Just yesterday, Bolivia announced that it would ease the visa requirements for Israeli travelers, a symbolic but unequivocal step that is the first practical step in President Rodrigo Paz’s intention to “open a new path” with Israel. For a country that has severed diplomatic relations with Israel twice in the last 15 years, the last of which during the war at the end of 2023, this is a much broader move than the issue of entering the country. He testifies that Bolivia may be preparing for a renewed alignment in a region where alliances, ideological commitments and long-standing narratives regarding Israel and Palestine are in the midst of a fundamental change.
Paz’s surprise election in October 2025 was a turning point in itself. After almost two decades of left-wing rule led by the MAS movement, its Christian-democratic and pro-free market leadership seeks to “bring Bolivia back to the world.” In practice, this translated into moving away from the ideological foreign approach that characterized his predecessors, who saw the position towards Israel as an integral part of the country’s anti-imperialist identity. Under Eva Morales and then Luis Aresa, Bolivia emerged as one of the most determined supporters of the Palestinians in the region: severing relations with Israel in 2009, again in 2023, accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza, and even promoting legal proceedings against it at the International Court of Justice.
Now Paz is obliged to sever this thread, carefully, restrained, but consistently. The ease of entry for Israelis is a small step, but of great symbolic significance. Bolivia is ready to reexamine its place in a region where Israel’s position is being reshaped against the backdrop of international outrage following the war and the rise of new political forces across the continent.
The end of the unilateral era?
To understand the meaning of the Bolivian move, it must be placed within the wider continental context: an almost complete Latin consensus of harsh criticism against Israel in the last two years. Since the outbreak of the war, a huge wave of condemnation has swept the region, sometimes crossing historical political lines. Colombian President Gustavo Petro became the most prominent figure, when he led his country to sever relations with Israel in 2024, freezing Israeli assets, stopping coal exports, and even joining South Africa’s move against Israel in The Hague. Petro compared Israel’s actions to Nazism, stated that “genocide is taking place in Gaza before the eyes of the world”, and became a leading voice in the global discourse.
The president of Chile, Gabriel Borich, the president of Mexico at the time, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and the president of Brazil, Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, also joined the wave of criticism, sometimes in formulations more closely associated with Arab and Muslim countries. Even the governments of Peru and the previous government in Ecuador strongly condemned Israel, and some used the term “genocide”. Thus, in a short period of time, Israel turned from a strategic partner to almost an outcast in extensive political spaces on the continent.
However, this situation did not arise out of nowhere. Latin America’s historical support for the Palestinians rests on deep roots: huge communities of Arab origin, in Brazil alone there are approximately 16 million citizens of Arab origin, as well as a long-standing memory of Israeli arms deals with right-wing dictatorships during the 20th century. The “pink tide” wave (a wave of the rise of left-wing governments in Latin America, identified with anti-imperialist policies and with traditional support for the Palestinians), the rise of left-wing governments with ties to indigenous movements, further strengthened the idea of similarity between the Palestinian struggle and struggles for rights and sovereignty across the continent.
However, the continent was never uniform, and alongside left-wing countries identified with the Palestinians, right-wing countries such as Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala and Panama actually deepened their ties with Israel. The resulting map is not of one bloc, but a fragmented space where ideological identity, rather than geography, dictates the positions and actually distances the Latin American countries from each other.
From Petro to Miley: a continent torn between two poles
This split can be seen most clearly in the relationship between Petro’s Colombia and Javier Millay’s Argentina. Petro rebuilt Colombian foreign policy on principles of international law, human rights and “defense of humanity”, even at personal cost. His strong criticism of Israel and his identification with the Palestinians led to the fact that the United States denied his visa in 2025 and even imposed sanctions on his family members and senior officials in his government. Nevertheless, he continued to conduct international conferences together with South Africa, promote measures against Israel in The Hague and become one of the most influential figures in anti-Israel politics in the world.
On the other hand, Argentina under Millay made one of the fastest revolutions in the history of regional relations: from a country that for years supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, Argentina became a distinctly pro-Israeli power. Millay embraced Israel with ideological enthusiasm, described it as a pillar of his pro-Western policy, and even promoted wide-scale cooperation in the fields of security and economy, and he intends to move the Argentine embassy to Jerusalem in the spring of 2026. This is a policy that also translates into strengthening ties between Israel and other right-wing countries such as Paraguay.
Between these two poles exists a continent that is debating with itself. The Venezuelan government, which is currently in a “quiet war” with the United States, continues to attack Israel fiercely, and recently Foreign Minister Ivan Hail called Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar “a war criminal and a murderer of people.” This is while Cuba, Nicaragua and Honduras also maintain a consistent pro-Palestinian line, but are affected by the fluctuations of Venezuela. Brazil tries to play the role of a mediator, but Lula’s harsh words towards Israel sometimes complicate its diplomatic efforts.
Despite the considerable control of the left on the continent, the balance of power is not as stable as it seems. Large evangelical movements, which attribute theological significance to Israel, are growing stronger in Brazil, Guatemala and parts of Central America. The victories of the right in Argentina and Paraguay are reshaping the regional climate. And now, Bolivia, one of the countries considered to be the main players in the pro-Palestinian bloc, is signaling a renewed openness to Israel.
Regional pulse test
The main question now is whether the Bolivian openness is the beginning of a wider regional process. The leadership of Rodrigo Paz represents a rare phenomenon in the contemporary Latin space: a center-right government that stabilizes at a middle point, not hostile towards Israel, but also not committed to the anti-imperialist legacy of its predecessors. His policy compass is aimed first and foremost at economic needs and areas where Israel may assist in technological, agricultural and industrial development.
Therefore, the easing of entry for Israelis is not only a diplomatic gesture, it is a kind of pulse check. A move designed to measure the reaction of the public, the opposition, the social movements, and indirectly also the entire regional system. If the reaction is moderate, Paz will probably be able to expand in gradual steps: renewing technological collaborations, opening channels of political dialogue, and perhaps even returning to a full diplomatic arrangement.
Will these steps be a sign of things to come? In a space where the elections change the political map every year, and the economic pressures are increasing, it is difficult to predict the direction. In Colombia, elections are approaching (May 2026) that may determine whether Petro’s foreign relations line will survive his term. In Brazil, there is tension between Lola’s international ambitions and internal sensitivities concerning the Arab-Brazilian community. In Venezuela and Cuba, hostility towards Israel continues, but their regional influence is weakening.
The Bolivian gesture is modest, but its importance lies in the timing. At a time when Latin America is more than ever identified with harsh criticism of Israel, and at a time when Gaza has become a central moral symbol for leaders like Petro, any move in the opposite direction is notable.