By: Abdikarin Dahir
Monday January 5, 2026
Benjamin Netanyahu’s recognition of Somalia’s northern region of Somaliland is not an act of diplomacy grounded in peace, legality, or mutual benefit. It is a calculated geopolitical maneuver that threatens Somalia’s unity, destabilizes the Red Sea region, and advances Israel’s long-standing strategy of fragmentation, encirclement, and demographic engineering in the Global South.
More disturbingly, this move is laden with a sinister subtext: Netanyahu’s pursuit of relocating Palestinians to parts of East Africa. Under the guise of recognition and partnership, this agenda echoes another chapter of forced displacement, an externalization of ethnic cleansing that seeks new territories to absorb a people expelled from their homeland.
If recognition is the currency being exchanged, what does Somaliland actually receive in return for hosting foreign military infrastructure and aligning itself with a deeply polarizing regional agenda? And by granting access to the Bab al-Mandeb and the Red Sea, is Somaliland’s leadership genuinely advancing self-determination, or subordinating its future to a strategy designed to control one of the world’s most sensitive maritime chokepoints for external powers?
At the heart of this aggression lies a simple but devastating question. Netanyahu clearly knows what Israel gains by recognizing Somalia’s northern region of Somaliland, but what exactly does Somaliland get in return?
International recognition is not a popularity contest; it is a function of power. Taiwan is recognized by just 12 states, Palestine by 157, yet neither is a member of the United Nations. One veto at the Security Council is enough to nullify international consensus. China blocks Taiwan; the United States blocks Palestine. That is how global politics works.
History offers a clear parallel. In 1971, newly independent Bangladesh urgently needed international recognition to survive. In February 1972, Israel offered formal recognition. Bangladesh refused, despite the diplomatic cost, because acceptance would have required recognizing Israel. Dhaka chose principle over expediency, standing with the Palestinian people and maintaining unity with the Muslim world. The decision surprised many, but it affirmed a lasting truth: recognition without values is empty. For Bangladesh, legitimacy was not merely about being acknowledged, but about remaining faithful to its moral and political convictions.
The same logic applies here. The United States and the United Kingdom maintain a ‘One Somalia Policy’. China does the same. Without the backing of major powers and without UN membership, recognition by Israel, a state that itself lacks diplomatic relations with around 30 UN member states, offers Somaliland no meaningful legal or economic transformation. Even Kosovo, recognized by 117 countries, remains outside the UN. Symbolism without sovereignty is not statehood.
The international response so far has been telling. The African Union, the European Union, the Arab League, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, IGAD, and numerous individual states have rejected the recognition. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Nigeria, and Pakistan have made their positions clear. Even South Sudan, whose foreign minister was initially reported to be considering a similar step, publicly reaffirmed respect for Somalia’s territorial unity.
Somalia has never recognized Israel in the 65 years since its independence in 1960. It has consistently supported the Palestinian cause, not out of sentiment, but from a shared understanding of occupation, dispossession, and resistance. Recognition between states is always a matter of national interest, and Somalia has found no reason to legitimize a state whose policies are defined by occupation and collective punishment.
Israel’s move must also be understood within the geopolitics of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. Aligning with the UAE and Ethiopia, Israel is positioning itself against a Somalia that is part of a Saudi-led Red Sea framework and closely partnered with Türkiye and Qatar.
By inserting itself into Berbera, a strategic port at the mouth of the Red Sea, Israel risks fragmenting a 100 percent Muslim country, provoking internal conflict, and encircling key regional powers including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye.
Beyond geopolitics, this recognition invites further instability by inflaming intra-clan tensions and emboldening violent extremist groups. Al-Shabab and ISIS thrive on narratives of foreign intrusion and territorial fragmentation, while actors such as the Houthis exploit Red Sea militarization to justify escalation. The consequence is deepening instability in a region already riddled with terrorism and ethnic conflict.
This alone underscores how little unilateral gestures matter when confronted with institutional legitimacy. Beyond diplomatic rejection, the episode has also exposed Somaliland to unprecedented global scrutiny, much of it critical, particularly in the Muslim world and among a wider international community already sensitized by Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza.
The decision by Somaliland’s leadership to embrace this move has been widely criticized as strategically reckless and suicidal. Rather than elevating Somaliland’s standing, it has introduced it to the world as a region willing to ignore international law, regional consensus, and the suffering of Palestinians for an empty diplomatic gesture and a role as a host for proxy wars and militarization.
For Somalia, the implications are profound. The country has made significant strides in rebuilding its institutions, restoring its international standing, and advancing a democratic transition after decades of state collapse. External interference that legitimizes separatism threatens to reverse this progress, embolden fragmentation, and inflame regional tensions at a time when unity is essential for security and development.
There is also a broader lesson for the international community. If recognition becomes a tool wielded opportunistically by states pursuing narrow strategic interests, then no country with internal political complexities is safe. Today it is Somalia. Tomorrow it could be any state confronting diversity, decentralization, or post-conflict reconstruction.
True diplomacy builds bridges between states. Predatory geopolitics exploits fractures within them. The international community must be clear-eyed about which path this recognition represents, and choose to stand on the side of law, stability, and principled engagement.
As Bangladesh demonstrated in 1972, true legitimacy is earned not through expedient recognition, but through the courage to uphold principle even when the diplomatic cost is high.
Abdikarin Dahir is a Somali political analyst and can be reached at:
Email: [email protected]