Connect with us

News

Colombia halts coal exports to Israel in protest against war in Gaza

Published

on

Colombia halts coal exports to Israel in protest against war in Gaza

Stay informed with free updates

Colombia is suspending exports of coal to Israel in protest over the war in Gaza, the South American country’s president announced on Saturday.

“We are going to suspend coal exports to Israel until the genocide stops,” president Gustavo Petro posted on X.

Petro shared a draft decree issued by the ministry of trade which stated that exports will only be resumed once Israel complies with orders from the International Court of Justice last month to halt its military offensive in Rafah.

Advertisement

The trade ministry said the ban will come into effect five days after publication in the country’s official gazette. Shipments to Israel that have already been approved will not be affected.

Colombia is Israel’s largest supplier of coal, according to the American Journal for Transportation. Coal exports to Israel were worth $320mn in the first eight months of last year, according to government data, while Colombia’s leading mining agency reports that taxes, royalties and other payments related to coal exports to Israel are worth around $165mn per year to the treasury.

Colombia’s announcement of trade sanctions on Israel follows a broader move by Turkey, which last month halted trade with the Jewish state until it allows an “uninterrupted and sufficient flow” of humanitarian aid to Gaza. Last Sunday, the Maldives announced a ban on Israeli tourists in solidarity with Gaza.

Despite long historical ties and collaboration on defence between the two countries, Petro — Colombia’s first leftist president — has been one of the most vocal critics on the world stage of Israel’s conduct in Gaza following the attack by Hamas on October 7. 

In May, after breaking diplomatic ties with Israel, Petro traded barbs with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who called the Colombian president an “antisemitic supporter of Hamas”.

Advertisement

Petro, a leftist former guerrilla member who took office in August 2022, has also requested that Colombia join South Africa’s case against Israel for genocide at the International Court of Justice.

The spat between Colombia and Israel breaks with decades of warm relations. Israel is a major supplier of weapons to Colombia, which are used by the Colombian military to fight drug traffickers and insurgent groups.

In 2020, during the tenure of Petro’s rightwing predecessor Iván Duque, a free trade agreement between the two countries came into effect. Petro in February suspended new Israeli weapons purchases.

Colombia’s mining association ACM warned on Thursday that suspending coal exports to Israel would hurt Colombia’s economy. “This decision would not comply with international commitments by Colombia that should be respected and puts at risk the confidence of markets and foreign investment,” ACM said in a statement.

Petro has also sought to position Colombia as a global leader on climate change, pledging to wean the country off fossil fuels despite oil and coal products together making up over half of exports. 

Advertisement

A tax reform passed in late 2022 prohibited extractive companies from deducting royalties from their taxable income, though the constitutional court ruled that provision illegal in November last year.

Speaking at a banking conference on Friday night, Petro said that the court’s decision was the reason for a recent shortfall in government tax take, necessitating spending cuts.

Sergio Guzmán, director of Bogotá-based consultancy Colombia Risk Analysis, said that the decision to suspend coal exports to Israel was “shortsighted” as the global market for the fossil fuel continues to dwindle amid a transition to greener energy sources.

“Petro is making a grandiose geopolitical move that is poised to hurt Colombia potentially more financially than Israel, the target of the action,” Guzmán said.

Advertisement

News

Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state

Published

on

Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state

UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — Utah County has declared a state of emergency.

According to an announcement from the Utah County Commissioner Skyler Beltran, the county is in a dire position due to the extensive wildfires in the area and high fire risk.

The announcement states that declaring the State of Emergency will allow the county to access additional resources, and notes there is no imminent threat to Utah County residents.

“We have utilized a tremendous amount of our resources (very early in the traditional fire season schedule) responding to the Iron Fire and continue to face ongoing recovery concerns,” the statement read. “This was even before the Maple Peak and Cherry fires, which have now merged and are moving toward the Iron Fire.”

The Iron Fire, which started last week, has burned over 40,000 acres. Around 22,830 of those acres were in Utah County. Reportedly, the county has limited resources available to help those who are evacuating from Juab County, including the 600 residents in the Town of Eureka.

Advertisement

Due to the influx in evacuees, the Utah County Commission says that more resources are necessary to help the evacuation shelters in Elberta, Utah. Additionally, due to the Iron Fire and other wildfires, Utah County is facing immense repair needs to avoid future flooding, loss of homes, and disruption to local economies and ecosystems.

There is “imminent threat” to public safety due to the damage.

The commission also asks the public to be vigilant when handling heavy equipment, using campfires or barbecues, and discharging fireworks, to avoid preventing fires.

Their statement added, “Our firefighters are exhausted, our resources are stretched thin and we are in a very vulnerable position.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending