Gustavo Petro’s Fascism Warning Turns Gaza Into Colombia’s Next Political Battle
The phrase was not delivered in isolation.
Petro was condemning President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella’s plan to reverse Colombia’s diplomatic break with Israel and rebuild a relationship Petro spent much of his presidency dismantling.
A farewell speech becomes a warning
Petro spoke as Colombia’s newly elected Congress gathered for the 2026 to 2030 legislative term. His lengthy address, one of his final major appearances before leaving office, combined a defense of his domestic record with warnings about the direction of the incoming government. Gaza became one of the sharpest points in that political farewell. The outgoing president said he was ashamed that Colombia could again maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.
He also accused Israel of killing 22,000 babies with missiles, a figure he presented during the speech but which should be understood as Petro’s claim rather than an independently verified count. He described the Israeli military campaign in Gaza as genocide and a crime against humanity. Language has shaped Petro’s foreign policy since the war began. On May 1, 2024, he announced that Colombia would sever diplomatic relations with Israel, arguing that countries could not remain passive over the suffering in Gaza. The break officially took effect the following day. also supported South Africa’s case accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention. That case remains before the International Court of Justice, meaning Petro’s use of the word “genocide” reflects his government’s position rather than a final judicial determination.
The reversal behind Petro’s anger
Petro’s remarks were aimed directly at De la Espriella, the conservative president-elect expected to assume office on August 7, 2026. De la Espriella has pledged to restore what he calls Colombia’s historic alliance with Israel, resume the exchange of ambassadors, and move Colombia’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He also announced that Colombia will withdraw from the genocide proceedings brought by South Africa. Taken together, those steps would represent far more than a routine diplomatic adjustment. They would amount to a direct rejection of one of Petro’s most visible international policies.
For Petro, that reversal carries moral consequences. He has argued that governments cannot separate diplomatic cooperation from responsibility for civilian suffering in Gaza. His use of the word “fascist” was designed to force the issue into stark terms: Is restoring normal relations simply diplomatic realism, or does it risk treating mass death as politically acceptable?
De la Espriella and his supporters reject Petro’s framing. Israel has consistently denied committing genocide, saying its military operations target Hamas following the October 7, 2023 attacks, which killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel and resulted in hundreds being taken hostage. Israel also accuses Hamas of operating among civilians, an allegation the group denies. Powerful charge carrying political risks
Petro’s statement was crafted for maximum impact, and it succeeded. Yet calling opponents fascists can compress a complicated diplomatic dispute into a moral test with only two acceptable answers. That approach may energize supporters, but it can also make serious debate more difficult.
The tension is especially sharp because Petro has repeatedly invoked Nazism and fascism during political disputes. In June 2026, he faced international criticism after posting the Nazi slogan “Heil Hitler” in response to a newspaper column supporting De la Espriella. He acknowledged that the post lacked necessary context and described it as a communications mistake. He maintained that he intended to condemn what he considered fascist ideas rather than praise Nazism. However, Israeli officials, Jewish organizations, and several Latin American lawmakers argued that Nazi language should not become a casual political weapon. Troversy now shadows his latest declaration. Petro wants Colombians to treat genocide allegations with the utmost seriousness, yet critics contend that repeated Nazi comparisons can weaken the historical weight of the language. His supporters counter that polite diplomatic phrases are inadequate when civilians are dying on a massive scale.
Colombia reaches a foreign policy crossroads
The argument is larger than Petro’s final weeks in office. Colombia is preparing for a dramatic foreign policy turn, shifting from one of Latin America’s most outspoken critics of Israel toward a government promising renewed strategic partnership.
That change could affect defense cooperation, trade, diplomacy, visa arrangements, and Colombia’s position in international legal forums. It may also deepen domestic polarization between voters who regard Petro’s Gaza stance as principled and those who see it as ideological, confrontational, or harmful to Colombia’s long-standing alliances.
Petro’s sentence therefore served as both an accusation and a political marker. He was not merely describing his view of the war. He was drawing a bright line between his presidency and the government preparing to replace it.
The International Court of Justice has issued provisional measures directing Israel to prevent acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention and improve humanitarian access. However, it has not issued a final ruling that Israel committed genocide. The proceedings remain active, while Israel continues to reject the allegation. The question will take time. The moral and political argument is already reshaping elections and alliances far beyond the Middle East. Petro’s final warning ensures that Colombia’s renewed relationship with Israel will not begin as a quiet diplomatic reset, but under the weight of a national debate about power, civilian suffering, and what governments owe to victims they may never meet.
