Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil
By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | April 3, 2026
A Bahia state lawmaker has formally urged President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil, following a series of controversial incidents involving Israeli tourists in Bahia. The measure argues that individuals who took part in military operations in Gaza and Lebanon could be held accountable for acts described in the document as genocide.
The proposal, submitted by state representative Hilton Coelho of the Socialism and Liberty Party (Psol), calls on the federal government to adopt measures preventing individuals linked to alleged human rights violations from using Brazil as a tourist destination or refuge. The document characterises such acts as potential genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Coelho grounds the request in Brazil’s Federal Constitution, which prioritises human rights, peace, and the rejection of violence in international relations, as well as the Migration Law (No. 13.445/2017), which permits authorities to deny entry to foreigners suspected of serious violations.
The proposal outlines operational measures, including monitoring arrivals through the Federal Police to identify individuals who participated in military operations, immediate denial of entry where applicable, and international coordination to restrict cross-border movement of those under suspicion.
The initiative comes amid increasing controversy in Bahia, particularly in coastal destinations such as Itacaré and Morro de São Paulo, which have become popular among Israeli tourists, many of whom travel after completing mandatory military service. Local businesses have adapted to this demand, offering Hebrew-language services and tailored hospitality, making the segment economically relevant.
However, tensions have escalated. On 14th March, three Israelis were arrested during a protest in Itacaré against the presence of Israeli tourists. Footage from the scene showed clashes between demonstrators and police intervention. Authorities reported simultaneous opposing demonstrations, reflecting a divide within the local population.
Residents have also reported incidents involving alleged racism, aggression, and public disturbances attributed to some visitors. In parallel, there have been legal complaints filed in Brazil against Israeli individuals over alleged actions during the war in Gaza, with reports indicating that some left the country before investigations could advance.
Congressman Coelho argues that allowing entry to individuals linked to such allegations risks normalising human rights violations and contradicts Brazil’s foreign policy principles.
He is calling for coordinated action by the Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairs to enforce stricter entry controls.
The proposal will undergo review within Bahia’s Legislative Assembly before being forwarded to the federal government. The administration of President Lula has not yet issued an official response.
Critics of the proposal contend that the measure could be viewed as discriminatory and may create legal and diplomatic challenges for Brazil.
Simultaneously, several lawmakers and members of the Brazilian parliament, particularly from left-wing parties, have withdrawn their signatures from a bill seeking to define “antisemitism” in Brazil, in a significant political reversal that came only days after the proposal was introduced.
The withdrawals followed Palestinian criticism and warnings that the bill could be used to curb criticism of Israeli occupation policies.
According to documents, Bill No. 1424/2026 was submitted to the Brazilian Congress on 26th March 2026, by lawmaker Tabata Amaral and others under the title: “Definition of Antisemitism for the Purpose of Guiding National Public Policies.”
The bill defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward them.” It also states that manifestations of antisemitism “may target the State of Israel as a collectivity representative of the Jewish people,” while adding that “criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The proposal further links antisemitism to the crime of racism under Brazilian law and recommends using a list of examples issued by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, as guidance in interpreting the concept.
But the bill, which initially appeared to enjoy support from lawmakers across different party lines, quickly faced pushback inside Congress.
According to procedural texts, the withdrawal requests used direct language, including: “Requests the withdrawal of the signature from Bill No. 1424/2026, which defines antisemitism for the purpose of guiding national public policies.” One request stated: “I request the removal of my signature from Bill 1424/2026.”
The deputy Heloiza Helena said her name had been included among the signatories without her authorisation, describing the move as unacceptable. She also pointed to the sensitivity of the issue for Palestinians amid what she described as daily attacks, including the killing of children and the destruction of hospitals and schools.
While the deputy Ana Paula Lima said she removed her signature after a deeper assessment of the proposal, in order to avoid any possible restrictions on what she called “legitimate political debate.”
Brazilian mercenaries say they learned ‘guerrilla warfare’ in Ukraine
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 3, 2026
The proxy war being fought in Eastern Europe is beginning to produce direct side effects on public security in Brazil. A recent report by the television program Fantástico, aired by TV Globo, revealed that Brazilian citizens with no prior military experience traveled to fight in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia after being lured by misleading financial promises. Upon returning, they bring with them practical knowledge of irregular combat learned on the battlefield – knowledge that, in a country already marked by heavily armed criminal factions, can easily be absorbed by organized crime.
The case of Marcos Souto, a businessman from the state of Bahia who adopted the codename “Corvo” (“Crow”), is emblematic. Having never served in the Brazilian Armed Forces, he claims to have learned everything he knows about guerrilla warfare in Ukraine. His account highlights two central elements: the precarious recruitment of foreign fighters and the brutality of the operational environment. According to him, combatants were attracted by promises of a salary of “50,000” – a figure many interpreted as Brazilian reais, but which in practice corresponded to 50,000 hryvnias, a much smaller amount. Upon reaching the front lines, they encountered not only extreme combat conditions but also internal coercion. Souto reports that those who attempted to abandon their positions were detained and tortured.
This is not an isolated episode. Other Brazilians mentioned in the report describe hunger, logistical abandonment, and even clashes with Ukrainian soldiers during escape attempts. Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs records 19 Brazilians killed and 44 missing since the beginning of the war, although analysts generally agree that the real numbers likely amount to hundreds of Brazilian fatalities. Even so, four years after the start of the conflict, new mercenaries continue to enlist.
