How the UN declared Zionism a form of racism - Britain then lobbied against revoking the resolution

In the 1970s, it was the UN which defined Zionism as racism. Today it's the Green Party of England and Wales

Imran Mulla

Published date: 6 October 2026 

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/how-united-nations-declared-zionism-form-racism-and-britain-then-lobbied-against-revoking

The Green Party of England and Wales has triggered an international uproar by voting to declare Zionism a form of racism at its party conference in Brighton over the weekend. 

The vote by party members on Sunday makes it the first major party in the UK to recognise Zionism as a form of racism - and to back a single democratic Palestinian state with equal rights for all ethnic and religious groups, rather than a two-state solution. 

The Israeli government responded immediately by banning the Green Party’s leader, Zack Polanski (who is himself Jewish), from entering Israel, accusing the Greens of antisemitism.

The United States said it would make “representations” to the British government over the issue, suggesting it could amount to antisemitism. 

And the European Green Party “unequivocally” distanced itself from the vote, denouncing the motion and reaffirming its support for the two-state solution. 

Domestically, the Greens have been roundly condemned by opposing parties. More than a dozen Labour MPs even reported the party to the police over its “Zionism is racism” policy. 

Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice labelled the Green Party antisemitic. 

But the Green ranks themselves are divided on the question. Co-Deputy Leader Mothin Ali told Middle East Eye on Sunday that he was strongly in favour of the motion, unlike Green MPs Ellie Chowns, Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay, who criticised it.

"As defined in the motion," Ali said, "Zionism is an ethno-nationalist state. Zionism is resulting in ethnic cleansing, in the belief that one group of people is superior to another."

He told MEE he believed the motion would shift political discourse in Britain.

Yashad, the progressive Jewish organisation which is critical of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, denounced the motion, saying Zionism “is a fiercely debated and contested word. But for most British Jews, belief in Jewish peoplehood and self-determination is core to their Jewish identity, and this is what they understand to be the basic premise of Zionism.”

Yashad added: “Telling Jews they are acceptable only if they give up that understanding of collective Jewish identity, is not, as some have sought to explain it away, an attack on a political ideology. It is an attack on Jewish identity.”

The motion was endorsed at the conference by prominent Holocaust survivor and activist Stephen Kapos, but the Jewish Greens group did not take an official stance on the motion, saying its members were divided on the issue.

Amid the furore and extensive coverage of the topic in the British national press, a crucial episode from world history has been almost entirely forgotten.

This was when the United Nations adopted a resolution in 1975 determining that Zionism was a form of racism, an idea backed at the time by most member states. 

The UN would later revoke the resolution, but not before the British government lobbied the United States not to try and have the resolution overturned. 

'A form of racism and racial discrimination'

The resolution was itself built on multiple previous resolutions, which it referenced in its text. 

This included a contentious UN General Assembly resolution in 1973 condemning “the unholy alliance between South African racism and zionism”, which took aim at the warm relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa. 

In the summer of 1975, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organisation of African Unity adopted a resolution declaring that “the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure and being organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of the dignity and integrity of the human being".

In August 1975, a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of 120 states that professed to support neither the US nor the Soviet Union in the Cold War, condemned Zionism as a “threat to world peace and security”.

These events were cited in the resolution to declare Zionism a form of racism. It was proposed in 1975 by the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Cuba. 

In the lead up to the vote, attempts by some Arab countries to have Israel ousted from the UN failed.

On 10 November 1975, the vote took place at the UN General Assembly session in New York.

The resolution said the General Assembly “determines that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

The atmosphere in the hall was tense.

Belgium’s chief delegate, Edouard Longerstaey, made a last-ditch attempt to have the vote postponed until the following year, but member states voted against this by 67 to 55, with 15 abstentions. 

Four and a half hours of debate preceded the actual vote on Zionism. Kuwait’s representative Fayez Abdallah Sayegh, declared that Arabs had “reverence for Judaism”, saying that “many Jews” were also against “Zionist policies”.

'A great evil has been loosed upon the world'

But Chaim Herzog, Israel’s permanent representative to the UN (who would later become Israel's president), dramatically tore up the document of the resolution during his speech.

“I do not come to this rostrum to defend the moral and historical values of the Jewish people,” Herzog proclaimed.

He argued: “To question the Jewish people’s right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.”

Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the US permanent representative to the UN, said that the US “rises to declare before the General Assembly of the United Nations, and before the world, that it does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in, this infamous act. 

“A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of antisemitism has been given the appearance of international sanction.”

