The African summit between Israel and Gaza

Part of the activities of the 37th African Summit (Al Jazeera)

Although the 37th regular African summit in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa - held on February 17-18 - carried the slogan: (African education suitable for the 21st century), it did not ignore many hot issues in international relations, especially in the Middle East, where The Israeli aggression against Gaza since the seventh of last October.

Although the issue of Palestine was a fixed and “routine” item in the work of previous summits, it gained some momentum in the statement issued by the last summit, which was influenced - as it seems - by the honorable African position presented by South Africa about two months before it was held, when it filed a lawsuit before... The International Court of Justice accuses Israel of committing genocide against the people of Gaza.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the statement was strong in terms of “tone,” even if it lacked concrete practical measures on the ground, as it demanded an immediate cessation of the Israeli aggression, the necessity of bringing immediate aid to Gaza, rejecting the idea of ​​displacement, and demanding an end to the “colonial” occupation that was One of the basic principles in the founding law of the Organization of African Unity, and its successor, the African Union, with the necessity of establishing an independent Palestinian state on the borders of June 4, 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The Africans have built a balanced approach to the Palestinian issue, based on the idea of ​​dealing with both parties: “Israel and Palestine represented in the Palestine Liberation Organization,” with the need to encourage the two-state solution.

Israel's membership in the Union between postponement and termination

The African Union declined to approve granting Israel observer status at this summit.

Because of the events in Gaza.

The African Commission was keen to confirm that it did not invite Israel to attend, and its delegation that came to Addis Ababa, as well as its ambassador to Ethiopia, were not allowed to enter.

For fear of causing further confusion;

Because of the African shipping situation against Tel Aviv due to the events in Gaza.

Although a senior official in the Union announced that the Israel file has been closed, others - including the writer of these lines - believe that the issue has been postponed and not closed permanently;

Due to the continuing disagreement between member states regarding it.

This discrepancy is due to the presence of 48 countries out of a total of 54 African countries that have diplomatic relations with Tel Aviv, whether at the level of embassies or consulates, which means that 90% of these countries have a relationship with Tel Aviv, and enjoy full relations with it at all political, diplomatic and commercial levels. And cultural, which means in another way that Israel is welcomed in Africa.

Perhaps this is what prompted Commission President Moussa Faki, who agreed to grant Israel this status in 2021, to ask this question during his briefing before the meeting of heads of state and government in February 2022, where he accused some countries that refused to grant Israel this status of double standards, as The majority - from his point of view - supports establishing bilateral relations with it, so why do they refuse to grant it observer status, even though the entitlements resulting from it are much less than those related to bilateral diplomatic normalization with it?!

This discrepancy contributed to the failure to issue a clear decision from this summit, or other previous summits on this issue, which means that the issue was postponed and not closed.

Some may be waiting for the appropriate opportunity to re-introduce it again, and after the end of the Gaza war, Tel Aviv will not tire of pushing some “friendly” countries to re-introduce it again.

The African balance between Israel and Palestine

Since the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, African relations with Israel have returned to their former normal, and we have witnessed a feverish African race to restore these relations.

The Africans adopted a balanced approach to the Palestinian issue, based on the idea of ​​dealing with both parties: “Israel and Palestine represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization,” with the need to encourage the two-state solution.

Therefore, the majority of African countries that condemn Israel, and in return demand the establishment of a Palestinian state, believe that this state - from their point of view - will not come at the expense of their relationship with Tel Aviv.

To achieve its personal interests on the one hand, and because this normalization, from its point of view, may help “pressure” Israel to establish a Palestinian state.

On the other hand, others who reject normalization, whether on the Arab or African level, link it to the necessity of establishing a Palestinian state first.

Perhaps this explains the voting behavior of African countries in international forums. Despite 90% of normalization with Israel, more than 90% of these countries approved General Assembly Resolution A/RES/78/170 on December 21, regarding Palestine’s sovereignty over Its territories, and many normalized countries voted against condemning Hamas in the United Nations because of the Al-Aqsa flood: “Central Africa, Congo, Gambia, Guinea, Zimbabwe, Senegal.”

Who represents Palestine?

Although the African position is based on the idea of ​​balance in looking at Palestinian-Israeli relations, on the internal Palestinian level it recognizes that the Palestine Liberation Organization is the legitimate representative of Palestine in international forums, which is confirmed by the decisions issued by previous summits.

The African summit before last, “2023,” affirmed, for example, its “full support for the Palestinian people in their legitimate struggle against the Israeli occupation, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization led by President Mahmoud Abbas, in order to restore their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination and the return of refugees, And independence in the State of Palestine existing side by side with the State of Israel.”

It is true that Africans recognize the anti-colonial national liberation movements, and some refused to vote against condemning Hamas in the United Nations, but official African invitations remain directed towards the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, and no invitation was sent to Hamas representatives to attend this summit or any other, even though they are part of the fabric. The Palestinian National, and they are the ones leading the liberation battle to get rid of the “colonial” occupation.

It seems that putting forward such an idea may clash with the desire of some Arab and African countries not to anger Israel, or even Washington, which accuses the movement of terrorism.

Therefore, the “official” African position in this section remains in contrast to the “popular” position, which believes that the organization and the Palestinian Authority have been overtaken by events, and that Hamas has become at the forefront of the scene and cannot be bypassed in any way.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.