The central issue, however, is not merely humanitarian. The strategic concern lies in the return of these individuals to Brazilian territory. Unlike conventional conflicts, the war in Ukraine is characterized by the intensive use of irregular, modern warfare tactics: operations with drones, urban ambushes, use of improvised explosive devices, infrastructure sabotage, and decentralized coordination in small units. The government in Kiev has long since lost much of its regular operational capacity and is compelled to rely on guerrilla tactics to continue fighting. It has become a contemporary laboratory of unconventional warfare.
When individuals without formal military training acquire this type of practical knowledge in a real combat environment and return to Brazil, the risk of diffusion of these techniques is evident. The country already faces structural challenges with criminal organizations that exert territorial control in urban areas and dominate international drug and weapons trafficking routes. The introduction of tactics learned in an active war theater could raise the operational level of these factions.
Historically, Brazilian organized crime has demonstrated a capacity for rapid adaptation. Factions have incorporated restricted use weapons, encrypted communication technologies, and sophisticated money-laundering methods. Absorbing knowledge about drone warfare, construction of improvised explosive devices, or urban fortification techniques would not require large structures to implement. The presence of just a few trained individuals willing to share their experience would suffice.
There is also a relevant psychological component. Combatants return after prolonged exposure to extreme violence, often without any state monitoring or social reintegration. The combination of trauma, financial frustration, and contact networks established abroad may facilitate involvement in illicit activities.
The Ukrainian embassy in Brazil states that it does not formally recruit Brazilians and that those who enlist assume the same duties as Ukrainian citizens. However, the existence of intermediaries, vague financial promises, and the absence of monitoring mechanisms in Brazil reveal a regulatory gap. There is no clear policy for dealing with citizens who participate in foreign conflicts and return with irregular military training.
The phenomenon should not be treated as a media curiosity but as a matter of national security. Brazil is not formally involved in the conflict in Eurasia, yet it is beginning to absorb its indirect effects. The internationalization of combat experience and its possible internalization by criminal networks represent a risk vector that requires coordinated attention among intelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and diplomatic authorities.
Ignoring this dynamic may mean allowing techniques developed in one of the most intense conflicts of the present day to be reconfigured within Brazil’s urban context. A distant war ceases to be an external event and begins to produce concrete consequences for the country’s social structures and internal stability.
Davos, Mark Carney’s frankness, and the Euro-American rift
By Raphael Machado | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 29, 2026
One of the defining factors of the era beginning from the second half of the 20th century is the partnership between the USA and Europe – initially only Western Europe, eventually most of the old continent. But “partnership” is perhaps an imprecise term. The ideal term would probably be “occupation,” since, as defined by Lord Ismay, NATO was created to “keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down.”
In the meantime, Europeans grew accustomed to an automatic alignment with the USA, quite similar to that of Ibero-American countries during the same period, with the exception of the brief period when Charles de Gaulle distanced his country from NATO. Otherwise, the Atlantic Alliance gradually absorbed European countries.
The confusion is such that when speaking of “Western civilization,” most people think of Europe and the USA together, not only as expressions of the same civilization but as possessing identical fundamental and strategic interests. The Davos Forum or World Economic Forum can be thought of as the “celebration” of this civilizational alliance, an event bringing together political, economic, and societal leaders from around the world to discuss the priorities to be adopted in the coming years.
Historically, the USA and its representatives have always been prominent at the Davos Forum in all discussions, whether on environmental issues, the supposed need to censor the internet, or the social transformations considered necessary to deal with the 2020 pandemic crisis or future health crises. It was a space for consensus and planning among the North Atlantic elites.
However, Trump’s antagonistic stance towards the countries of the European Union inevitably significantly changed the atmosphere of Davos this time.
The pressures and demands for the cession of Greenland, including the threat of using military force, ultimately became the driving force of interactions among the elites. Naturally, at this moment, EU countries would not be capable of mounting significant military resistance to the USA in Greenland. But the increase in European military presence on the Danish-owned island seems to serve simply as the drawing of a red line.
And despite Mark Rutte rushing to try to find some sort of compromise with Trump on the Greenland issue, the reality is that Trump’s mere threat and pressure against his supposed allies was enough to leave scars. In other words, no matter how timid and cowardly current European leadership may be, to the point of yielding time and again, European distrust and ill-will towards the USA is still likely to increase.
Perhaps it is even necessary to look at other sectors besides the political summit. Among intellectuals, think tanks, journalists, and influencers, it seems easier to find tougher and more critical positions regarding the USA, as well as less willingness to reconcile, than among national political leaders.
“Anti-Americanism,” once a central plank for both nationalist and socialist parties in Europe but fallen into disuse after the Cold War, may end up becoming an important discursive topic again in this era of rising diverse populisms.
To a large extent, the speech by Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada, can be seen as a reasonable summary of the current geopolitical moment.
Throughout his speech in Davos, Carney emphasized that for decades, Canada and most Western countries remained aligned with the so-called “rules-based international order,” even considering it partly fictional; still, it was a useful and pleasant fiction. The other Western countries knew that these rules were not applied equally to all countries, and that stronger countries were practically exempt from most of their regulations. Everything in that order depended on who was the “accused” and who was the “accuser.” Different countries, engaged in the same actions, such as suppressing civilian protesters, for example, would receive different treatment depending on who their leaders and governments were: some would receive no more than a symbolic slap on the wrist, others would be bombed and have their heads of state executed in sham courts.
And these Western countries were satisfied as long as the bombed countries were African or Arab or, occasionally, some Slavic country like Serbia. This was because, for a few countries, that order allowed them to collect benefits in the form of capitalist extractivism.
Now, however, the international order has ended. It does not even survive as a farce – according to Carney himself. Faced with a series of crises, many countries began to perceive global integration more as an Achilles’ heel than as an advantage. Goods might have been cheaper, but what good is the theoretical availability of cheaper products when, in times of crisis, they become inaccessible, as during the health crisis. Or when sanctions simply make trade relations unviable for targeted countries.
For Carney, therefore, some countries have decided to transform themselves into fortresses, primarily concerned with ensuring their own energy, food, and military autonomy. And one of the basic consequences of this change is the decline of multilateral organizations. International courts, the WHO, the WTO, the World Bank, and various other bodies are increasingly ignored and disdained by regional powers – in the case of countries outside the “Atlantic axis,” because they consider the influence of the USA and its allies in these bodies too great; in the case of the USA, because, on the contrary, they consider that these bodies do not sufficiently serve US national interests.
This parallel and crosswise dissatisfaction is natural, to the extent that international institutions only ever served the USA and its hegemony insofar as that hegemony was the best tool for gradually constituting a “world government,” that “New World Order” proclaimed by George H. W. Bush.
The consequence of this process of collapse of globalist multilateralism is that international relations have come to be dominated by force. Most medium-power countries are not prepared to deal with this new and sudden reality. Moreover, it is naive to simply condemn the current situation and hope for a return to the “good old days” of a “rules-based” international order where the rules do not apply equally to everyone.
Carney also makes a suggestion for these medium-power countries to deal with the current international situation: strengthen bilateral relations with countries of similar mindset and orientation, building small coalitions of reasonably limited scope, aiming both to eliminate possible economic weaknesses and to enhance security mechanisms.
Naturally, Carney is specifically referring to strengthening Canada-EU relations, but, to some extent, we can also apply this kind of reflection to those counter-hegemonic or non-aligned countries that are not continental powers like Russia, China, and India. The case of Venezuela demonstrated that it is, in fact, necessary to be prepared to deal with US aggressiveness.
Countries like Brazil, despite its size and the importance given to it in international relations, lack nuclear weapons and sufficiently modern military forces to effectively protect itself against a focused and determined military action. Naturally, Brazil should seek to solve these deficiencies (and, indeed, the debate on “Brazilian nuclear weapons” has already begun in political, military, and social circles), but no significant change will be seen in the short term – which is why Brazil actually needs to develop other ways to guarantee its own security that do not depend on simple servility to the USA.
It would be fully in Brazil’s interests to lobby, within BRICS, for increasing the “security” dimension of the coalition. Still, we doubt that the current Brazilian administration has any interest in this, or even that it understands the need for such a radical transformation. In the absence of this initiative, at the very least, Brazil should seek to update its military, intelligence, and radar technology with the help of Russian-Chinese partnerships. But on a regional level, Brazil needs to strengthen its ties with other South American countries and begin, subtly, to try to attract them and remove them from the US orbit.
In short, the mere fact that we are discussing these needs, instead of naively betting that international forums created on Western initiative will be enough to defend us, already proves that we are already in a new and dangerous world.
EU free trade pact on hold as farmers revolt
RT | January 21, 2026
The European Parliament has voted to refer a trade agreement with the South American bloc Mercosur to the EU Court of Justice (CJEU). The move comes amid criticism of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for bypassing normal EU procedures and widespread protests from farmers across the bloc.
On Saturday, the EU signed a trade pact with Mercosur members Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. The agreement that was projected to create the world’s biggest free trade zone still requires approval before it can take effect.
On Wednesday, the EU Parliament voted 334 in favor to 324 against, with 11 abstentions, to ask the CJEU to determine whether the deal is compatible with the bloc’s rules. The move now significantly delays the pact that had been negotiated for 25 years, and could potentially derail final approval.
The vote took place against the backdrop of criticism of von der Leyen for handling the Mercosur deal in a non-transparent way, splitting it into separate agreements to bypass national parliaments and reduce the European Parliament’s role to a formal opinion.
The deal has also faced widespread resistance from the agricultural sector, with farmers across the bloc staging mass protests over concerns that cheap imports could undercut their livelihoods. The latest rally began on Tuesday outside the European Parliament in Strasbourg and drew support from some lawmakers, continued overnight, and ended on Wednesday.
Von der Leyen had pushed the deal, describing it as a “clear and deliberate choice,” highlighting that the EU opts for “fair trade over tariffs” and “a productive long-term partnership over isolation.” The pact came just six months after she signed an agreement with US President Donald Trump that imposed a 15% tariff on most EU exports. The EC president faced strong pushback over the US deal from current and former EU officials and heads of member states.
The EU is Mercosur’s second-largest trading partner, accounting for nearly 17% of the bloc’s total trade in 2024, at €111 billion.
Brazil’s Ambassador to the OAS Denounces US Military Action Against Venezuela as a Global Threat
teleSUR – January 6, 2026
During an address to the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), Benoni Belli, Brazil’s ambassador to the organization, described the United States’ military action against Venezuela as “a very serious attack against Venezuela’s sovereignty and a threat to the entire international community.”
The Brazilian diplomat warned that the bombings of Venezuelan territory and the kidnapping of its president represent an unacceptable violation of international law. “The current situation is grave and evokes times we thought were behind us, which are once again devastating Latin America and the Caribbean,” Belli stated.
Belli rejected the logic that “the ends justify the means,” arguing that such reasoning lacks legitimacy and allows the strongest powers to impose their will on sovereign nations. “These acts open the possibility that the strongest will define what is just or unjust, disregarding national sovereignty,” he emphasized.
The ambassador’s statement highlights the geopolitical implications of a unilateral military intervention, and warned that it undermines multilateralism and fosters a global order based on the law of the strongest.
The Rise of the Isaac Accords: How Israel is Redrawing South America’s Political Landscape
This is not neutral cooperation. It is political conditionality.
