Israel’s Flotilla Attack Backfired — As Colombia Comes Out Swinging

Right, so Israel’s navy didn’t meet the Sumud Flotilla with courage — it met it with cowardice. Warships against fishing boats, drones against sacks of flour, commandos dragging away unarmed activists in international waters: it was piracy dressed up as policy, and lawbreaking paraded as self-defence, all while the world watched, not least including Spanish and Italian warships that did nothing to uphold the law and defend civilians trying to break a siege and expose war crimes. But with that said though, Israel exposed itself and faces a reckoning for it. And amongst the responses from around the world one way or the other from various governments, one of the strongest anti Israel moves came from Colombia. Gustavo Petro, didn’t hold back, and showed leadership, showed moral fortitude, showed he’s not going to accept Israeli impunity, by expelling every Israeli diplomat left in the country, tearing up the free trade deal they held with Israel, and calling the seizures what they were — crimes. Combined with Petro’s recent call for US soldiers to disobey Trump and “obey humanity” over Israel, with Washington lashing back by revoking his visa, they have only ended up looking petty. But of course if a country of Colombia’s stature can make the right political choices here, what excuse do larger economies and militaries have not to?
Right, so there are moments in history when the script gets flipped, when the supposedly weak do what the supposedly mighty dare not. That is what has just happened with Colombia. At a time when Gaza is being starved, when aid ships have been boarded, when an entire population is held under siege, it was not the great humanitarian powers of Europe or North America that stood up, it was Bogotá. It was Gustavo Petro, a president leading a country long tethered to Washington’s foreign policy, who decided that enough was enough. He has expelled Israel’s diplomats. He has cancelled a free trade agreement. He has declared that the detention of Colombian citizens on the Sumud Flotilla is an international crime. And all of course in the wake of telling American soldiers to obey humanity and not Donald Trump.
The scene that set this in motion was of course the interception of the Sumud Flotilla, the convoy of civilian boats carrying food, medicine, flour and solidarity activists from across the world. Israel has always liked to present its blockade of Gaza as airtight, as an unbreakable wall of legality and military dominance. Yet the very fact that dozens of civilian boats could sail out together and head toward Palestinian waters exposed the fragility of that claim and a couple of boats managing to reach Palestinian waters absolutely detonated it, even if they didn’t quite make it to shore. Israeli destroyers scrambled after them. Drones harassed fishing vessels. Commandos stormed ships, dragging away figures as high-profile as European parliamentarians, Greta Thunberg and Mandela’s grandson, but also many more, including less well known activists from Colombia, Chile, Turkey and Spain. In Colombia, the word that stuck was “kidnapping.” These were not combatants seized on the battlefield, they were citizens of a sovereign country snatched in international waters.
So when news reached Bogotá that Colombian activists were among the detained, Petro did not wait for polite consultations. He acted. He denounced the detentions as an international crime. He ordered every last Israeli diplomat out of Colombia. He severed the free trade agreement that Israel had trumpeted for years as a symbol of its global normalisation. He announced legal action. This was not the gradual escalation of a cautious partner. This was a clean break. One day Israel had an embassy in Bogotá, a trade treaty, and a partner in Latin America. The next day it had nothing.
The move stunned international observers precisely because of who Colombia is. This is not Bolivia or Venezuela, states long in the camp of defiance. This is Colombia, the keystone of Plan Colombia, the long-time anchor of US strategy in the hemisphere, the country that for decades was described as Washington’s most reliable partner. Colombia has been used as the model for security cooperation, the site of US military bases, the loyal ally at the United Nations. If even Colombia is now breaking with Israel, what does that say about the fragility of Tel Aviv’s alliances?
Petro framed his actions not as a political gamble but as a legal obligation. Under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, every state is obliged not only to respect humanitarian law itself but to ensure its respect by others. To sit idle while Israel blockaded aid, starved a population, and detained foreign citizens would itself risk complicity. The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility are clear: no state may aid or assist another in internationally wrongful acts. By cancelling trade, Petro was signalling that Colombia would not risk becoming complicit in genocide.
