Israel’s Recognition of Somaliland: An Uncomfortable Truth for the Islamic World
Israel’s recent decision to extend diplomatic recognition to Somaliland has stirred a remarkable wave of outrage across certain segments of the Islamic world. Yet, amid the loud protests, indignations, and ritual condemnations lies an uncomfortable truth: this recognition doesn’t introduce a new injustice; it merely reveals longstanding ones. It highlights a deep hypocrisy within parts of the Islamic world that professes solidarity, justice, and human rights—while simultaneously shielding dictatorships, excusing mass atrocities, and punishing societies that opt for peace, democracy, and accountability.
The Political Narrative of Somaliland
Somaliland’s political journey is far from obscure; it exemplifies one of the clearest instances of interrupted statehood in post-colonial Africa. From 1884 until June 26, 1960, Somaliland functioned as a British protectorate, characterized by clearly defined colonial boundaries. Independence came on June 26, when it was recognized as a sovereign state by more than thirty nations. However, just days later, driven by the ideals of pan-Somali unity rather than legal considerations, Somaliland entered into a hastily arranged union with Italian-administered Somalia, which gained independence on July 1, 1960. This union, however, was never legally ratified through a mutually agreed framework.
Centralized power soon became emblematic of this union. Wealth and political influence were concentrated in Mogadishu, sidelining the people of Somaliland. The consequences of this neglect escalated into brutal repression, with the Somali government turning its weapons on its northern citizens during the late 1980s. Cities like Hargeisa and Burao were systematically bombed, leading to tens of thousands of civilian deaths and widespread displacement. Rather than being an incidental consequence of a civil war, what transpired was a deliberate campaign of collective punishment that fits every credible definition of genocide.
The Islamic World’s Response—or Lack Thereof
In light of these atrocities, one might expect the Islamic and Arab worlds—often vocal about the suffering of Muslims elsewhere—to rally in defense of Somaliland’s civilian population. Surprisingly, this did not happen. Many Muslim-majority states either sided with the regime perpetrating the atrocities or opted for silence, effectively erasing the plight of the victims. Even as evidence mounted, the solidarity extended not to the afflicted but to the aggressors, all in the name of upholding a fictional unity. Notably, Israel brought the issue of the atrocities suffered by the Isak clan before the United Nations General Assembly, drawing attention to a narrative largely ignored by Muslim nations.
This moral failure isn’t isolated; history is replete with similar examples. In 1971, when mass killings were executed by the Pakistani army against Bengali civilians post-Bangladesh’s declaration of independence, much of the Muslim world again chose to look away or, worse, to defend the aggressors. India, a non-Muslim country, was the one that intervened militarily to halt the slaughter and subsequently recognize Bangladesh’s sovereignty. Similarly, during the late 1980s, when Somalilanders fled aerial bombardments, it was Ethiopia—not any Arab or Muslim state—that provided sanctuary and limited support.
A Tale of Two States
After the Somali Republic’s collapse, the differences between Somalia and Somaliland could hardly be more pronounced. Somalia devolved into armed fiefdoms, reliant on foreign troops for the mere survival of its central government, creating conditions ripe for extremist violence. Today, thousands of foreign peacekeepers remain deployed in Mogadishu, suggesting a state that can’t stand on its own without external military and financial assistance. In this chaotic backdrop, terrorism thrives, fueled by grievances and institutional decay.
Contrastingly, Somaliland chose a distinct path. Rejecting reliance on foreign intervention or externally imposed peace conferences, it initiated a locally driven reconciliation process that engaged clan elders, community leaders, and civil society. Through negotiations, grievances were resolved, ceasefires were established, and militias gradually disarmed. The integration of former fighters into a newly formed national army and police force marked a departure from superficial peace; it illustrated a deeply rooted social contract built on compromise, restraint, and shared responsibility.
The outcomes speak volumes. Somaliland has largely remained free from terrorism—not due to foreign troops but because it fostered a political culture that denied violent extremism the fertile ground it needs to flourish. This was soon followed by institution-building. In 2002, a constitution mandating a multiparty democratic system was drafted and approved by referendum. Since then, Somaliland has successfully conducted multiple presidential, parliamentary, and municipal elections, all broadly assessed as free and fair by international observers. Power has changed hands peacefully, a feat rare across much of Africa and the Islamic world. Courts operate, parliaments debate, and the press enjoys a degree of freedom that is increasingly uncommon in the region.
The International Community’s Response
Despite these achievements, Somaliland has faced systematic punishment from the international community—especially Arab and Muslim states—for its refusal to conform to the failed union with Somalia. Diplomatic recognition has been withheld not due to a lack of attributes that define statehood but rather because acknowledging Somaliland’s success would entail a significant reckoning with decades of misplaced loyalty and moral inconsistency.
The persistence of the fiction that Somalia maintains sovereignty over a territory it has not controlled in over thirty years imposes tangible and often humiliating consequences on Somalilanders. For instance, livestock exports—a cornerstone of the economy—often face obstruction as Saudi Arabia demands written authorization from Mogadishu, which imposes fees on animals it neither raises nor inspects. Members of the Somaliland diaspora find themselves coerced into obtaining e-visas from a government with no operational authority over Somaliland’s airports, ports, or borders. These actions create a diplomatic stranglehold, inhibiting Somaliland’s economic development and international engagement.
Israel’s Role in Changing the Narrative
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland shatters this unjust status quo. Rather than erasing history, it acknowledges it. The recognition does not contravene international law; in fact, it fortifies it. It asserts the importance of borders established at independence, emphasizes the repercussions of genocide, and champion peaceful, democratic societies’ claims for legitimacy. More critically, it liberates Somaliland from a symbolic and practical chokehold, allowing it to breathe politically and economically.
The vehement reactions from some factions within the Islamic world reveal more about the protestors than about Israel. Their uproar exposes a selective morality that denounces certain injustices while excusing others based on the perpetrator’s identity. It uncovers an affinity for authoritarian solidarity at the expense of ethical consistency, tapping into deep-rooted discomfort with the idea that a Muslim society can secure respect and recognition beyond traditional alliances—alliances that have repeatedly failed to deliver.
For Somalilanders, gratitude toward Israel transcends ideological or theological realms; it is rooted in morality and history. When others disregarded their suffering and overlooked their accomplishments while condoning a failed state’s fictitious claims over their lives, Israel chose acknowledgment. This decision profoundly resonates within a society that has risen from the ashes without external rescue, opting for ballots over bullets and proving that stability in the Horn of Africa is feasible without perpetual guardianship.
The Symbolism of Recognition
Critics deriding Somalilanders for waving Israeli flags may overlook the significance of such symbolism. It encapsulates a collective memory of those who stood aside versus those who stepped forward. This act is a reclamation of dignity after decades of marginalization. Recognition may not instantly transform international relations or absolve any state of its critiques, but it does reinforce a fundamental principle the Islamic world has often overlooked: that justice shouldn’t hinge on convenience and that solidarity must never serve as a shield for oppression.
Today’s discomfort stems from a mirror being held up to reflect uncomfortable truths. Somaliland’s narrative forces a reckoning with pressing questions: Why are authoritarian regimes defended while democratic societies are marginalized? Why is unity prioritized, even when built upon mass atrocities? And why is recognition withheld from those who have achieved it through peace, restraint, and self-governance?
Ultimately, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland does not initiate a moral crisis; it exposes an enduring one that has persisted for decades.