By Freddie Ponton | 21st Century Wire | December 15, 2025
Foreign influence in the Global South rarely arrives in uniform. It comes disguised as ethics, stability, and shared values, only revealing its true cost once the rules are set. In Latin America, such a transformation is now underway. A new architecture of alignment is being quietly assembled, presented as moral course correction but functioning as a geopolitical filter. At its core lie the Isaac Accords, a project deliberately modelled on the Abraham Accords. Where the latter normalised Israel’s position in the Middle East through elite deals brokered by Washington, the Isaac Accords aim to reorder Latin American politics by locking governments, economies, and security institutions into Israeli and U.S. strategic orbit.
The Accords are not simply about Israel’s image or diplomatic isolation. They operate as a filter of legitimacy: governments that align are embraced, financed, and promoted; those that resist are marginalised, sanctioned, or framed as moral outliers. Venezuela, long aligned with Palestine and the broader Axis of Non-Alignment, sits squarely in the crosshairs.
This article examines how the Isaac Accords function in practice, why figures such as Javier Milei and María Corina Machado have become central to their rollout, and what this strategy reveals about Israel’s ambitions in South America, not as a neutral partner, but as an active geopolitical actor working in tandem with U.S. power.
The Isaac Accords: A Latin American Reboot of the Abraham Model
The Isaac Accords did not emerge in a vacuum. They are consciously modelled on the Abraham Accords, which rebranded Israel’s regional integration in the Middle East as “peace” while bypassing Palestinian self-determination entirely. The lesson Israeli and U.S. policymakers appear to have drawn is simple: normalisation works best when imposed from above, through elite alignment, financial incentives, and security integration.
The Accords are administered through a U.S.-based nonprofit, American Friends of the Isaac Accords, and financially seeded through institutions closely linked to Israeli state and diaspora networks. Their stated aim is to counter antisemitism and hostility toward Israel. Their operational requirements, however, reveal a far broader ambition.
Countries seeking entry are expected to:
- Relocate embassies to Jerusalem, recognising Israeli sovereignty over a contested city
- Redesignate Hamas and Hezbollah in line with Israeli security doctrine
- Reverse voting patterns at the UN and the OAS, where Latin America has historically voted in favour of Palestinian rights
- Enter intelligence-sharing agreements targeting Chinese, Iranian, Cuban, Bolivian, and Venezuelan influence
- Open strategic sectors: water, agriculture, digital governance, security, to Israeli firms
Israel’s own diplomats have described the Isaac Accords as a way to pull “undecided” Latin American states into Israel’s orbit at a moment when European public opinion has become less reliable. In other words, the Global South is being repositioned as Israel’s strategic rear guard.
The role of Javier Milei in Argentina illustrates how this model operates. Milei has not merely improved relations with Israel; he has embraced it as an ideological reference point. He has pledged to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem, framed Israel as a civilisational ally, and positioned himself as the Isaac Accords’ flagship political figure.
Co-Founder and Chairman of The Genesis Prize Foundation Stan Polovets presents prize to 2025 Laureate Javier Milei on June 12 in Jerusalem. (Source: American Friends of Isaac Accords)
That role was formalised in 2025 when Milei became the Genesis Prize Laureate, an award frequently described as the “Jewish Nobel Prize.” The Genesis Prize is not politically neutral. It is explicitly awarded to figures who strengthen Israel’s global standing and its ties with the diaspora. Milei’s decision to donate the prize money directly back into the Isaac Accords ecosystem symbolised how moral recognition, political allegiance, and financing now operate as a single circuit.
This is alignment rewarded, visibly, materially, and publicly.
As reported by AP in August, the Isaac Accords are set to extend to Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and potentially El Salvador by 2026, as stated by the organizers, the American Friends of the Isaac Accords.
Recent New York Times reporting situates Brad Parscale’s involvement in the Honduran election within Numen, a Buenos Aires–based political consultancy he co-founded with Argentine strategist Fernando Cerimedo, highlighting how transnational firms operate beyond traditional regulatory scrutiny. Critics warn that Numen’s methods reflect a broader global political influence ecosystem that often draws on data-driven targeting, psychological profiling, and digital amplification techniques associated with Israeli-linked political technology and messaging firms that have operated in elections worldwide.
When combined with U.S. political endorsements, strategic pardons, and offshore consulting structures, this model raises serious concerns about how advanced data analytics and covert messaging infrastructures are used to shape voter behavior in vulnerable democracies, eroding electoral sovereignty while remaining largely insulated from accountability.
Venezuela, Palestine, and the Manufacturing of Illegitimacy
If the Isaac Accords require a moral antagonist, Venezuela fulfils that role perfectly.
Since Hugo Chávez severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2009, in response to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Venezuela has positioned itself as one of Palestine’s most consistent supporters in the Western Hemisphere. Chávez, and later Nicolás Maduro, framed Palestinian resistance not as terrorism but as an anti-colonial struggle, aligning Venezuela with much of the Global South rather than the Atlantic bloc.
Under the Isaac Accords’ logic, this position is intolerable.
Opposition to Israel is no longer treated as a political stance but as evidence of extremism or antisemitism. Zionism and Judaism are deliberately conflated, allowing criticism of Israeli state policy to be reframed as hatred. This narrative provides the moral justification for isolation, sanctions, and, potentially, regime change.
Maria Corina Machado in Venezuela, Thursday, July 25, 2024. (Source: AP – Matias Delacroix)
Into this context steps María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition figure most warmly received by Israeli and U.S. political networks. Machado’s alignment with Israel is not rhetorical or recent. In 2020, her party, Vente Venezuela, signed a formal inter-party cooperation agreement with Israel’s ruling Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu. The agreement committed both parties to shared political values, strategic cooperation, and ideological alignment.
