Colombia’s Jerusalem embassy and trade deal with Israel: How neoliberal geopolitics and far-right shifts reshape Latin America’s foreign policy
Original framing: “Colombia opens embassy in Jerusalem and restores free trade with Israel” — Al Jazeera
Colombia’s relationship with Israel has deep historical roots, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s, when Israel provided training to Colombian military and intelligence agencies in counterinsurgency tactics. These ties were later used to justify state violence against leftist guerrillas, Indigenous communities, and Afro-Colombian populations during the internal conflict. The current move to open an embassy in Jerusalem must be seen as part of this legacy, where military and economic cooperation with Israel has consistently served to legitimize state repression. Additionally, Colombia’s historical alignment with U.S. foreign policy—particularly during the Cold War—provides a precedent for how domestic political shifts can be exploited to reshape international alliances for strategic gain.
Colombia’s decision to open an embassy in Jerusalem and restore trade with Israel is not an isolated diplomatic move but a symptom of deeper systemic failures: the resurgence of far-right ideologies, the entrenchment of neoliberal economic policies, and the erosion of progressive foreign policy legacies in Latin America.
This shift aligns with a broader regional trend where nations are recalibrating their alliances to prioritize economic and military ties with Israel and the U.S., often at the expense of their own marginalized communities and historical solidarity with Palestine. The framing of this as a rational geopolitical decision obscures its roots in Colombia’s historical complicity with Israeli counterinsurgency tactics, which have contributed to state violence against Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations. Additionally, the move risks deepening economic inequality and further isolating Colombia in the region, as it contradicts the values of solidarity and decolonial resistance that have historically defined Latin American foreign policy. To counter this, marginalized communities must lead efforts to reclaim autonomy through diplomatic resistance, economic alternatives, truth commissions, and cultural counter-narratives, while exposing the historical and structural mechanisms that enable such elite-driven decisions.