Brazil Votes Against Mention of Hostages in WHO’s Yearly Health In Gaza Resolution
Since 1968, WHO members have passed yearly resolutions blaming Israel for poor Palestinian health conditions. This year, the document mentioned hostages, but Brazil and 43 other countries voted against it
Relations between Israel and Brazil have reached a new low, as the recent General Assembly of the World Health Organization (WHO) saw a contentious vote on a resolution condemning Israel’s actions against Palestinians.
The original resolution aimed to address the dire state of the Palestinian health system, and Israel requested amendments to include a call for the release of the hostages held by Hamas and a ban on the terrorist organization from using civilian health facilities. A total of 44 nations, including Brazil, tried to block the amendments proposed by Israel, but in the end, the new text was approved into the draft of the resolution.
According to the spokesperson of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Yosef Zilberman, “The text remains highly critical of Israel, even with the new mentions of the hostages and the misuse of civilian hospitals by Hamas. Since 1968, this annual resolution has had different degrees of anti-Israel sentiment, but this year, due to everything happening since October 7, we’re dealing with a dramatically different reality.”
Zilberman explained to The Media Line that, even taking into consideration the history of accusations, “it was a very blunt move to introduce such a text without mentioning the hostages or that Hamas is hiding in hospitals.”
The current draft of the resolution is yet to be voted on by the WHO’s General Assembly, as its proponents decided to withdraw the document and didn’t explain how they plan to continue. “We need to wait and see if this draft will move forward,” Zilberman said.
Algeria authored the original text of the WHO resolution, which was supported by Russia, Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Nicaragua, and China—countries that have historically criticized Israel. Meanwhile, Brazil, which was a balanced supporter of Israel and also cared about the creation of a Palestinian State, is realigning its diplomacy in favor of these other countries. Nevertheless, Israel sees the issue pragmatically and hopes to bring its relationship with Brazil back to its former positive tone.
“The issue here is the rhetoric and, in this case, the challenge of explaining to our friends what Israel is doing nowadays to defend itself after October 7, the most dreadful massacre against us since the dark times of 80 years ago,” said the official government representative.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Regardless of past and present disagreements, Zilberman summarized Israel’s approach toward the future of relations with Brazil: “The idea is not to escalate. We have much more to gain if we avoid such a path. Sometimes, in diplomacy, each side transmits signals in different ways to convey a message. We are in the middle of an interchange of messages between the two countries, and we hope that things will return to normal for mutual benefit,” he concluded.
Historically, relations between Israel and Brazil have been positive. Still, Brazil has its own “Left vs Right” debate, which has hijacked the subject of the war in Gaza and has brought the diplomatic relations between the two countries to an all-time low, symbolized by Brazil’s recent vote at the WHO.
The Media Line spoke to Dr. Karina Calandrin, the Academic Advisor at the Israel-Brazil Institute, about the significance of Brazil’s recent actions. “Brazil’s decision to vote against the inclusion of a mention of the hostages in Gaza in a WHO resolution is an action that can be interpreted in various ways,” she said.
Historically, Brazil has maintained a balanced position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supporting Palestinian rights while maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel. The vote against this specific mention of the hostages may reflect an effort to remain technical; however, it can be seen as unbalanced criticism of Israel.
The WHO resolutions generally focus on global health issues and not conflict resolution, which have specific other forums for their debate and resolution. Dr. Calandrin explained that “the inclusion of specific political issues, such as the situation of the hostages, can be seen by Brazil and other countries as an inappropriate politicization of platforms meant for technical and health cooperation. Historically, Brazil has maintained a balanced position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supporting Palestinian rights while maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel. The vote against this specific mention of the hostages may reflect an effort to remain technical; however, it can be seen as unbalanced criticism of Israel.”
This vote can also signal Brazil is changing its approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. “Brazil’s decision in this specific case may not necessarily indicate a general shift in foreign policy but rather a strategic response to a particularly complex and politicized issue in the international arena,” concluded Dr. Calandrin.
Dr. Monique Sochaczewski, a leading foreign policy scholar based in Rio de Janeiro and an Israel studies fellow at Brandeis University, believes there has been a shift in the Brazilian foreign policy towards Israel and Palestine, although no official statement has been made. “There is the perception that the Israeli government, led by a far-right coalition, is not making the necessary efforts for the release of the hostages. This context is evident from the recent actions of the parents of the kidnapped girls, such as releasing the harrowing video largely to draw attention.”
Worldwide, there is a belief, whether correct or not, that Netanyahu’s government isn’t doing enough to release the hostages and that he could have freed the hostages if he was willing to sacrifice himself politically. “Hence,” Sochaczewski said, “an attempt to include the mention of the hostages in the WHO’s resolution seems fake.”
If the Brazilian debate is strengthening the respective narratives of Left and Right, Israeli diplomacy seems to have accepted its fate and is focusing more on the right wing. “This Israeli willingness to be friends with the extreme right has often cost positive relations with moderate leaders,” Sochaczewski added. “In a recent event held by the Israeli ambassador in Brazil, Daniel Zohar Zonshine, there was supposed to be a showing of a video of the attacks of October 7 to a group of politicians from across the political spectrum, but it ended up being attended mainly by the Brazilian right-wing and former president Bolsonaro,” she said.
“I see this moment as a turning point, understanding that Brazilian foreign policy is often an extension of domestic policy. The Brazilian ambassador, called back from his station in the embassy in Tel Aviv, was already reassigned to another position in Geneva, making it clear that he isn’t returning to Israel, which further signals this diplomatic distancing,” concluded Dr. Sochaczewski.
