"Being anti-Zionist is not the same as being anti-Semitic," emphasizes Breno Altman.

247 - The Federal Court of São Paulo rejected the complaint filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) against journalist Breno Altman, who had been accused of the crime of antisemitism based on Law 7.716/89. The decision, issued by Judge Sílvio Gemaque of the 10th Federal Criminal Court, considered that political or ideological criticism of the State of Israel does not constitute racism.

In an article published on Sunday (2) in Folha de S. PaulAltman stated that the judge dismantled a "traditional maneuver by the Israeli lobby, based on the false equation between combating Zionism and anti-Jewish racism."

Court decision and freedom of expression

The case began after a complaint from the Israelite Confederation of Brazil (Conib), which prompted prosecutor Maurício Fabretti to indict Altman for alleged antisemitic posts on social media. According to the journalist, the accusation arose "in the midst of the Palestinian genocide" and caused public outrage.

Judge Gemaque, in analyzing the complaint, highlighted: “Mere political, historical, or ideological criticism of a State, however severe, does not constitute racism.” The magistrate further stated that expressions directed at “Zionist leaders” are criticisms of a political ideology, and not of a religious or ethnic group. Thus, he concluded that “they are not to be confused with hate speech against the Jewish people.”

Impact and solidarity

Altman waived procedural secrecy to make the case public and received widespread support from colleagues and intellectuals. A manifesto led by journalist Juca Kfouri and writer Afonso Borges gathered more than 20 signatures in solidarity. "I will be eternally grateful for the solidarity and, more than anything, for the advancement of the Palestinian cause," Altman declared.

The defense of the journalist, led by lawyers Fernando Hideo Lacerda and Pedro Serrano, was praised by Altman as "brilliant." The magistrate, in distinguishing between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, reinforced that freedom of expression must be preserved as a constitutional value.

Anti-Zionism and criticism of Zionism

In his text, Altman argued that Zionism is "an ideological current of Judaism, based on the construction of a state of ethnic supremacy and the colonization of Palestine," and that rejecting this doctrine is not equivalent to harboring hatred against Jews. "Being anti-Zionist is not being anti-Semitic, just as being anti-Nazi was not being against Germans," he wrote.

The journalist also recalled his family background marked by the Holocaust and said he repudiates the use of this tragedy to justify Israeli policies against Palestinians. "Many Jews, like myself, reject the manipulation of this tragedy to justify the existence of a racist and colonial regime," he stated.

Palestinian resistance and international context

Although the judge upheld one of the charges—that of alleged "apology for crime" for praising Palestinian resistance—Altman said he was confident that it would also be dismissed. He noted that the United Nations (UN) and the Brazilian government do not classify Hamas as a terrorist group and stressed that, in the International Court of Justice, "the one responsible for the most serious crime—genocide—is the State of Israel, not the Islamic organization."

For Altman, the court decision represents a milestone in the defense of freedom of expression and in the recognition of the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. "A light shines when a judge has the stature to stand with humanity at such a crucial time," he concluded.