This was not an isolated act of presidential bravado either. In Bogotá, thousands took to the streets. Protests erupted within hours of the flotilla news. Unlike European leaders who have ignored months of mass demonstrations in their own capitals calling for a ceasefire, Petro moved in step with his people. Presidents and Prime Ministers are supposed to be representative of them, but its always a novelty when one actually proves that to be the case. He channelled their outrage into policy. He listened.
Prior to all of this, in New York, before the UN, Petro uttered the words that would bring Washington itself into direct confrontation. He called on American soldiers to disobey Trump. He told them to obey humanity instead of unlawful orders. This was a Latin American head of state telling US troops not to be complicit in war crimes. To make their own choices. The echoes of history here were deafening. Every Latin American nation knows the cost of American soldiers following orders: coups, massacres, occupations. Petro put it plainly — legality and morality must come before obedience.
The United States reacted as empire always reacts to insubordination though: with punishment. The State Department revoked Petro’s visa. It was a deliberate humiliation, a way of signalling that even a head of state could be treated like a misbehaving subject. Petro’s foreign minister renounced her own visa in solidarity. Petro responded by accusing Washington of violating international law by punishing speech. He reminded the world that he also holds European citizenship and could travel regardless. So the message was simple: Colombia would not grovel and Trump could stick his revocation where the sun doesn’t shine.
But let us pause on the legal point here, because it matters. The Nuremberg Principles, enshrined after the Holocaust, declared that “just following orders” is no defence to war crimes. Soldiers have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Petro was not being incendiary for the sake of it. He was repeating the foundational principle of modern humanitarian law. In Bosnia v. Serbia in 2007, the International Court of Justice went further, affirming that states have a duty not just to avoid committing genocide but to actively prevent it. By calling out both Israel and Washington, Petro was applying the law consistently. His critics in Washington may dismiss him, but they cannot claim he is wrong on the law.
The consequences of these actions ripple out in three directions: toward Israel, toward the United States, and toward Colombia itself. For Israel, the loss of Colombia is not economically devastating. Trade volumes were modest. But the symbolism is crippling. Israel has spent years trying to present itself as normalised, integrated, no longer a pariah. The Abraham Accords with Gulf states were trumpeted as proof that isolation was over. The free trade agreement with Colombia was another trophy. Petro shattered that trophy. He turned Israel’s narrative of expansion into a story of rupture. And he did so from a country that had been seen as a loyal ally. That tells the world that Israel’s isolation is real, deepening, and no longer confined to the predictable critics.
It also adds to Israel’s legal exposure. Every time a state declares Israeli actions an international crime, every time a country recalls an ambassador or expels diplomats, it strengthens the argument before the ICJ and ICC that Israel is committing grave breaches. Petro’s words are now part of that record. They make it harder for Israel to hide behind claims of self-defence.
For Washington, the risks are even greater. Colombia has been the jewel of US influence in South America. To lose Bogotá’s obedience is to admit that even the most reliable partners can defect. Revoking Petro’s visa may feel like a show of strength in Washington, but abroad it looks petty and imperial, a desperate attempt to punish disobedience. It plays into Petro’s framing perfectly: the empire cannot tolerate humanity before obedience. And it shows other states that defiance is possible. If Colombia can stand up, why not Brazil, why not Mexico, why not Chile? Washington may think it is disciplining Petro, but they just look pathetic.
For Colombia, the gamble still carries risks though. The financial press may talk of capital flight. Domestic elites aligned with Washington may step up their opposition. Petro may be painted as reckless. But the rewards are significant. At home, he stands as a leader who listens to his people and protects his citizens abroad. Internationally, he gains stature as a statesman willing to act on principle. And geopolitically, Colombia positions itself as part of a new multipolar alignment, open to partnerships with BRICS, with the Arab world, with Africa. In the long run, the reputational gain may outweigh the economic risks now.
