In a Sunday evening broadcast that interrupted primetime programming across Colombia, President Gustavo Petro radicalized his discourse against the country’s mainstream media, accusing powerful outlets of orchestrating a conspiracy to oust him from power. Claiming that a “coup of the ties” was underway – a direct reference to the political and corporate elites he alleges are plotting his removal- Petro declared that wealthy and influential opposition leaders were actively sabotaging his popular mandate and reforms. “Never has a president been subjected to such cruelty and treachery,” Petro said during his twenty-minute speech.
Petro’s rhetoric, delivered with defiance, called upon his supporters to “take to the streets” in defense of his administration. He urged, “only with you active in the streets and on social networks, without being silenced, can we move forward.” This insistence on public mobilization echoes a broader strategy aimed at solidifying his base amid deep opposition to his social reforms.
This broadcast marked yet another occasion of Petro directly attacking the media, which comes in the wake of numerous warnings from the Fundación para la Libertad de Prensa (FLIP). The organization has called for an end to stigmatizing remarks against journalists, emphasizing the dangers such language poses to press freedom in Colombia. Petro’s aggressive rhetoric has increasingly targeted prominent figures, including the director of Semana magazine, Vicky Davila, whom he refers to dismissively as “that woman of always.” He has also labeled high-profile women journalists as “mafia dolls.”
Petro’s media tirades are systematic, part of a broader strategy to delegitimize traditional news outlets while giving prominence to “bodegas”—online platforms that have received government contracts despite their known track records for spreading misinformation. These “supersharers,” as they are often called, operate with dubious, often anonymous “journalists” and are crucial to Petro’s narrative construction.
As a leader who positions himself as under siege, Petro’s antagonistic posture suggests that his debates exclude some of Colombia’s most influential voices. During Sunday’s speech, he claimed – without providing evidence – that powerful groups were plotting to assassinate him, citing potential methods like poisoning, explosives, or a sniper’s bullet. Petro invoked comments made by the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, Francisco Palmieri, who acknowledged concerns about the president’s safety. “Magnicides,” warned Petro, “are being considered by powerful, sectarian groups.”
However, it is Petro’s international remarks that have generated the most significant backlash, particularly his recent comparison of Israel’s military actions in Gaza to Nazi atrocities. As Petro headed to the United States for his speech at the 79th United Nations General Assembly in New York, he launched into a heated denunciation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a post on ‘X,’ Petro likened Israel’s military offensive in Gaza to the horrors of the Holocaust, asserting that Netanyahu’s government was recreating the atrocities of Nazi Germany.
This comparison triggered swift and pointed responses from U.S. officials. U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, declared, “Colombian President Gustavo Petro’s continued rhetoric normalizes antisemitism. We cannot accept this. We cannot tolerate this. We must condemn these harmful narratives.” The U.S. Embassy in Bogotá echoed these sentiments, stating, “Comparing any current action, particularly by Israel, to the systematic annihilation of Nazi death camps is deeply offensive. Legitimate concern for human rights in Gaza must be separated from erroneous and anti-Semitic historical references.”
Petro’s reliance on social media to disseminate his views and respond to criticism has become a defining feature of his presidency. By bypassing traditional media outlets, which he accuses of political persecution, Petro often turns to ‘X’ to engage in controversial discourse, drawing accusations of historical revisionism. His posts about Israel’s actions in Gaza have marked yet another instance of his provocative comparisons stirring condemnation from Washington.
In a rare statement written in English, which was reposted by Colombia’s Foreign Ministry, Petro directly addressed Ambassador Lipstadt, attempting to defend his ideological stance. “Madam Ambassador, according to the Bible, Palestinians are Semites, as the term ‘Semite’ refers to the descendants of Shem and their language. Therefore, it is antisemitic to kill boys and girls by dropping bombs on Gaza and to not oppose it. The most antisemitic act today is repeating Hitler’s Holocaust against humanity, particularly the Palestinian people,” Petro wrote. “I am not antisemitic; do not be confused, and show some respect. I am not anti-Jewish; I believe in freedom of worship and had I lived during that time, I would have given my life in armed resistance against the Nazis. However, I believe in the freedom that international law upholds.”
Petro’s assertion that Netanyahu and his government “do not represent Semitism—they embody Nazism” did little to ease tensions stateside or clarify Colombia’s official position in a complex and widening regional conflict. This bizarre method of historical analogy, combined with frequent attacks on Colombia’s media, also cements the reputation of a president at odds with both his fellow countrymen and the global community.
As Colombia faces pressing issues, including a severe drought resulting in forest fires and a looming energy crisis, Petro’s remarks risk further isolating the country on the global stage. By deepening political tensions at home and failing to address critical international matters, such as Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine or the electoral fraud committed by Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, Petro’s statements may diminish his influence at the United Nations and render his discourse with other world leaders as incidental or irrelevant.
