) of the person making the comparison.

Returning to the diplomatic crisis, the Israeli government's response was immediate but disproportionate. In an attempt to take advantage of Lula's blunder to improve his domestic and foreign political position, the Israeli prime minister retaliated (once again on a colossal scale) and returned the diplomatic error. The crisis between the leaders is now underway.

The international community ignored this diplomatic clash and did not even mention the episode, demonstrating the unnecessary and irrelevant nature of this exchange of barbs.

Brazil and Israel occupy very different positions in the international community. While Brazil has been trying to regain its importance, using the environmental agenda as a mainstay, Israel is experiencing internal crises and is in a constant state of alert and military tension. It was the target of an unprecedented terrorist attack, but it overreacted, killing tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians who had nothing to do with the terrorist acts. The international community already recognizes these excesses by the Israeli government and demands effective measures to end this horror.

On the domestic front, the situation is also quite different. The Lula administration's approval ratings have been gradually rising due to its economic agenda. The Israeli prime minister, who was already facing domestic problems before the October terrorist attacks, continues to be heavily criticized and is likely to emerge from this crisis in total disrepute.

Thus, Lula created an unnecessary negative agenda. He could have criticized the excesses of war without touching on the sensitive issue of Nazism, which is so sensitive and dear to the Jewish community. It was a blow below the belt. The Israeli prime minister returned the low blow by humiliating the Brazilian ambassador in public. It is consensus in diplomacy that criticism should be given behind closed doors.

It remains to be seen whether, in this diplomatic boxing match, the Brazilian government, which threw the first punch, will return the right cross it received, or whether it will go into a clinch and wait for time to pass and tempers to cool. The only certainty is that in this diplomatic boxing match, there are no winners or technical draws. Everyone loses.