At 8:30 in the evening the resolution passed by a vote of 72 to 35, with 32 abstentions. 

It was mostly former colonies voting in support of the resolution, as well as the Soviet Union, communist nations and others allied with the Soviets.

Arab and Muslim-majority countries uniformly supported the resolution, as did many African countries and non-aligned states including India.

Against the resolution were the US, Canada, most European countries, Australia, New Zealand, several Latin American nations and four African nations.

UK warns against revoking resolution

The UK voted against the resolution, but the British government would later lobby the Americans not to try and have it overturned. 

In December 1989, US Vice President Dan Quayle started a campaign to revoke the resolution.

According to declassified documents from the time, British diplomats at the UN privately described Quayle’s campaign as “naked political opportunism”, saying he was appealing “to Zionist feeling” and that the cause was “irresistible to right-wing Republican sentiment”.

Crispin Tickell, the head of the British mission, argued that the campaign would “provide an opportunity for the extreme Arabs to make mischief” and could draw international attention to racially discriminatory Israeli policies. 

He advised that Britain should convey to the US “at a high level” its “deep misgivings about the political damage that any campaign on this issue could do to the UN and to the peace process generally”.

The British government did so, with Conservative Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd telling his staff to convey to the US the UK’s “firm wish that no action will be taken in the near future”.

But just two years later, in 1991, the resolution was revoked. 

By then, the Cold War was over and Israel made the revocation a precondition for its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference that year, which opened up negotiations between Israel and the PLO for the first time. 

Some 111 countries voted in favour of revoking the resolution, while 25 opposed it and 13 abstained.

Arab states voted against it, although seven of them - including Egypt and Kuwait - were absent. 

Decades later, another international row has broken out over the question of whether Zionism ought to be defined as racism.

Once more the Israeli and American governments are issuing condemnations.

The difference this time is that the contentious definition has been adopted not by the United Nations, but by a left-wing opposition party in Britain

Yes, More Oil Is Flowing Through the Strait – and Here’s Why Iran May Want It That Way

by Trita Parsi | Oct 6, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/trita-parsi/2026/10/05/yes-more-oil-is-flowing-through-the-strait-and-heres-why-iran-may-want-it-that-way/

Michelle Brohard, head of policy and geopolitical risk at Kpler, speculated in a recent interview with energy analyst Rory Johnston (@commoditycontext) that the reason why more crude is getting through the Strait of Hormuz may be because some countries are paying Iran a toll, possibly up to 20% of the value of each cargo.

I cannot verify whether this is true or not, but I have heard directly from the Iranian side that certain countries in the GCC have struck deals with Iran to allow for their oil to get out, and that this is the main reason why more traffic is flowing rather than the Trump administration’s military efforts. “Whatever flows through the Strait, it’s because we are allowing it to flow,” I have been told.

One can dismiss the Iranian account as a desperate effort to claim control over a situation that on the surface is moving against Iranian interest.

But there may also be a logic that explains why Iran would not only allow more oil to flow, but also a narrative in the West that claims Tehran has lost the battle over the Strait.

As Brohard attests in her interview, the current situation in the Strait is unsustainable. As a U.S. serviceperson in the region told me, the cost of U.S. escorts is enormous and simply cannot be sustained. Whatever the cost the U.S. shouldered for keeping Persian Gulf oil secure before the war, it is dramatically higher now – even though the U.S. itself doesn’t buy any of that oil. China does.

Thus, not only was the U.S. subsidizing Chinese oil imports before the war, but those subsidies have increased several-fold as a result of the war.

It is also unsustainable for these GCC countries to continue to buy Iran off. They are doing so because the region expects a third round of the war to begin in the next few weeks and as a result, they need to move as much oil as possible out of the Persian Gulf before hostilities resume.

So yes, Iran certainly would benefit from allowing more oil to get through if it can collect a hefty fee, particularly mindful of how Trump’s blockade has squeezed the Iranian economy.

But that is likely not the full story. Tehran is likely – either directly or through one of its partner organizations – to preempt Trump and initiate the third round of the war itself. Tehran has already deprived Trump of the ability to control the geography of the war. It may also seek to deprive it of its timing.

The initial attack will likely seek to shock the energy markets, potentially with the intent of dispelling any notion in the White House that Iran’s escalation dominance can be challenged.

To achieve that shock and shoot up oil prices dramatically, a narrative that the Strait is already open and that Tehran has lost the battle over the waterway is actually helpful to the Iranians. The more the idea of an opened Strait becomes normalized, the more of a shock Tehran will achieve if it dramatically closes it.

