The Latin American left no longer knows where to stand. Its three top representatives have yet to be able to agree on sensitive issues of current geopolitics and that is why Gabriel Boric, president of Chile; Gustavo Petro, president of Colombia and Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva, president of Brazil seem to be in the antipodes.

Boric is the one who has made the biggest difference with his other two counterparts. There are two very sensitive issues: the conflict between Israel and Hamas and the political situation in Venezuela. Let's listen to Boric himself: "I refuse to choose between Hamas' terror or the massacre and genocidal behavior of Netanyahu's Israel. We do not have to choose between barbarities. I choose humanity. We denounce the illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories and the de facto denial of the existence of an independent Palestinian state by the occupying country. From Chile we call for a cease-fire in Gaza to put an end to the suffering and massacre of the Palestinian population that has already claimed more than 40,000 fatalities. And we also clearly and unambiguously demand the immediate release of the hostages currently held by the terrorist group Hamas".

Boric has not only been clear about this distant war in geographical but not human terms. He has also been clear about the nearby Venezuela, where he has unequivocally categorized the government of that country led by Nicolás Maduro: "Chile is particularly attentive to the critical situation that Venezuela is going through. We are facing a dictatorship that intends to steal an election that persecutes its opponents and is indifferent to the exile of not thousands but millions of its citizens. We need a political solution to this crisis that recognizes the opposition's triumph in the last elections and carries out a peaceful transition to democracy", he said before the universal audience of the United Nations this week.

Petro and Lula have marked a distance from Boric's positions on these two issues.

Petro has compared the siege of Gaza and its justifications with the Nazi strategy to exterminate the Jewish people; his critics demand a more forceful pronouncement against the actions of Hamas.

Regarding Venezuela, Petro has refused to recognize the triumph of the opposition and to call the Maduro government a dictatorship. Lula has also taken a clear position. Precisely at the UN, he met with the Palestinian delegation and was emphatic in pointing out that the Israeli revenge has gone too far with more than 40,000 victims. Regarding Venezuela, Lula has followed Petro's line, trying to find a way of dialogue between the parties, but without recognizing the illegality of the electoral process of last July 28.

The divergent positions of these three leaders show the complexities of consolidating a pragmatic left-wing position, but a fair one concerning the real situation in the world. Boric's position has won him followers because he has not shied away from tough positions on sensitive issues.

Increasingly, political leaders must express their positions more clearly if they want to maintain their positive recognition among the public. Boric has stood out because he has not avoided or used euphemisms in the face of the complex situation in both Gaza and Venezuela and this has earned him the favoritism of many people over other left-wing leaders such as Lula and Petro. These are three different people but never the same left.