This is a remarkable document. It ties a Venezuelan opposition movement directly to a foreign ruling party, well before any democratic transition, and signals how a post-Maduro Venezuela is expected to orient itself internationally.
DOCUMENT: Vente Venezuela signs cooperation agreement with Israel’s Likud party – Agreement signed by María Corina Machado and Eli Vered Hazan, representing Likud’s Foreign Relations Division (Source: Vente Venezuela)
Machado has since gone further, pledging to:
- Restore full diplomatic relations with Israel
- Move Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem
- Open Venezuela’s economy to privatisation and foreign investment
- Align Venezuela with Israel and the United States against Iran and regional leftist governments
Her narrative rests on a crucial claim: that Venezuela itself is not anti-Israel, only its government is. According to this framing, Venezuelans are inherently pro-Israel and pro-West, their “true” preferences suppressed by an illegitimate regime.
In a November interview with Israel Hayom, Machado asserted that “The Venezuelan people deeply admire Israel.”
This argument is politically useful and historically thin. Venezuelan solidarity with Palestine predates Maduro and reflects a wider Latin American tradition of identifying with colonised peoples. To erase that history is to deny Venezuelans their own political agency.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has repeatedly accused the Venezuelan government of fomenting “anti-Israel” and anti-Semitic rhetoric. Yet, a closer look tells a different story. Caracas’ statements are largely expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, combined with pointed criticism of Israeli state policies. By framing these positions as attacks on Jews or Israel itself, the ADL distorts the narrative, turning principled political stances into a perceived moral failing. This tactic underscores a broader pattern in which international organizations can paint Global South governments as rogue actors whenever they resist the gravitational pull of Israeli and U.S. influence, subtly laying the groundwork for diplomatic pressure or intervention.
DOCUMENT: Mini report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), formerly known as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, accuses Venezuela of fuelling an incendiary anti-Israel and anti-Semitic environment.(Source (ADL)
Security, Economics, and the Cost of Obedience
Beneath the moral language of the Isaac Accords lies a familiar architecture of control: security integration, economic restructuring, and ideological discipline.
Israel is a leading exporter of surveillance technologies, border systems, cyber-intelligence platforms, and urban security tools, many developed under conditions of occupation and internal repression. In South America, these systems are marketed as solutions to crime and narcotrafficking, but their real function is often political: expanding state surveillance capacity during periods of transition.
Security cooperation creates dependency. Once intelligence-sharing, training, and doctrine are integrated, political autonomy narrows. Policy divergence, particularly toward China, BRICS, or non-aligned partners, becomes risky.
The economic dimension is equally strategic. Israeli firms are deeply involved in water rights, desalination, agrotechnology, digital governance, and infrastructure, sectors that determine long-term sovereignty. These investments are typically tied to privatisation, deregulation, and long-term concessions, transferring control of strategic resources away from the public sphere.
Venezuela is the ultimate prize. A post-sanctions transition would open one of the world’s most resource-rich economies to restructuring. Machado’s commitment to rapid privatisation aligns seamlessly with this vision, raising an unavoidable question: who benefits from “democracy” when it arrives pre-packaged with foreign economic priorities?
This strategy is inseparable from U.S. power. The Trump administration’s framing of global politics as a permanent war on terror and narcotrafficking, a framing echoed by figures like Marco Rubio, has provided cover for sanctions, covert operations, and extrajudicial violence across the Caribbean and Pacific. Israel’s partnership reinforces this logic, supplying both technology and moral framing.
Conclusion: The Global South and the Right to Choose
The Isaac Accords are not simply about Israel’s diplomatic standing. They are about reordering South America’s political horizon at a moment when the Global South is rediscovering multipolarity.
Israel’s role in this process is active, strategic, and consequential. Through political patronage, economic leverage, security integration, and narrative control, it is shaping which governments are deemed legitimate and which are disposable.
For South America, and the wider Global South, the warning is familiar. When alignment is framed as morality, dissent becomes deviance. When sovereignty is conditional, development serves external interests. When history is rewritten, intervention soon follows.
Non-alignment was never about isolation. It was about the right to choose. That very right, today, is being quietly renegotiated, and the cost of refusing may soon become very clear.
Israel’s Elbit Systems reports record profits on the back of Gaza genocide
The Cradle | November 18, 2025
Israel’s leading defense technology company, Elbit Systems, reported a sharp rise in quarterly profit on 18 November after months of fueling the genocide in Gaza by supplying weapons, munitions, and surveillance systems, while simultaneously securing a wave of new European contracts.
The company posted $3.35 per diluted share excluding one-time items, up from $2.21 a year earlier, and reported $1.92 billion in revenue compared to $1.72 billion last year.
Its order backlog reached $25.2 billion, with the company saying 69 percent comes from outside Israel.
Elbit CEO Bezhalel Machlis said the performance reflected “the significant contracts the company has secured across Europe and from customers worldwide,” driven by expanding defense budgets.
Israel accounted for over 33 percent of revenue, with Elbit supplying munitions, drones, guided rockets, and reconnaissance systems during the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.
Sales to Europe, the world’s second-largest buyer of Israeli weapons, rose from $430 million to $536 million, comprising 28 percent of total revenue.
The company said 69 percent of its backlog comes from outside Israel and declared a quarterly dividend of $0.75 per share.
Separately, Elbit announced the largest contract in its history, a $2.3-billion deal with an undisclosed international buyer for weapons systems to be delivered over eight years.
The company did not reveal the customer or the type of systems being supplied, citing confidentiality.