Unfortunately, in my assessment, all gravitational forces are currently pushing matters toward escalation and a third round of the war. As Tom Pickering and I wrote earlier today, a diplomatic de-escalation that helps evade this war may only be achieved if Beijing decides to step in.

Exclusive: Inside Lebanon's 200-page dossier on Israeli war crimes

A report obtained by The New Arab documents Israel's systematic destruction of southern Lebanese towns, including Bint Jbeil, and the displacement of residents.

Rita El Jammal

Beirut

01 October, 2026

https://www.newarab.com/news/exclusive-inside-lebanons-200-page-israeli-war-crimes-dossier

A report obtained exclusively by The New Arab documents suspected Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity during the latest war on Lebanon, detailing attacks on civilians, journalists, medical personnel and infrastructure, as well as widespread destruction and forced displacement.

The more than 200-page report, compiled by Lebanon's National Committee for International Humanitarian Law, was handed to Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri on Tuesday by Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri, who heads the committee.

The findings come despite Lebanon agreeing to waive its right to pursue legal action against Israel over war crimes under a framework ceasefire agreement, with Article 13 of the agreement, signed in Washington on 26 June, requiring Lebanon to end "all hostile or harmful actions in international political or legal forums" against Israel.

According to information obtained exclusively by The New Arab, the report focuses on Israeli violations committed after 2 March 2026, placing them within the broader context of the conflict in Lebanon since 8 October 2023.

It examines numerous incidents classified by the committee as war crimes and crimes against humanity, supported by an independent evidence file containing screenshots, original links, statements from official bodies and human rights organisations, published photographs, maps, witness testimonies, press materials and other sources used to assess the incidents in accordance with international standards.

The report also outlines the methodology adopted by the National Committee for International Humanitarian Law to collect information and document and verify violations. It evaluates Israeli accounts of the incidents and provides legal assessments and analysis of the documented violations.

The violations examined include the destruction of infrastructure, bridges and crossings; attacks on cultural property, civilians, civil defence personnel, rescue teams, journalists and media workers; attacks on hospitals, health facilities and medical and humanitarian services; attacks on civilian property; and forced displacement.

The committee faced significant difficulties in compiling the report, particularly because the Lebanese authorities had not opened investigations into the crimes and therefore had no official investigative records. In many cases, the names of those killed were unavailable, with only casualty figures recorded.

The lack of cooperation from relevant ministries, which failed to provide the assistance required to complete the documentation, created further obstacles.

Despite these challenges, the committee intensified its efforts to document the violations and prepare a comprehensive report that could support future legal proceedings against Israel.

Killing of journalist Amal Khalil

Among the cases examined was Israel's killing of Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil during attacks on the southern town of Al-Tayri on 22 April 2026.

Journalist Zeinab Faraj, who was accompanying Khalil, was also wounded in the attack.

The report concluded that the incident constituted a blatant violation of international humanitarian law on several grounds, including the deliberate and direct targeting of Khalil, who was left surrounded at the site for several hours while emergency teams were prevented from reaching her, despite her still being alive.

Several organisations, including Human Rights Watch, described the 22 April attack as a deliberate targeting of civilians that would constitute a war crime.

They also highlighted the Israeli army's obstruction of rescue efforts, including the use of a stun grenade dropped from a drone, which forced Lebanese Red Cross personnel to withdraw temporarily without rescuing Khalil or providing potentially life-saving medical assistance.

Deadly Israeli attacks on 8 April

Another major case examined in the report was Israel's large-scale bombardment of Lebanon on 8 April 2026, which the committee found had involved attacks in the absence of military targets.

Israeli forces launched around 100 attacks within a short period, striking Beirut, its southern suburbs, Mount Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley and southern Lebanon.

The attacks killed more than 303 people and wounded over 1,200 others, including dozens of women and children.

Lebanon subsequently submitted an urgent complaint to the UN Security Council over the 8 April bombardment and Israeli attacks on medical and emergency facilities since 2 March 2026 as a blatant violation of the principles of international law.

UN experts, in a statement published by the UN Human Rights Council, also condemned Israel's bombardment of Lebanon on 8 April, saying it  was unlawful aggression and a campaign of indiscriminate bombing.

 Systematic destruction and forced displacement

The report also documents the systematic destruction of Lebanese cities and villages, including the destruction of cultural heritage, which it classifies as crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Among the examples cited is the extensive bulldozing and destruction of the southern city of Bint Jbeil. Satellite imagery, maps and field reports document the scale of the damage to the city's landmarks, infrastructure and residential areas.

