Complex real life situation: Diplomacy

Article from Aljazeera, On dwarfs and rabbits in diplomacy

It is very interesting how a local conflict can grow into a major global crisis so quickly. This time, it didn’t happen because Brazil was involved in the incident. As we all know, Israel and Palestine are once again engaged in a conflict. As it is expected, countries such as the US must have an opinion on the matter. But when Brazil stepped up to express its opinion, it was immediately harassed by Israel. Brazil’s foreign minister criticized Israel’s actions against Gaza and received a rather harsh reply. Israel’s foreign minister called Brazil a ‘diplomatic dwarf,’ not taking the countries opinion into consideration. 

In Salem Nasser’s (the author of On dwarfs and rabbits in diplomacy) perspective, not only was Brazil right to criticize Israeli actions, but it was also in a position to reply Israel’s inconvenient answer. Nasser states that Brazil is too impartial to take a side, and he thinks Brazil’s foreign minister should express his opinions with more conviction, taking a stand. As the editorial recognizes, Brazil is too naïve concerning foreign affairs. But, meanwhile, to what extent is Brazil in a position to criticize Israel?

Brazil hasn’t been involved in any political/territorial/religious conflict in years. In a way, that makes the country’s argument less credible, since they do not have much experience in the matter. Also, Brazil has the benefit of being a secular state, not generating any religious conflicts. Jews believe that Israel is the Promised Land, therefore they have the divine right to live there. Within the Promised Land, there are also muslims (Gaza). That is territorial dispute that exists between the two groups, something Brazil does not have to deal with at all. On the other hand, there has to be something positive to a country that does not fight any wars. From a different stand point, Brazil’s argument can be seen as massively credible, since the way they relate to other countries has never caused any conflicts. 

Another major point in the article is how Israel reacted to the criticism. Nasser attacks Israel by saying that whoever disagrees with their policy is considered ‘irrelevant.’ Can Israel consider any arguments ‘irrelevant?’ Maybe. Some countries may not have such an intimate relation with the conflict to be in a position to criticize a country’s actions, but they certainly have the right to pick a side. Although Israel does have the right to consider a critique irrelevant, just as any other country, they should not attack a country based on its opinion. 

Brazil will never understand the Gaza crisis on the same extent as the Israelis or the Palestinians. Still, they are granted the right to comment, criticize or event take a side on the conflict. Meanwhile, Israel is also in a position to consider an argument irrelevant. The problem is not what a country thinks about a statement, but the way it reacts to it. Israel's reaction was certainly exaggerated, and they shouldn’t have said such things as a response. 

Looking back at the author’s argument, he is definitely right that Brazil should have responded to Israel, but yet he is also wrong. This is not black and white, it is gray. Brazil was entitled to respond to Israel, but it didn’t feel like it had to.  And Israel also had the right to attack Brazil's diplomacy. The only thing at stake is a country’s judgement on how to deal with each other, and that is a decision that should be made independently.