Elbit Systems has also expanded its footprint across Europe, the Balkans, and the UK through a series of new agreements disclosed in recent months.
In Albania, the company is leading a government-to-government deal that includes ATMOS howitzers, SPEAR mortars, and Magni-X and Thor drones, and will assist the state-owned KAYO firm in establishing production lines and a new weapons plant.
Elbit deepened its presence in the country earlier this year through a flight-school agreement and is expected to support Albania’s goal of developing local drone manufacturing by 2027.
The firm has simultaneously continued to sign additional contracts worldwide, including Hermes 900 sales to Singapore and Brazil.
In the UK, Elbit is competing with Raytheon for a $2.7-billion Ministry of Defense contract that would make the company a “strategic partner” responsible for training 60,000 British troops annually.
The prospective agreement follows a separate $1.64-billion Elbit deal with Serbia and builds on the company’s existing role managing the Ministry of Defense’s Project Vulcan, a $75-million simulation-training program for tank crews.
Elbit subsidiaries in Britain have come under sustained protest, and Elbit’s central role in Israel’s war on Gaza has prompted renewed scrutiny, with the UN special rapporteur for Palestine noting that “for Israeli companies such as Elbit Systems … the ongoing genocide has been a profitable venture.”
Brazilian Judge Orders Global Deletion of X Posts in Civil Defamation Cases, Rejects Geoblocking as Insufficient
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025
A Brazilian judge’s order demanding that posts on X be erased not just within Brazil but across the entire globe has caused concerns over national courts asserting control over international online speech.
The ruling, handed down by Judge Jeferson Isidoro Mafra in Blumenau, Santa Catarina, orders the platform to delete specific content worldwide, regardless of whether it violates laws in other countries.
The platform’s Global Government Affairs team publicly criticized the decision, calling it a direct threat to global freedom of expression.
“This means that even if the content is not unlawful in other countries, the Brazilian judiciary believes it has the power to issue orders that extend beyond its own jurisdiction and reach the entire world,” the statement read.
X also pointed out that the ruling runs counter to international law, which restricts a nation’s legal reach to its own territory. “This contradicts a basic principle of international law that limits jurisdiction to national territory and puts global freedom of expression at risk,” the platform added.
The ruling stems from two lawsuits filed by Leonardo Wagenknecht Utech, a business administrator, who accused other users of insulting him on the platform.
One of the disputes began after Utech mocked a pro-amnesty demonstration related to the January 8 riots.
His sarcastic comment drew a harsh reply from another user, which Judge Mafra determined was offensive and unlawful.
The judge ordered the response removed and instructed X to provide the IP address of the user in question, an order the platform followed.
But the most controversial element wasn’t the content of the posts. It was the court’s insistence that the deletion must apply globally.
X argued that enforcing Brazilian laws beyond Brazil’s borders sets a dangerous precedent, but Judge Mafra dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, declaring that full removal was non-negotiable.
He also claimed that there was no issue of overreach, saying the court’s order “removes Brazilian interest and is based on Brazilian standards.”
In a second case brought by Utech, the pattern repeated. After he made a comment critical of Pope Leo XIV’s alleged political leanings, another user responded with an insult.
Once again, the judge ruled in Utech’s favor and again imposed a global takedown order.
Mafra maintained that such posts exceeded the bounds of lawful expression, asserting that “freedom of expression is not unlimited” and must conform to notions of “honor, good faith, good customs.”
The judge imposed financial penalties for noncompliance, including a daily fine of one thousand reais ($183) capped at twenty thousand.
Two separate injunctions have been granted so far, both ordering global deletion of user posts.
Isabella Cêpa Wins Landmark Free Speech Case After Brazil Sought 25-Year Sentence for “Misgendering”
Courts forced to choose between identity politics and the constitution
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 10, 2025
Isabella Cêpa, a Brazilian feminist and outspoken women’s rights advocate, has defeated a legal campaign that once threatened her with up to 25 years in prison.
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court issued a final, non-appealable ruling in her favor, concluding a high-profile case that began with a brief social media video and evolved into one of the most significant free speech battles in Brazil’s modern history.
After years of legal pressure and public silence from Brazilian institutions, Cêpa has not only escaped prosecution but has been granted full refugee protections in Europe.
The move marks the first time a Brazilian citizen has received asylum abroad for being persecuted over gender-critical beliefs. Her case has now become a legal precedent, one that free speech advocates say could help protect others facing similar repression.
The conflict began in 2020 when Erika Hilton, a politician who identifies as a woman, won a city council seat in São Paulo. The media widely described Hilton as “the most voted woman” in the city. This caught Cêpa’s attention and led to her making a video that she posted online.
“At the time I didn’t even know who this person was. I just saw a headline on an Instagram page celebrating that ‘the most voted woman in São Paulo is a transwoman,’” Cêpa said.
“Then, I shared a video with my followers saying I was disappointed to hear that the most voted-for woman in São Paulo, later found out that it was in the entire country, was a man.”
That single statement triggered a criminal complaint. Hilton reported her to police, which led to an investigation. In early 2022, authorities summoned Cêpa for questioning.
She was unaware of the extent of the charges until a major newspaper contacted her for comment.
It was only through that journalist that she learned prosecutors had charged her with five counts of “social racism,” a category invented by the Supreme Federal Court in 2019 to criminalize discrimination against the “LGBTQ community” under Brazil’s race-based hate crime laws.
Investigators reportedly combed through Cêpa’s social media history to gather posts that might be labeled “transphobic.” These were used to build a case portraying her as a repeat offender. The potential sentence added up to 25 years in prison.
While her legal fight in Brazil is now over, her victory has implications far beyond her personal safety. Cêpa’s successful asylum application may now serve as a blueprint for others whose gender-critical views place them at odds with increasingly aggressive speech laws.