But the deepest consequence of all is the exposure of Western hypocrisy. If Colombia can do this, why not Germany, Britain, Canada, the United States? These countries have infinitely more resources. They have the power to impose arms embargoes, to cut trade, to enforce sanctions. Instead they enable Israel’s genocide. Germany invokes its history to justify sending weapons to the very machinery of starvation and bombardment. Britain’s Labour leadership, branding itself progressive, criminalises protest while allowing jet parts and more to flow to Tel Aviv. Canada cloaks itself in human rights rhetoric but votes against ceasefire resolutions. The European Union wrings its hands about “both sides” while refusing to block arms. And the United States, with its veto power, ensures that no binding resolution ever passes the UN Security Council.
None of these states can plead helplessness. They are complicit and their complicity is a choice. They choose to prioritise arms sales. They choose to bow to lobby power. They choose to maintain imperial alliances. Their silence is not necessity but cowardice. And Petro, by acting, exposes that cowardice. If Colombia can, they can. That they will not shows them for what they are: not progressive, not humane, but complicit and in need of their own day in the dock of The Hague.
The broader questions flow from here though. What does this mean for Latin America? In many ways, it is a return to form. The continent has a history of defiance, from Cuba’s revolution to the Bolivarian Alliance. Bolivia cut ties with Israel last year. Chile and Honduras recalled ambassadors. Brazil’s Lula has spoken more and more bluntly. With Colombia joining the chorus, the region has momentum. A bloc of Latin American states could form a moral counterweight to Western hypocrisy, amplifying the case for Palestine in international forums.
What does it mean for the global order? In a multipolar world, symbolism matters as much as hard power does. A small state acting with courage can tilt narratives. Colombia’s actions resonate far beyond Bogotá. They are heard in Africa, where states remember colonial arrogance. They are heard in Asia, where Western lectures on law ring hollow. They are heard in the Arab world, where solidarity with Palestine is central. By acting, Colombia elevates itself, not economically but morally, into the ranks of states that set the standard.
And what does it mean for Palestinians themselves? Beyond geopolitics, there is the human effect. In Gaza, where people live under bombardment, under siege, starved by design, every act of solidarity matters. When a country as distant as Colombia stands up for them, it tells Palestinians they are not forgotten. It tells them that their struggle resonates across oceans. It gives hope in a time of despair.
Finally, what does this mean for the very idea of progressivism? Western leaders love to call themselves progressive. They speak of equality, of climate justice, of diversity. Yet when faced with genocide, they falter. Their progressivism is hollow, confined to domestic rhetoric, erased at the border. True progressivism is costly. It means saying no even when it hurts. It means risking trade, risking aid, risking diplomatic convenience. Colombia has shown what that looks like. By contrast, the so-called progressives of Europe and North America have been exposed as hypocrites.
So we return to the beginning. Israel thought it was detaining activists. Instead, it detonated a rupture with Colombia. Washington thought it was disciplining Petro. Instead, it made him a symbol of defiance. The powerful thought they could hide behind rhetoric. Instead, they have been unmasked. Colombia has done what they would not. It has said no. No to genocide. No to complicity. No to empire’s demand for obedience.
History will not forget that difference. It will not forget who stood silent with all their power, and who, with far less, dared to act. If Colombia can, they can. That they do not is the proof of their guilt.
And of course it is not just diplomatically where Israel is finding itself getting punished now, but economically and financially too. Israel’s markets are seeing a bit of a run on the shekel you might say, investor flight is building and before long they might well find it a bit tougher to borrow at affordable rates. Israel figured the markets only cared about money not Gaza. Turns out they were wrong. Check out this video recommendation here as your suggested next watch to find out all about that.
Please do also hit like, share and subscribe if you haven’t done so already so as to ensure you don’t miss out on all new daily content as well as spreading the word and helping to support the channel at the same time which is very much appreciated, holding power to account for ordinary working class people and I will hopefully catch you on the next vid. Cheers folks.