The committee also found that Israel had violated fundamental principles of international humanitarian law through unlawful evacuation orders that triggered unprecedented waves of mass displacement, emptied entire villages of their residents and left them uninhabitable.

According to the report, the available evidence indicates that Israeli attacks were indiscriminate, particularly where their effects extended beyond the intended targets into wider civilian areas or where weapons with wide-ranging effects were deployed in environments in which their impact could not be contained.

The evidence also provides sufficient information for a preliminary assessment of the weapons used, with the documented damage consistent with the use of highly explosive munitions, most of them dropped from aircraft on civilian residential areas.

Geographical analysis identifies three main areas where evidence of the violations is concentrated.

The first is central Beirut, where footage of direct attacks, images recorded in their aftermath and victims' testimonies provide evidence of strikes in densely populated residential neighbourhoods.

The second is Beirut's southern suburbs, where repeated footage of attacks, widespread destruction and testimonies documenting continued bombardment and displacement indicate that civilian areas were subjected to sustained military pressure.

The third is southern Lebanon, where attacks on villages, damage to infrastructure and civilian testimonies reveal a similar pattern of harm inflicted on residents.

The committee concluded that these findings raise serious concerns about violations of the fundamental principles governing the conduct of hostilities, as established by the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law.

The report also examines a series of Israeli attacks on major bridges and crossings over the Litani River and its tributaries, as well as roads leading to them, during March and April 2026.

According to the committee, the evidence indicates that the destruction constituted unlawful attacks on protected civilian infrastructure and crossings vital to the civilian population, violating the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution, as well as obligations concerning the facilitation of humanitarian relief.

Other incidents examined include attacks on medical services in the town of Mifdoun in the Nabatieh district, civil defence personnel in Majdal Zoun in the Tyre district and a residential apartment in the hills of Ain Saadeh on 5 April 2026.

Legal avenues for prosecuting Israel

Separately, the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies in Beirut, headed by former minister Nasser Yassin, has been documenting Israeli violations and assessing the cost of the war on Lebanon, particularly the direct and indirect damage inflicted on the country's vital sectors.

During a discussion hosted by the centre on 27 August under the title "Israeli violations of international humanitarian law", Mitri addressed the legal options available for pursuing accountability for Israeli crimes, including the possibility of bringing cases before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

"Lebanon is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court, preventing the Lebanese state from resorting to it to prosecute Israel under the current circumstances," he said.

Mitri nevertheless explained that the ICC could, under specific circumstances and through established legal mechanisms, exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed during a particular period, even if the state concerned had not fully joined the Rome Statute.

"The inability of the Lebanese state at present to turn to the International Criminal Court does not remove the right of Lebanese individuals to pursue Israel before several European courts, such as those in Spain, Belgium and France, where some European judicial systems allow, under specific conditions, the filing of cases related to international crimes or serious violations," he said.

He stressed that some individuals had already begun taking such steps.

Mitri also called on civil society associations, human rights organisations and other bodies that have documented Israeli violations to submit their research and reports to the government.

He said coordinating official and civil society efforts was essential to consolidating the evidence and preparing legal cases to pursue accountability for Israel's actions.

Inside Somaliland: The Israel-Turkey clash coming to the Horn of Africa

Somaliland officials say Yemen's Houthis need to be engaged, but they want to enlist Israel against Turkey and Somalia

Sean Mathews in Hergeisa

Published date: 2 October 2026

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-turkey-clash-coming-horn-africa

Israel’s recognition of Somaliland has been framed as giving it a launchpad to strike Yemen’s Houthis across the Red Sea, but Israel could also be on a collision course with an even more strategic foe and US ally in the Horn of Africa: Turkey. 

Officials and analysts in Somaliland say their diplomatic normalisation with Israel in January 2026 -widely condemned by the wider Muslim and Arab world - was, in part, motivated by the need to check Turkey’s growing military footprint in Somalia.

Somaliland wants Israel to provide air defence systems to counter a build-up of Turkish drones and warplanes next door, officials in Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland’s republic, which is recognised only by Israel, say.

“We need air defence systems,” Mohamed Osman Fadal, a senior foreign affairs advisor to Somaliland’s president, said in an interview. “Turkey has F-16s in Mogadishu, and it wants to build a drone base in Somalia.”

“We want Israel to support us against Turkey,” he said.