In protest over Gaza, Brazil withdraws from International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
By Eman Abusidu | MEMO | July 30, 2025
The government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has formally withdrawn Brazil from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), intensifying diplomatic tensions with Israel and reigniting global debate over the boundaries between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policies. The decision, made on 18 July but only confirmed publicly on 24 July by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has drawn both praise and criticism at home and abroad, particularly in the context of Brazil’s recent support for genocide accusations against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Brazil had joined the IHRA in 2021 during the presidency of Jair Bolsonaro, holding observer status within the organisation. According to sources within Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Itamaraty), the accession was “hasty” and lacked sufficient public or institutional debate. These officials cited unmet obligations, such as financial contributions and participation in plenary sessions, as contributing factors in the decision to leave.
Brazil’s withdrawal from the IHRA comes on the heels of its decision to join South Africa in accusing Israel of genocide at the ICJ. Despite the timing, Brazilian officials insist the move is not directly linked to its formal entry into the ICJ lawsuit filed by South Africa against Israel on 23 July. However, the diplomatic and symbolic overlap is hard to ignore.
In its official statement, the Brazilian government condemned Israel’s conduct, citing a lack of accountability and accusing it of violating international norms.
“There is no longer room for moral ambiguity or political omission,” the Itamaraty statement read. “Impunity undermines international legality and compromises the credibility of the multilateral system.”
The government emphasised that its participation in international alliances must reflect Brazil’s constitutional values, particularly the defence of human rights and the self-determination of peoples.
Israel swiftly condemned Brazil’s withdrawal from the IHRA. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs labeled the move a “profound moral failure” and accused Brazil of abandoning the global consensus on fighting antisemitism. Fernando Lottenberg, the Commissioner for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism at the Organization of American States (OAS), also criticised the decision, calling it a “mistake.”
Domestically, the reaction was polarised. Senator Sergio Moro (União Brasil–PR) described the move as “yet another international embarrassment” by the Lula administration, accusing it of adopting a hostile stance toward the Jewish community.
The Palestinian Arab Federation of Brazil (Fepal) celebrated Brazil’s withdrawal from the IHRA. In a public statement released on July 25, Fepal described the move as a “necessary break” from what it characterised as the misuse of historical memory to justify “crimes against the Palestinian people.”
Fepal further urged the Brazilian government to take what it called a “final civilizing step”: the complete severance of diplomatic relations with Israel. According to the federation, Brazil’s IHRA membership served to “legitimise colonial, racist, and apartheid policies.” Its exit, they argue, symbolises a rejection of efforts to “criminalise anti-Zionism and silence reports of the genocide in Gaza.”
The organisation also criticized Bill 472/2025, authored by Representative Eduardo Pazuello (PL-RJ), which proposes adopting the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism. Fepal called it the “Zionist gag bill” and cited a legal opinion from the National Human Rights Council deeming the bill unconstitutional and a threat to free expression. According to Fepal, the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with hate speech and has been weaponised internationally to suppress students, activists, intellectuals, and even dissenting Jewish voices.
“Rejecting this definition is protecting democracy and political freedom,” the federation wrote.
Brazil’s withdrawal sends a strong signal that historical memory and contemporary international policy are now more intertwined—and more contested—than ever.
That signal became even clearer on Monday (28 July), when the Brazilian government announced a series of retaliatory diplomatic, commercial, and military measures against Israel in response to what it described as “genocide” in Gaza. The announcement came from Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira during a speech at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
Among the steps, Brazil will ban the export of defence equipment to Israel and launch investigations into imports from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The government framed these actions as part of its commitment to upholding international law and rejecting impunity.
“These are the legal measures that countries can take now,” Vieira said at the conference. “The credibility of the international system depends on this non-selective enforcement. What we need now is political will and effective action to monitor this conference.”
These developments occur against the backdrop of worsening diplomatic tensions between Brazil and Israel, which have been escalating since February 2024, when President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva compared Israel’s military actions in Gaza to the Holocaust. The controversial remark prompted Israel to declare Lula persona non grata. In May, Brazil recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv, and the position has remained vacant since. Furthermore, the Brazilian government has refused to approve the appointment of Israel’s proposed ambassador to Brasília, deepening the diplomatic standoff.
Brazil slams NATO’s Russia sanctions threats
RT | July 18, 2025
Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira has slammed comments by the head of NATO about potential secondary sanctions on BRICS nations who trade with Russia.
Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday declared that Brazil, India, and China would face “consequences” if they maintained business ties with Russia. He singled out oil and gas trade, and urged the countries’ leaders to call Russian President Vladimir Putin and push him to engage “serious[ly]” in Ukraine peace talks.
Brazil is a founding member of BRICS, formed in 2006 with Russia, India, and China. The economic bloc has since expanded to include South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, the UAE, and Indonesia. Last year, BRICS approved a new ‘partner country’ status in response to growing membership interest shown by more than 30 countries.
Speaking to CNN Brazil on Friday, Vieira dismissed Rutte’s comments as “totally absurd,” pointing out that NATO is a military bloc, not a trade body, and that Brazil is not a member.
“Brazil, like all other countries, handles commercial matters bilaterally or within the WTO framework. Therefore, these statements by Rutte are utterly unfounded and irrelevant,” Vieira said.
He also noted that the EU – many of whose members are part of NATO – is a significant buyer of Russian energy. Despite efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas, the bloc still purchases large quantities of Russian LNG, accounting for 17.5% of its imports in 2024, industry data shows.
