By Eitan Levi
When states construct foreign policy around the personal charisma and political survival of individual foreign leaders, they build their national security on shifting sand. On the eve of Israel’s October 27 national election, that exact vulnerability has been dramatically exposed on two continents. Over a single weekend, political figures heavily cultivated by Jerusalem as indispensable personal allies suffered decisive electoral defeats. In Brazil, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva secured reelection by defeating Senator Flávio Bolsonaro. In Serbia, President Aleksandar Vučić conceded defeat in parliamentary elections following nearly two years of widespread anti government protests led by a student backed movement.
For Israeli strategists, these dual outcomes represent a sobering reality check. For years, Jerusalem’s foreign relations have relied heavily on personal, ideological bonds with individual strongmen rather than institutional, state to state diplomatic foundations. When those leaders lose power, the strategic architecture built around them collapses overnight.
In Latin America, Flávio Bolsonaro’s defeat represents a major missed diplomatic opportunity. The younger Bolsonaro had campaigned on explicit promises to reverse Lula’s hostile stance, fully restore severed diplomatic representation, deepen defense ties, and relocate the Brazilian Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Following Lula’s previous remarks comparing Israel’s military campaign in Gaza to the Holocaust, a statement that led Israel to declare the Brazilian president persona non grata, bilateral relations hit a historic nadir. Both nations currently operate without ambassadors in their respective capitals.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had openly backed Flávio Bolsonaro, publicly congratulating him after the first round of voting. With Lula’s victory, any prospect of a rapid diplomatic reset has vanished. Israel remains locked out of meaningful engagement with Latin America’s largest economy and most influential international voice.
While the outcome in Brasilia closes a diplomatic door, the political turnover in Belgrade poses an immediate threat to Israel’s national defense interests. Under Vučić, Serbia transformed into a vital defense partner for Israel, particularly during the multi front conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. As several Western European nations instituted informal or explicit arms embargoes against Jerusalem, Serbia served as a reliable military lifeline. Serbian defense factories dramatically expanded munitions shipments to Israel, utilizing an extensive airlift to replenish depleted stocks of artillery shells, missiles, and heavy explosives.
That defense partnership reached a major milestone in September 2026, when Serbia inaugurated a joint manufacturing facility to assemble Israeli designed drones in partnership with Elbit Systems. The plant represented a transition from routine weapons purchasing toward deep military industrial integration.
Now, with Vučić forced out by a student led reform movement, the continuity of these defense contracts is uncertain. The incoming political movement has not explicitly threatened to cancel existing defense agreements. However, as the new Serbian leadership seeks closer integration with the European Union, a trajectory explicitly welcomed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Belgrade will face mounting pressure to align its foreign policy with broader European positions regarding the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Relying on an individual leader to secure vital military supply chains has left Israel’s defense apparatus dangerously exposed.
This diplomatic double blow quickly spilled into Israel’s domestic campaign debate ahead of Tuesday’s vote. Opposition leader Yair Lapid seized on the election results to launch a direct assault on Netanyahu’s foreign policy record. Lapid argued that two of Netanyahu’s closest international partners lost their elections due to high voter turnout and national pride from citizens refusing foreign dictates. While Lapid later clarified that he did not celebrate Lula’s victory, he maintained that personal association with Netanyahu has become a global political liability.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar fired back aggressively, accusing Lapid of turning his back on proven friends of Israel for cheap political points. Sa’ar labeled Lapid’s rhetoric “contemptible,” arguing that abandoning allies in Serbia and Brazil damages Israel’s long term standing among sympathetic political movements abroad.
This fierce political exchange highlights a fundamental flaw in how Israel conducts its global affairs. Building international strategy around personal chemistry with ideological soulmates is a high risk, low reward gamble. International relations cannot function as a personal patronage network. When a foreign leader’s tenure ends, the bilateral relationship should not expire alongside it.
As Israeli voters step behind the curtain on October 27, the lesson from Brasilia and Belgrade is clear. True statecraft requires building durable, bipartisan, and institutional alliances that endure across changing administrations. Relying on personal relationships with foreign leaders may yield short term headlines, but it leaves the nation’s strategic, diplomatic, and defense interests vulnerable to the unpredictable cycles of global democracy.
About the Author
Eitan Levi is a Security and Geopolitical Analyst with expertise in Israeli defence strategy, Iran’s regional operations, Middle Eastern power rivalries, and Israel’s security partnerships.