The Limits of the State of Israel

Despite an intermittent state of war since its emergence in 1949, the limits of the basic defense perimeter in which Israelis can live safely do not extend beyond 20 km from the coastline, to the suburbs of Tel Aviv.

Beyond that, it is enemy territory where as many Palestinians live in the West Bank as there are Jews in the entire State of Israel.

Furthermore, from northern Syria to the borders of Morocco, there are already more than 200 million Arabs, passing through the Arabian Peninsula and Egypt.

A state that wishes to reclaim 2,000 years of its own history acts brutally without understanding that a country is not a military-industrial enterprise, but an experience rooted in its history and traditions that are intimately connected with its neighbors.

A country is not a unilateral action imposed on a territory, but a slow process that develops historical relationships with itself, and first and foremost with its neighbors.

Existing in the world represents to any country its own historical continuity, which does not allow to skip chapters to simply rescue events that originated it more than 2,000 years ago.

The reality of then, its history, of its neighborhood, is obviously no longer related to the present day.

Israel embarked on a unilateral attitude without understanding that its current relationships of existence are the result of recent history, and how this recent history has established conflicting links with its neighbors.

This unilateral attitude regarding the existence of the State of Israel that constantly tries to recover events from 2000 years ago is the main source of permanent conflicting relationship with its neighbors, failing to understand that the existence of a country, beyond its national security, is the result of a back-and-forth that over time legitimizes its existence and prepares its defenses.

Brazil itself today is the result not only of the existence of the former Portuguese Empire, but also of the various wars against foreign invasions that ultimately legitimized not only our independence, but defined the limits of our national security due to our location in the South Atlantic, and this has been going on for 500 years.

Israelis should not think that there are shortcuts in this process of defining not only national independence, but aldo the most basic limits of the defense perimeter in which a State exercises sovereignty and full security.

Since its founding in 1949, the State of Israel has still lacked legitimacy regarding its national independence, as well as having serious difficulties in defining the limits of the perimeter in which it exercises sovereignty and full security, and these issues are constantly being questioned by its neighbors, not exactly as a matter of international law, but rather as to the historical values and traditions through which Israel may or may not exercises national sovereignty in relation to its neighbors.

Again, in the case of Brazil, these relations have been legitimized over 500 years of joint evolution of Portuguese speakers in relation to the Spanish- and English-speaking Americas; which demonstrates the point we are trying to establish here, that the very idea of the limits in which a Nation-State exercises its sovereignty is defined jointly with its neighbors.

In the case of Brazil, these boundaries are the result of various treaties that attempted to resolve border disputes, even wars, which, over these 500 years, have defined the region over which we currently exercise full sovereignty.

However, this is not only not definitive, but is also in constant transition, both due to internal questioning and external threats.

The constitution of the State of Israel has ignored these complexities, attempting not only to impose itself on its neighbors through force, with very little legitimacy, but also, due to the difficulties encountered, is transferring these local problems as if they were a global problem, in which all of us in the international community are obliged to participate, ultimately interfering in the sovereignty of other countries, trying to create allies of dubious “legitimacy” through international relations.

The State of Israel exports its unresolved existential problems, covered up by unconditional American support that forces its allies to be complicit in this process, imposing through Jewish political lobbies immense political frauds of low representativeness, which is interfering in the internal politics and sovereignty of other countries.

Traditional Brazilian politicians of Jewish origin, who are part of ethnic minorities, create lobbies that end up electing politicians aligned with this Israeli steamroller mentality without realizing that this creates illegitimacy, insofar as it imposes politicians without national roots, and who, after being “elected” through political maneuvers, are severely questioned.

There are many examples, such as how Mr. Kassab lobby elected a native of Rio de Janeiro as governor of São Paulo without ever having lived in São Paulo; or how a modest provincial deputy could have received an exorbitant amount of 2 million votes, or how the elected governor of Rio Grande do Sul, who is openly homosexual, is constantly booed and threatened when he goes out in the street; or the famous case of the retired general from that same state “elected” to the Senate without ever having had solid electoral bases in Rio Grande.

The influence of these Jewish lobbies is more than clear, not only through Mr. Kassab, but also through the Governor of Amapá, who is also of Jewish origin.

The problem is not limited to Brazil, but extends to Argentina and Mexico when Jews are “elected,” becoming minorities that represent a majority through a completely different history and culture basis, when speaking the same language is not enough to give legitimacy to ethnic minorities of Jewish origin to govern such complex countries.

Within the United States itself, the problem of interference from Jewish lobbies is prominent in the Hollywood film industry, as well as in the Wall Street financial market, not to mention congress itself.

The Israelis are exporting their Middle Eastern problems, interfering in the internal affairs of other countries; these attitudes will have consequences, and do nothing good to help the constitution, stabilization, and consolidation of the State of Israel, which has embarked on a militaristic process to solve problems of political origin, generating a society that lives in a bunker, from the coast to Tel Aviv, which threatens everyone and is threatened by everyone.

By Prof. Ricardo Gomes Rodrigues

São Carlos, SP, February 6, 2026