In half a dozen interviews with this Middle East Eye journalist, officials and analysts in Hergeisa said they believe Somalia, backed by Turkey’s military, can be countered through closer security ties with Israel.

'Engage the Houthis'

Mohamed Abdirahman Hassan is the director general of Somaliland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. He cuts a smooth figure in Prada glasses and an olive green suit. We met in his air-conditioned and LED-illuminated office, whose modern design contrasts with the cracked concrete foreign ministry building siting inside a garden of palm trees and bougainvillaea.

Hassan said Somaliland had no choice but to “get involved in regional rivalries” when asked about the risks of entering a diplomatic deal with Israel that was so deeply opposed by most Muslim states, with the exception of the UAE.

“We have been too good,” he said. “We had been reaching out to Arab and Muslim countries for recognition since 1991. We had to move on. Israel recognised a gap here. We are proud to partner with the Israelis."

"We have a good army, but lack materials and equipment,” which he says the government hopes Israel supplies.

Hergeisa is a laid-back East African city; a mix of concrete and corrugated metal shops, many with hand-painted signs. In the afternoon, Somali men gather under acacia trees to sip black tea boiled with camel milk, cinnamon, cardamom, and cloves. Kat, the stimulant leaf chewed across the Gulf of Aden, is ubiquitous. Kat stalls are painted bright green so you can’t miss them.

“Kat is our curse,” one Hergeisa businessman who offered me a bunch of leaves said, smiling. 

Posters of President Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi shaking hands with his Israeli counterpart, Isaac Herzog, were still visible in the capital weeks after the Somaliland president’s visit to Jerusalem. When this MEE journalist was in Hargeisa, the city's elite were turning out for a seminar by pro-Israel US academic. 

Many ordinary Somalilanders are sceptical of the ties, but when Israel’s recognition was announced, there were celebrations in the street, not protests.

“Can someone explain what Muslim country that dealt with Israel has actually benefited? Egypt? Jordan? Has Israel done anything for them? Let’s see,” Abdi, one Somalilander, said. Transactionalism seems to define how most Somalilanders view the deal. 

Somaliland is located on the Gulf of Aden. Many analysts see a quid pro quo developing, in which Israel's recognition allows it access to Somaliland's strategic coastline to potentially move against the Houthis. But Hassan and other officials I met were far less hostile to the Houthis than Israel. 

“The Houthis are not terrorists like al-Shabab. We reject that label. We are against confrontation in Yemen. The Houthis need to be engaged,” Hassan said.

Somalilanders say the common foe they share with Israel is Turkey. 

'Israel is here because of Turkey'

Israel and Turkey are wrestling for control in different spheres of the Middle East in the wake of the failed US-Israeli war on Iran. Their feud is escalating in hotspots like Syria, where Israel has pursued an expansionist agenda since the fall of the Bashar al-Assad government.

Somaliland’s rift with Mogadishu predates the tussle, but its entanglement underscores the complex web of alliances and rivalries reshaping the wider Red Sea.

“A lot of people think Israel and Turkey are gearing up for a fight, but there are too many eyes on Syria. The Horn could be where they test each other because it’s so out of the way. A big reason Israel has come to Somaliland is because of Turkey,” a former senior western diplomat in the region explained.

In his Cold War-era classic, War Clouds in the Horn of Africa, American academic Tom Farer summarised how the region lends itself to such competition, when the Horn of Africa was a battlefield between the US and Soviet Union.

At the time, Somaliland was united with Somalia, which had just fought a brutal war with neighbouring Ethiopia. That conflict saw one of the great Cold War alliance flip-flops of all time when Moscow switched backing Mogadishu in favour of Addis Ababa, and the US reciprocated.

Somaliland has governed itself independently from Somalia since the end of the Cold War. Regional rivalries have only become more convoluted since then.

Somaliland is aligned with the UAE, which is expanding its air and naval bases in Somaliland’s port city of Berbera, where the Gulf state also has the majority stake in a commercial port. Somaliland’s close ties with the UAE make it a logical partner for Israel.

Israel and the UAE have deepened their cooperation in the wake of the US-Israeli war on Iran. On the opposite side, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey have signed a joint defence agreement that is seen as a rival to their smaller neighbours’ bloc.

'Venue for confrontation by proxy'

The Somalis, a historically nomadic people who live across a swath of the Horn of Africa, are no strangers to outside powers trampling across their homeland as they jostle to control a key trade corridor.

