Mohamoud Walaaleye
There is an important question that deserves serious consideration: Who is actually undermining Islamic and Arab solidarity—Somaliland by establishing relations and cooperation with Israel, or the countries that claim to defend Palestine while sometimes pursuing policies and taking actions that appear to contradict their own rhetoric?
This question has become particularly relevant since Israel recognized Somaliland and the two sides began developing new relations and cooperation. Since then, countries including Turkey, Egypt, Somalia, Djibouti and some Arab states have strongly criticized Somaliland, often linking their position to the preservation of Somalia’s unity and Islamic brotherhood.
But if the argument is about Palestine and Muslim solidarity, it is important to look at actions, not merely words.
Somaliland and Palestine: Separating Politics from Religion
The people of Somaliland have long demonstrated strong solidarity with the Palestinian people. During the Gaza war, Somalilanders organized campaigns and fundraising efforts to support the Palestinian population, while Turkey provided fuel and critical components to Israel, and Egypt closed its border to Palestinians fleeing the war, including women and children.
This demonstrates that Somalilanders can maintain strong brotherly solidarity with Muslim populations in need, whether in Palestine or elsewhere, while simultaneously pursuing their national interests through relations with Israel. Political and diplomatic relations with Israel do not necessarily mean abandoning humanitarian concern, compassion, or solidarity with another people.
It is possible for Somaliland to protect its national interests while also sympathizing with the Palestinian people.
The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
Somaliland appears to be shaping its foreign policy around a pragmatic approach that prioritizes national interests, security, trade, and international cooperation, rather than emotional rhetoric, political posturing, or questionable agendas promoted by certain regional actors.
This is a policy approach used by many governments around the world.
So What Is Behind the Continued Hostility?
When Israel recognized Somaliland, the debate that followed was not limited to Somaliland and Israel. It quickly expanded into the geopolitics of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and Bab al-Mandab—areas that are now among the most strategically important regions in the world.
Somaliland is located near the Bab al-Mandab strait, through which international trade and maritime traffic between the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean pass.
Therefore, every new relationship Somaliland establishes with a foreign power carries implications beyond its borders.
This explains why many countries in the region are concerned about any major developments involving Somaliland.
But the real question is:
Why does concern over Somaliland repeatedly turn into campaigns aimed at undermining Somaliland’s existence, stability and development?
Turkey, Egypt and Somalia: Words and Actions
Turkey and Egypt both have significant interests in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. Somalia, meanwhile, continues to claim Somaliland as part of its territory and therefore strongly opposes any development that strengthens Somaliland’s international recognition.
However, when these governments argue that Somaliland’s cooperation with Israel undermines Islamic solidarity, it is reasonable to ask:
Are there not other relationships these governments maintain with countries whose policies or actions involve disputes concerning the Palestinian cause?
Turkey, Egypt, and other Muslim and Arab governments have maintained diplomatic, economic, or security relations with Israel for many years, although the nature and level of those relations have evolved at different stages. Somalia itself has, at various points, expressed interest in establishing relations with Israel, but those ambitions have, so far, failed to materialize.
Therefore, if Somaliland is being condemned for establishing relations with Israel on the grounds of “Islamic brotherhood,” it is legitimate to ask whether the same standard should be applied to other governments.
If the standard is political, then let it be called politics.
If the standard is religious, then it should be applied equally to all sides.
What is unfair is to judge one country by one standard while applying another standard to other countries.
Does Somaliland Interfere in Somalia’s Problems?
For decades, Somaliland has remained largely focused on maintaining peace, stability, and development within its own territory, without becoming consistently entangled in Somalia’s political and security conflicts. Somalia, meanwhile, continues to face significant security challenges, with armed groups still capable of carrying out attacks in areas not far from the capital.
This raises another question:
If regional and international countries genuinely want a peaceful Somalia, why not direct more of that energy toward resolving Somalia’s security problems instead of focusing primarily on Somaliland’s relations with Israel?
Somaliland does not seek Somalia’s collapse, as its official actions have often demonstrated. Likewise, the people of Somaliland do not celebrate when security crises occur in Somalia.
However, when even minor incidents occur inside Somaliland, they are sometimes heavily amplified by countries hostile toward Somaliland, particularly since the emergence of Somaliland’s relationship with Israel. These countries have increasingly adopted a narrative in which almost every incident is used as part of the broader political campaign against Somaliland.
Is Palestine Being Used as a Political Argument?
The Palestinian cause is a major humanitarian and political issue. The Palestinian people deserve peace, security, freedom and a dignified life.
But this valuable cause should not be turned into a political weapon used to attack anyone who adopts a policy different from that of certain Arab or Muslim governments.
Somaliland has the right to pursue relationships that it believes serve its national interests.
At the same time, the people of Somaliland have the right to express humanitarian solidarity with the Palestinian people.
These two positions do not have to contradict each other.
Indeed, one could argue that wise politics requires understanding that national interest does not necessarily erase the human conscience.
The Hadith and the Question That Needs to Be Asked
There is a well-known hadith whose meaning is that a person should love for his brother what he loves for himself.
If this principle is applied, it is worth asking:
If regional countries want the political aspirations of the Somali people to be respected, should they not also respect the political aspirations of the people of Somaliland?
If countries want independence, security and development, should the people of Somaliland not also have the right to seek the same things?
If brotherhood is genuine, it should be brotherhood based on respect and justice, rather than brotherhood that forces another people to abandon its national interests.
Bab al-Mandab and the New Reality in the Horn of Africa
The issue today is no longer limited to Somaliland and Israel.
It concerns who will have influence over the future of the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandab.
Somaliland’s geographic position in the Horn of Africa gives it undeniable strategic importance. Its ports, long coastline, access to maritime trade routes and proximity to Bab al-Mandab have made Somaliland a place of growing interest to regional and international powers.
Israel’s recognition has placed this issue in a new phase.
This may explain why some experts and politicians in Egypt, Turkey, and other Arab countries are increasingly calling for a reassessment of their long-standing policies toward Somalia and advocating a more pragmatic approach—one that avoids isolating Somaliland or undermining its legitimate international partnerships and cooperation.
Somaliland today is no longer merely an issue that can be viewed through the lens of Somalia; it is gradually becoming part of the broader geopolitical calculations of the Red Sea.
Conclusion: Let There Be One Standard
The central argument is not simply that Somaliland has the right to cooperate with Israel.
The argument is that international politics should be governed by a fair and consistent standard.
If relations with Israel are something for which Somaliland should be condemned, then every relationship other governments maintain with Israel should be assessed by the same standard.
If Islamic brotherhood is the principle, then it should be practiced when it comes to Somaliland, Palestine, Somalia and all Muslim peoples.
If Palestine is genuinely being defended, its cause should not be invoked only when condemning Somaliland.
Somaliland has the right to defend its national interests, seek international partners, develop its economy, preserve its stability, and provide humanitarian support to people whom it considers victims.
True brotherhood does not mean forcing someone to abandon their interests; it means respecting their right to choose their own path while also respecting the rights of others.
Ultimately, the question facing Somaliland is not simply what Turkey, Egypt, Somalia, Djibouti or the Arab countries say.
The question is:
Who is willing to treat Somaliland for what it is—a society with political aspirations, a government with national interests, and a territory located along some of the world’s most important strategic maritime routes?
If the world wants stability in the Red Sea, perhaps the time has come to view Somaliland as part of the solution to the region’s challenges, rather than continually treating it as the problem.