Rutte’s warnings follow a similar threat from US President Donald Trump, who this week announced new military aid for Ukraine and threatened 100% tariffs on nations trading with Russia, unless a peace deal is reached within 50 days.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has criticized EU and NATO leaders for applying “improper pressure” on Trump to adopt a hardline stance on the conflict.
Moscow says it remains open to negotiations with Kiev but is still waiting for a response on when talks will resume. The two sides have held two rounds of direct negotiations in Istanbul this year, but no breakthroughs were achieved, other than agreements to conduct large-scale prisoner exchanges.
Brazilian Comedian Leo Lins Sentenced to Over Eight Years in Prison for Stand-Up Routine
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | June 5, 2025
A Brazilian comedian has been handed a prison sentence of over eight years for a stand-up routine, setting off a storm over the growing use of state power to penalize speech that challenges cultural taboos.
Leo Lins, known for his provocative style, was convicted by a federal court in São Paulo for allegedly promoting intolerance through jokes delivered during a live performance and later circulated widely online.
The show in question, titled Perturbador (“Perturber”), was posted to YouTube in 2022 and had reached more than three million views before it was taken down in 2023, following a judicial order prompted by a complaint from prosecutors.
In their case, officials claimed that the material denigrated a wide swath of Brazil’s population; including Jews, people with disabilities, the elderly, gay individuals, black citizens, indigenous groups, northeastern Brazilians, those living with HIV, evangelical Christians, and others.
Citing the scale of the video’s reach and the perceived harm of its content, the court framed the ruling as a defense of “human dignity,” arguing that the right to speak freely must yield when it allegedly infringes upon this principle.
The judgment labeled Lins’s comedy as “verbal violence” and claimed it contributes to a climate of social division. A financial penalty of 300,000 reais (around €54,000) was also imposed for what the court described as damage to the collective moral fabric.
Lins’s legal team swiftly denounced the sentence and announced plans to appeal. His lawyer issued a sharp rebuke of the court’s decision: “Watching a comedian receive the same punishment as someone convicted of drug trafficking, corruption, or even murder, all because of jokes told on stage, is deeply troubling.”
Among those speaking out against the verdict were fellow performers who warned that such actions risk eroding democratic freedoms under the guise of protecting sensibilities.
Featured Video
Bombing Iran Back Into the Stone Age /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Jim Jatras
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Occupied Mentality Syndrome
Saudi Arabia on the American chessboard – Part 2
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | April 19, 2016
Since the Korean War, but particularly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 until today, the United States has been steadily escalating its military presence in the Persian Gulf. Taking advantage of many colossal events of the past 36 years, [1] the hyper-empire has institutionalized its massive presence on land and sea, and expanded its objectives to include the unambiguous physical control of the area, as well as the clear understanding that local Arab governments should abide by them. The pretext is always the same: in “defense” of the national interests and security of the United States. From observing how the United States has been interacting with the governments of the region, and by judging from the size of its expeditionary force, we could reach a basic conclusion. The United States is occupying, de facto, the entire Arabian Peninsula. (Yemen, devastated by Saudi and American jets is yet to be conquered. Oman? Britain returned not as colonial ruler but as a soft occupying power.)
Under this articulation, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates are virtually occupied countries. If we compare this type of occupation to the mandate and protectorate regimes of the past, the results might be identical—the nations affected by it lose sovereignty. When Arab governments comply with the objectives of a foreign power that station military forces on their national milieu, then that power controls them in multiple ways including how they react to policy deliberations and what decisions they intend to take on specific issues. A good method to verify the concept of effective occupation is this: take notice of what the United States says and wants, and then compare it to what the gulf rulers do in response. (I shall discuss this detail at some point in the upcoming parts.)
If the presence of US forces or other means of political pressure are a factor in Saudi Arabia’s interventionist Arab wars, then we need to debate this issue. However, from the history of resistance to colonialism, we learnt: if a powerful state imposes its order on a nation by military means or other forms of coercion, and if this nation does not resist that imposition, then a mental subordination to the powerful state will ensue. This is especially true in the case of Saudi Arabia. One single event, 9/11, has transformed it from a US “ally” into an instant political hostage of the American Empire. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- BREAKING: US JET SHOT DOWN OVER IRAN /Lt Col Daniel Davis & Nima Alkhorshid
- Now everyone is dumping US government bonds
- Brazilian Congressman seeks to bar Israeli military personnel from entering Brazil
- Official reveals evidence of Arab states’ involvement in US-Israeli war on Iran
- His Majesty’s head-chopper: Syria’s MI6-backed president bows to King Charles
- Forced to backtrack: ‘Israel’ drops Hezbollah disarmament goal
- Britain’s Lebanon surveillance network: A digital map for war
- Bahrain faces scrutiny for opposition crackdown after detainee killed
- Hegseth’s Pentagon Purge Designed to Prevent a Mutiny: Karen Kwiatkowski
- Greek shipping firms secretly transporting oil, weapons to Israel
- If Americans Knew
- Israel Is Blocking Palestinians from Easter at Church Where Jesus Resurrected
- Plot to assassinate Palestinian activist follows harassment campaign promoted by Zionist groups and elected officials
- Prominent New York synagogue hosts presentation on why U.S. Jews should support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza
- Tapper vs. Piker: Is the CNN Anchor Auditioning for David Ellison?
- Shouldn’t Democrats Be Able to Condemn Genocide?
- Israel-US kill negotiators, destroy civilian structures, but Iran’s military capabilities still largely intact – Daily Update
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- 7 Ways Israel Is Turning Lebanon Into Gaza
- World’s Leading Football Bodies Under Fire Over Israel Policies
- Experts warn of possible use of nukes against Iran
- No Tricks Zone
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
Aletho News 