The Ottomans and Portuguese battled for control of what is today’s Somaliland’s coast in the 16th century. The Ottomans were succeeded here by another Islamic empire, Khedival Egypt, which abandoned the region when its other colonial position, Sudan, erupted in a revolt led by Muhammad Ahmad, known as the Mahdi. Egypt’s retreat left a vacuum, and the land Somalis call home was carved up.

Britain swooped in and declared a protectorate in modern-day Somaliland. Not to be outdone, the French cemented their control of the Gulf of Tadjoura, where modern-day Djibouti lies, and Italy grabbed a Somali colony centred around Mogadishu. Menelik II, the future king of Ethiopia, took his own swath of land inhabited by Somalis, bringing them into a Christian kingdom.

That history still informs how officials in Hargeisa portray Somaliland to the outside world.

Ahmed Muse is an affable academic turned government advisor. He has a trim goatee, a wide smile, and a sharp grey suit whose working buttonholes betray it as custom. We met at the Sarovar, a sleek hilltop hotel favoured by visiting Gulf investors, western diplomats and, I was later told, Mossad.

Muse chafed at Arab and Muslim states’ criticism of Somaliland’s diplomatic deal with Israel.

“We [Somalis] lost the Somali region of Ethiopia to Menelik because the Egyptians and Turks - two Islamic powers-abandoned it,” he said, referring to the Ethiopian king. “If Turkey came to Hergaisa, would the Arab powers boycott Turkey?”

Somaliland remains bitter at Turkey for brokering a compromise that blocked Ethiopia from recognising Somaliland in exchange for access to the port of Berbera and a military base in the Gulf of Aden. Visiting Addis Ababa in February, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Israel’s recognition “does not benefit Somaliland or the Horn of Africa”.

'The Gulf states copied Turkey'

Turkey has emerged as Somalia’s most important external backer. The relationship goes back to 2011 when then-Prime Minister Erdogan became the first non-African leader to visit Somalia in two decades during a devastating drought. 

Turkey started building hospitals, roads, and even clearing garbage in the war-ravaged state. As the relationship matured, Turkey gained outsized influence over Somalia’s economy and its security institutions. Somalia is home to Turkey’s largest overseas base and a sprawling beachfront embassy.

Muse is at loggerheads with Mogadishu, but credits the “Turkish aid model” for transforming Africa’s relationship to rising powers.

“After the Cold War, the West only saw Africa through the prism of aid. Turkey saw a land with a lot of potential that had been neglected. It approached aid and security together. The Gulf states came and copied Turkey. The UAE was the first,” he said, referring to Somaliland’s closest Arab partner.

Somaliland’s history of independence long predates modern Turkey and the Arab Gulf’s interest in the Horn of Africa.

Somaliland won its independence in 1960, five days before neighbouring Somalia. From the start, the two suffered from an uneasy union that culminated in Somali ruler Mohamed Siad Barre overseeing a military onslaught against Somaliland in the late 1980s.

The Sarovar Hotel offers a stunning view of Hergeisa, which sits in a valley of the Ogo mountains, 4,300 feet above sea level. This old camel caravan town is a mushrooming metropolis of corrugated red iron roofs. Shanties and modern villas - that sell for upwards of $300,000 - are inching upwards to the surrounding hills.

Hergeisa's chaotic revival is something Somalilanders are proud of given that Barre flattened the entire city in a 1988 bombardment. A Soviet MiG-17 Jet marks the onslaught in a downtown war memorial.

The Sarovar is pricey, but not too stuffy. Teenagers and families mingle in the cliffside garden snapping photos of Hergeisa at dusk.

“We have a middle class here. The people you see aren’t just rich families,” a friend of Muse’s at our table told me, gesturing to the crowd.

Somalilanders say one reason they avoided the civil conflict that engulfed Somalia is that about 80 percent of their self-declared republic is comprised of one Somali clan, the Isaaq. The Somali people identify by clan, not tribe. There are five main Somali clans. 

Britain’s colonial legacy is also remembered differently here because it was so light-touch. The region was policed by the legendary Camel Corps whose main job was deferring to tribal law, called Xeer.

Irish writer Gerald Hanley colourfully hinted at an explanation for Britain’s limited interest in Somaliland in his memoir, Warriors: Life and Death Among the Somalis, about serving in the Camel Corps during WWII.

“[The Somalis], with their great vanity, and their touching bravery in the way which they try and cope with their difficult life have no palm oil, no cocoa, no coffee, gold, no diamonds to sell, only their camels”. For him, the Somali interior was an “arid world” where “nobody could remain sane”.

