What Petro apologized for

Petro apologized for the Colombian government’s decision, not for a policy of his own. In a statement, he said that Colombians did not consider the Golan Heights to belong to Israel and that the territory had historically been regarded as part of Syria, as it is by most of the world.

His comments framed the recognition as a break between the new government’s position and the view he said was held by Colombians and reflected in the prevailing international position. Petro also criticized what he described as foreign influence in Colombia’s recent presidential election, although that allegation is presented in the reporting as his claim rather than an independently established fact.

Who recognized Israeli sovereignty?

The recognition came from Colombia’s newly inaugurated President Abelardo de la Espriella. His government announced on August 10, 2026, that Colombia recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and Israel’s right to protect itself against external threats.

The announcement came just days after de la Espriella took office on August 7 and signaled his intention to rebuild relations with Israel. Colombia thereby joined the United States as the only two countries identified in the supplied reporting as formally recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

How the international community responded

The response was sharply divided.

• Syria: Damascus lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations, describing the recognition as a rejection of Syria’s rights and protesting Colombia’s support for Israel’s claim.
• Egypt: Cairo rejected the decision and called it a violation of international law and relevant UN resolutions, while reaffirming Syria’s rights over the territory.
• Arab states: Arab governments and regional bodies condemned the move as an attempt to legitimize Israel’s occupation and as contrary to international law.
• Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed Colombia’s decision, while Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar thanked de la Espriella for what he called a historic recognition.

The reporting therefore shows a clear diplomatic split: Israel welcomed the decision, while Syria, Egypt and other Arab governments rejected it.

How the decision contrasts with Petro’s policies

The move reverses several elements of Petro’s approach to Israel. During his presidency, Colombia severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2024 and ordered a diplomatic mission in Ramallah, steps that reflected a closer alignment with the Palestinian cause.

De la Espriella’s government has instead moved to strengthen ties with Israel and has adopted Israel’s position on the Golan Heights. The recognition is consequently more than a statement on territorial sovereignty: it is an early sign of a broader foreign-policy shift away from the Petro era.

Petro’s apology underscores that political change. His successor’s government now speaks for Colombia diplomatically, but Petro is arguing that the new position does not reflect the country’s historical view of the Golan or the position he pursued while in office.

What Petro apologized for

Petro apologized for the Colombian government’s decision, not for a policy of his own. In a statement, he said that Colombians did not consider the Golan Heights to belong to Israel and that the territory had historically been regarded as part of Syria, as it is by most of the world.

His comments framed the recognition as a break between the new government’s position and the view he said was held by Colombians and reflected in the prevailing international position. Petro also criticized what he described as foreign influence in Colombia’s recent presidential election, although that allegation is presented in the reporting as his claim rather than an independently established fact.

Who recognized Israeli sovereignty?

The recognition came from Colombia’s newly inaugurated President Abelardo de la Espriella. His government announced on August 10, 2026, that Colombia recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and Israel’s right to protect itself against external threats.

The announcement came just days after de la Espriella took office on August 7 and signaled his intention to rebuild relations with Israel. Colombia thereby joined the United States as the only two countries identified in the supplied reporting as formally recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

How the international community responded

The response was sharply divided.

• Syria: Damascus lodged a formal complaint with the United Nations, describing the recognition as a rejection of Syria’s rights and protesting Colombia’s support for Israel’s claim.
• Egypt: Cairo rejected the decision and called it a violation of international law and relevant UN resolutions, while reaffirming Syria’s rights over the territory.
• Arab states: Arab governments and regional bodies condemned the move as an attempt to legitimize Israel’s occupation and as contrary to international law.
• Israel: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu welcomed Colombia’s decision, while Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar thanked de la Espriella for what he called a historic recognition.

The reporting therefore shows a clear diplomatic split: Israel welcomed the decision, while Syria, Egypt and other Arab governments rejected it.

How the decision contrasts with Petro’s policies

The move reverses several elements of Petro’s approach to Israel. During his presidency, Colombia severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2024 and ordered a diplomatic mission in Ramallah, steps that reflected a closer alignment with the Palestinian cause.

De la Espriella’s government has instead moved to strengthen ties with Israel and has adopted Israel’s position on the Golan Heights. The recognition is consequently more than a statement on territorial sovereignty: it is an early sign of a broader foreign-policy shift away from the Petro era.

Petro’s apology underscores that political change. His successor’s government now speaks for Colombia diplomatically, but Petro is arguing that the new position does not reflect the country’s historical view of the Golan or the position he pursued while in office.