Colombian President Gustavo Petro has accused Israel of meddling in the recent presidential election, which saw Trump’s far-right candidate win by a very narrow margin—about 250,000 or 300,000 votes. Far from a rare occurrence, this is a recurring pattern in Latin America. What does Israel have to do with an election so far from its borders?
There are several answers that I consider reasonable; but before we introduce ourselves, we need to establish some historical and current context. The first involves the unstated but undeniable reason why Israel was established as a colonial power in Palestine. The latter concerns the consequences of Iran’s success in the war.
There are several motivations that culminated in the establishment of Israel. On the other side was the Zionist movement, led by Theodor Herzl and supported by wealthy banking families. This movement was inspired by European nationalism, which – as it formed European countries – was not willing to leave the Jewish area.
The answer to Europe’s “Jewish Question”—anxiety about the Jews was a very different problem in Western Europe—was to find a place for them outside of Europe and thus send their problem elsewhere. More so with “Christian and Jewish Values,” a term coined in the mid-20th century precisely to change that perception.
Palestine was an obvious and desirable choice for the Zionist movement. They even tried to buy land from Sultan Abdulhamid II of Osmanli (Ottoman), who then refused this request, saying that it was not his to sell. They promised to pay off the huge amount of Osmanli foreign debt, which was crippling the empire, so there was a huge price.
But Palestine was not the only choice. Other countries are being seriously considered. British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain offered Herzl the territory of present-day Kenya, which the Zionist movement ultimately rejected at a conference in 1905 after Herzl’s death. His first choice, even more than Palestine, was Argentina. In fact, Jewish immigrants arrived in Argentina in the early 1880s on land purchased by Baron Maurice de Hirsch, who founded the Jewish Colonial Association.
Argentina was not officially rejected, but it was diverted by the choice of Palestine and the combination of factors that made that choice possible—mainly the fall of the Osmanli regime and the Balfour Declaration made by the British in 1917.
After the fall of the Osmanlis, the Western colonial powers divided the Middle East in the famous Sykes-Picot agreement. The division was not only to control the colonies, but also to avoid the re-emergence of a united Muslim group.
Many Muslim countries were divided and fought between several opposing Muslim powers in the past. It was one of the reasons why the Crusaders were able to conquer Jerusalem and hold it until Salahuddin gathered his forces and united part of the Islamic world. It was also the reason why the Mongols were able to sweep them until they were blocked by the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt.
The next empire to re-establish unified Muslim rule, and the position of the Monarchy, were the Osmanlis. Their downfall can be seen as part of the ongoing historical efforts by Western powers, including Russia, to destroy the unity of Muslims as a political group. The establishment of Israel has been described by historians and politicians in the region as “a spear through the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.”
Edward Said argued, in The Palestinian Questionthat the European powers viewed the Jewish state in Palestine as a political imperative—a Western fortress to keep the Arab and Muslim worlds divided. Ilan Pappé, in The Genocide of Palestineit clearly posits the creation of Israel as a deliberate, brutal displacement of indigenous peoples, effectively confirming the Arab historical view that the state was an externalized trauma.
I oversimplify the historical narrative to make a point that is often overlooked. Many other factors played a role in the division and creation of nation states, including Arab nationalism, religious sectarianism, separatism, and control of resources—especially oil. However, if we accept the idea that part of the reason for the establishment of Israel through the colonies was an attempt to establish a border in the Middle East, interesting results emerge that help to explain the remote incident of Israel’s interference in Colombia and other Latin American countries.
The US became the heir of the British Empire and continued its “divide and conquer”—or “divide and rule”—policy. The US offered protection to the newly formed Gulf states to benefit from their resources and avoid any power gaining too much control, for example, when Saddam Hussein tried to invade Kuwait. At the same time, it maintained a policy of creating chaos in the region for the same purpose.
Israel, acting as the “fortress” of the West, greatly benefited from and promoted those goals. Its survival depends on a chaotic environment that makes any force unable to pose a credible threat. Israel created a situation where—thanks to US support—it had the power to act. Because of this, relations with the US have become so close that sometimes it is difficult to tell who is working for whose interests.
The success of Iran in the war launched against it by Israel and the challenges of the US in that situation because it shows the military decline of the American Empire and its ability to set a policy and protect its allies in the region-chief among them, Israel.
The outcome of a US and Israeli war on Iran will have long-lasting consequences. The US Arab partners will have to review the “oil and defense dollars” agreement. The role of the US in the region, after the crisis in Iraq and the defeat in Afghanistan and Iran, will decrease. The space left by it will have to be filled with a new security structure, which is already in place. This does not mean that a united Muslim group will emerge, but that the countries in the region will have to face different conditions. What role is left for Israel—a country that has made it its mission to make enemies and spread chaos, especially after the genocide in Gaza?
It is difficult to imagine or predict, but I do not believe that Israel in its current ethnostate form is sustainable in the long term. I don’t believe it will disappear either, but it will have to morph. The two-state solution for Palestine is a farce that no one in the region—or outside of it, for that matter—really believes. They may talk about it, but it’s not true today, if ever. It is now national policy, whoever is in power in Israel, to ensure that it will not happen.
Israel will have to unite. Not in the short or medium term—when perhaps we will see the peak of Israel’s nationalism and expansion—but in the long term. History shows that ethnostates are not sustainable. Arab neighbors will have to accept Israel’s population as part of the region’s population. But there is a significant part of the people of Israel who, even in the long run, would not accept such a situation.
Another option I am considering is the secession of a small, strong Zionist state. This is almost impossible (as that is the current Israel) but it is not possible if the majority of people, pushed by necessity and a weak situation, should start the path of integration. Another option is that these enthusiasts will try to find a new home.
This is where Latin America enters the equation. There have been rumors that Milei is negotiating with Netanyahu and the Zionists who are burning large tracts of Patagonia in Argentina for that purpose. The veracity of those claims is questionable, but not the support of Milei’s government and the promotion of Israel in the region through the Isaac Accords.
The short- and medium-term goals of the Isaac Accords are to blame Latin American countries for diplomatic assistance and support, military deployments, resources, and, perhaps, even for census purposes.
Israel’s agenda for Latin America is very much in line—as if it were to be thought of as “aligned” with the Trump administration in the Monroe Doctrine. The region has seen the governments of Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Honduras transform into right-wing Trump allies. Miley once again won a critical election, thanks, in part, to Trump’s endorsement and a $20 billion credit swap line. Peru may soon join the club. Venezuela is basically a protectorate of the US. And that’s in addition to countries that are already aligned with the US like El Salvador, Panama, or the Dominican Republic.
The election scandal in Honduras, dubbed “Hondurasgate,” exposed a deliberate effort by Israel, in collaboration with the US and right-wing governments in the region, to undermine left-wing governments. Throughout time, all incoming presidents have voiced their support for Israel even in the midst of ongoing genocide. Colombia’s president-elect, De La Espriella, has vowed to renew diplomatic ties with Israel and take them to “new levels.”
It is possible that as the US withdraws its imperial ambitions from “its hemisphere,” so will Israel. If so, then Israel’s meddling in Latin American politics may not just be a diplomatic and geopolitical move, but an exit strategy.