If Somaliland avoided the worst ravages of colonialism, its independence movement was also fortunate, Muse said.

Somaliland declared independence in 1991, as the Soviet Union collapsed. At the time, interventionists in the US were honing their sights on Mogadishu for a new military adventure abroad. 

“The global powers focused on Mogadishu, and Hergaisa was spared intervention,” Muse said.

“Independence came during the ‘unipolar moment’. If Somaliland had claimed independence today, things would be totally different because of all these competing powers,” he added.

For two decades, Somaliland’s relative stability, and even free elections, contrasted with the instability in Somalia. But that is starting to change and, long term, could complicate Somaliland's bid for global recognition. 

“Mogadishu is becoming a walkable city again. The kidnapping and bombing characterisation is an orientalist mischaracterisation," one Hergeisa resident who travels to the city told me.

Somalia took a major step in 2023 when the World Bank and International Monetary Fund forgave $4.5bn in loans, bringing Mogadishu’s debt-to-GDP close to zero.

The United Nations’ political mission in Somalia will close in October. “It’s Mogadishu that wants us out. They don’t like the idea of us advising them. They see themselves as a proper sovereign state,” one UN diplomat told MEE.

Somalia’s turn of fortune has come with Turkey entrenching itself in the poorer country’s security and defence institutions.

Turkey is training Somali commandos and coordinating strikes on al-Shabab with the country’s intelligence agency. Turkey has also deployed TB2 Bayraktar drones, F-16 fighter jets, and ATAK attack helicopters.

In 2024, Turkey signed a 10-year defence bill to build and train a Somali navy. The agreement places Somalia’s territorial waters - which include unrecognised Somaliland - under Turkey’s security umbrella.

Turkey has secured economic deals that some critics say lean on the extractive, given the imbalance between the two states. 

Ankara has a twenty-year lease to manage Mogadishu’s seaport and airport. Somalia has also pledged Turkey 30 percent of the revenue from any marine resources found in its exclusive economic zone. Ankara has a foothold in Somalia’s fisheries and is exploring for oil. The agreement gives Turkey the option to exploit waters Somaliland considers its own. 

“Turkey is a newcomer to the region. We have no issue with them. They have exploited Mogadishu’s resources,” Hassan, the director general of Somaliland's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, said.

“[But] Mogadishu is thinking of an [invasion], and Turkey would back them. We need to position ourselves for the future,” he added.

Somalilanders would not be the first looking to shore up their security by aligning with Israel.

When the UAE came under Iranian attacks earlier this year, Israel sent Iron Dome defence batteries to protect its Gulf ally. Greece, an old foe of Turkey, recently signed a $3.5bn deal to purchase a layered Israeli air defence system. 

The risk for Somaliland, of course, is that inviting Israel in makes it a target, jeopardising the very stability Hargeisa prides itself on.

Somaliland is now surrounded by regional wars whose battle lines have descended into rival blocks that include Israel. 

Ethiopia, which has close ties to Israel and the UAE, is battling rebel groups that it says are backed by Egypt and Eritrea. Asmara and Cairo deny the allegation, but both are wary of Ethiopia's military links to Israel. 

Meanwhile, the Houthis have swept down Yemen's Red Sea coast, taking control of the Arabian Gulf side of the Bab el-Mandeb. Israel still has a score to settle with the group. 

These are just some of the risks to being Israel's bridgehead in the Horn of Africa. 

The American Public Has Turned on Israel. Washington Doesn’t Care.

Despite collapsing public support for Israel, neoconservative officials and media elites remain unwavering in their advocacy.

by Nolan Denaro | Oct 2, 2026

https://original.antiwar.com/nolan_denaro/2026/10/01/the-american-public-has-turned-on-israel-washington-doesnt-care/

For decades, American support for Israel was a bipartisan consensus. It was believed that only fringe figures, kooks, or antisemites would question the close bond between the two nations, and that this was a relationship forged on the grounds of mutual geopolitical interests.

Well, after years of Israel conducting a mass slaughter of innocent civilians in Gaza, and after having successfully convinced President Donald Trump to launch a disastrous war in Iran, American public opinion has taken a turn. According to a Marquette Law School survey from September 2026, 59 percent of American adults have an unfavorable view of Israel, compared to only 29 percent who say they have a favorable view of the country. This is a shocking collapse from where Israel’s support was just years ago.

The policy emanating from the U.S. government, however, has not reflected this change. In fact, our political leaders and media figures have decided that now is the time to showcase their undying loyalty to Israel in a very transparent fashion.

On September 29, the Senate voted on a resolution introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), that sought to force the State Department to report to Congress on the killing of U.S. citizens by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The resolution was rejected with a 47-51 vote, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only member of the GOP to buck party lines and support the resolution.

Besides Paul, every Senate Republican – as well as Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) – voted against transparency on the issue of American citizens being killed overseas by violent settlers. What could the possible justification be for such a vote?

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), who voted “nay”, claims that the resolution was “another cynical ploy by Democrats to isolate our closest ally in the region.”

Not really a substantive rationale for opposing transparency on American civilians being attacked and killed abroad.

The GOP isn’t the only place where loyalty to Israel remains unshaken. Mike Huckabee, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, has again made statements that, at first glance, seem almost comically deranged.

In a recent virtual appearance at the “Pray Vote Stand Summit,” Huckabee was asked to identify the greatest threat facing Israel (as if that should be the primary concern of a U.S. official). He responded by saying that Israel’s most pressing danger does not come from a regional enemy, but from the collapse in support among the American populace.

“I think the greatest threat to Israel,” Huckabee explained, “is that they would be abandoned by those who should be their natural allies. Let me begin with the United States. We get more from Israel than we give to Israel, but most Americans don’t know it.”

“What I’m seeing happen in Europe, their turning against Israel and against the Jewish people,” Huckabee added. “This is setting up for a real challenge and a conflict not between countries, but between heaven and hell, light and darkness, truth and lies.”

“Some of the nations… have created for themselves a disastrous future by saying, yeah, we’re going to curse Israel. Well, based on Genesis 12, I don’t recommend it.”

Huckabee is implying here that by withholding support for Israel, European nations – and those who would do the same in America – have enacted a curse upon themselves and their countries. Huckabee’s position, therefore, is that we can never withdraw support for Israel, regardless of whether or not it’s in our nation’s interests. In doing so, he fears, we would be sentencing ourselves to hell.

Huckabee has articulated this stance before, so it comes as little surprise that he would make such an outlandish statement. Yet one can’t help but be startled by the fact that this man – delusions and all – is a government official.

A core source of Israeli influence is the neoconservative media. A cast of pro-Israel characters have been busy over the last few years doing damage control, attempting to reverse the draining of American support for Israel.
Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), is one of the most prominent advocates for a close U.S.-Israel relationship. He published an article in FDD on September 6 discussing the risk of Israel becoming financially isolated on the global stage. In his piece, he gave the Israeli government advice on how to prepare for such a scenario. One of his recommendations was deeply concerning:

“Israel and the United States should deepen their military, technological, intelligence and economic integration,” Dubowitz said, “to such an extent that inflicting financial harm on Israel would also carry a significant cost for Washington.”

Dubowitz went on to reiterate this message, saying in an interview later that month that Israel has “got to make the relationship deeper.”

“You’ve got to make Israel so valuable… that weaponizing that financial relationship against Israel is going to impose costs on the United States.”

At first glance, this can seem like a rather unimportant statement. After all, Dubowitz isn’t a government official, and can’t personally enact these policy proposals. However, Dubowitz is a highly-influential figure in D.C. foreign policy circles, who Trump has personally cited on his Truth Social. Here, he is using his influence to push for America to become so intertwined with Israel that leaving the relationship would inflict harm on our nation.

Something along these lines has been attempted in Congress. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in a 216-212 vote, which included a provision known as Section 219. This provision seeks to expand U.S.-Israeli military cooperation, deepening the relationship between Tel Aviv and Washington.

Backlash was swift from almost every faction of the American political scene. Tucker Carlson called the provision “grotesque,” saying “every person who votes for this is going to have to answer for it, in this life and the next.” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) struck a similar tone, urging that “we need to stand up for American sovereignty.”

Public opinion polling reflected Carlson and Khanna’s anger. A survey from Data for Progress found that 61 percent of Americans opposed Section 219. Despite this proposal’s unpopularity with the public, it would go on to pass the vote in the House.

The disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country continues to expand. In poll after poll, the American public expresses a deep skepticism – if not outright disapproval – of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Yet as the voters slowly become more unified on this issue, those in power dig their heels in deeper. Unrelenting in their support of a foreign nation, they are now embracing the open rejection of their constituent’s wishes.

We’ve known for a long time that Washington has its own set of interests, which they consistently prioritize over ours. It is particularly unbearable, however, for Washington elites to proudly boast of putting another nation’s interests at the forefront of their policymaking. At some point, enough is enough. America must reclaim its sovereignty.