Africa breaks with the west on Gaza

South Africa and Algeria have relied on diplomatic and judicial activism to end the war in Gaza, but African leaders more widely have distanced themselves from western double standards on human rights 

Since October 2023, the ongoing war in Gaza has reignited African interest in the Palestinian cause to unprecedented levels. South Africa took the lead in January by bringing a genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court. Continuing on the legal side, Namibia, a country in which Germany carried out its first of two genocides in the 20th century, condemned Berlin which attempted to intervene to defend Israel in the case.  

Its president, Hage Geingob who died earlier this year, wrote a blistering post on X expressing his outrage: “Germany cannot morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia, whilst supporting the equivalent of a holocaust and genocide in Gaza.” Egypt shored up South Africa, which some American politicians were threatening with sanctions, by saying it would support Pretoria’s case at the ICJ. And at the 37th AU summit earlier this year, AU commission chair, Moussa Faki Mahamat, spoke for the continent when he told Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, who was present in Addis Ababa, that Palestine could count on Africa’s “full solidarity” and “unwavering commitment.”  

African writers and analysts looking at this are similarly incensed. Adekeye Adebajo, a professor and senior research fellow at the University of Pretoria’s Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship told Project Syndicate that Israel’s war on Gaza was making it more difficult to halt the “trend words ‘global apartheid’”. Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik also took aim at western responses: “garbled language and contradictory statements are becoming common among establishment figures.” Abdi Ismail Samatar, a Somali politician and scholar directed his ire at Arab countries unfavourably comparing them to African leaders who were “able to defy Western bullying and isolate apartheid South Africa back then” whilst “Arab regimes are now cosying up to apartheid Israel and the west” today.  

This resurgence of support comes nearly fifty years after Somalia and Libya, backed by the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union), joined Cuba, Syria, and South Yemen in proposing and drafting the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism in November 1975. “Vote as your moral conscience dictates to you,” said Israeli delegate Chaim Herzog before the resolution hit the floor. It received overwhelming support, with 72 countries voting for and 35 against, as Somalia succeeded in rallying the chamber.  

Herzog would go onto accuse the resolution’s supporters of “anti-semitism” but writing in Foreign Affairs shortly after, Bernard Lewis, who Edward Said once called a “Zionist apologist”, who also attacked the resolution made the following clear: “There are good and faithful Jews who are non-Zionists or even anti-Zionists, and an anti-Zionist posture does not necessarily, mean that its holder is an anti-Semite.” Malawi, the Central African Republic, Liberia and Ivory Coast were the only African countries which broke rank and voted against it, a minority of western European (excluding Portugal) and North American settler-colonial states. The bill was later repealed in 1991 but has been bitterly contested since.  

Minor divergences in the African stance  

African voices in response to the genocide unfolding in Gaza have been loud since fighting broke out in October, and people often forget that Egypt, a large African country with a prominent history on the continent is a frontline state which has fought several wars with Israel making it a crucial bridge between the Arab and African worlds on this issue. In mid-October, just two weeks after Israel began its assault on Gaza, the AU and Arab League issued a joint statement calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Gaza and urging the international community to intensify efforts to provide essential aid and humanitarian assistance to Gaza’s 2.2 million residents. This statement marked a significant development, establishing clear African support for the Palestinian and Arab cause. The statement was perceptive, warning that Israel’s actions could lead to “genocide of unprecedented proportions.”  

The anti-Israel bloc within Africa, led by Pretoria and Algeria, succeeded in preventing Israel’s attendance at the African Union summit in Addis Ababa in February 2024. The summit’s resolution, announced by AU commission chairperson Moussa Faki alongside Palestinian prime minister Mohammad Shtayyeh, condemned Israeli aggression unequivocally and blocked Israel’s observer membership request indefinitely. “Israel is not invited to the summit,” said Ebba Kalondo, spokesperson for the president of the AU commission chair. Shtayyeh read the room correctly afterwards when he told delegates that Palestinians were “defending their country as you, in Africa, had defended your lands against colonialism.”  

In December, after three months of growing calls for an immediate ceasefire, a resolution was put before the UN general assembly. Member states adopted the resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire with 153 countries in favour and just 10 against. In Africa it was a near unanimous vote, with only Liberia rejecting. Though the general assembly has moral power its decisions aren’t binding and the push for a ceasefire eventually reached the security council in March are previous vetoes by the US. A ceasefire resolution was adopted there aiming to stop the fighting before Ramadan, supported by Algeria and Sierra Leone, Africa’s representatives on the council.  

Contrary to this collective African stance, some nations have individually expressed an understanding of Israel's motives. For instance, Kenyan president William Ruto aligned with Israel from the start, as reflected in Kenyan UN ambassador Martin Kimani’s statement following Kenya’s vote for the ceasefire, where he denied recognizing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.  

Ruto moderated his position only after substantial public and institutional pressure. Similarly, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Congo, and Cameroon have implicitly supported Israel due to their close security, strategic, and economic ties. This was exemplified by Kigali hosting Israeli president Isaac Herzog during the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, viewed by some as diplomatic promotion of Israel in Africa amid its declining influence in the region. Max Blumenthal accused Kagame of being “Israel’s biggest tool in Africa.” Sana Saeed, another American journalist with AJ+ pointed out Israel’s complicity in the Rwanda genocide in a post of which Kagame people were victims. Mohamed Kheir Omer, an Eritrean researcher noted a broader pattern, highlighting the presence of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo better known as Hemedti, who is also accused of carrying out an on-going genocide. Ban Ki-moon’s former speechwriter Mark Seddon, asked why South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, who was standing behind Herzog, didn't carry out a citizen’s arrest.

African roles in the Gaza war: Pretoria takes the lead, Algeria not far behind 

The retreat of countries like Egypt and Morocco from leading and coordinating African responses to the war can be understood in terms of existing political sensitivities, neighbourhood concerns, security issues and Israel’s on-going aim of expanding normalisations with the Middle East through the Abraham Accords. In Cairo’s case, there is also concern about this conflict’s expansion. In February, Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, raised alarm when he said the Houthi blockade of the Red Sea had cut Suez Canal traffic in half, a major source of hard-currency for the country.  

Meanwhile, South Africa and Algeria have emerged as key players advocating for a peaceful resolution to the war in Gaza and efforts to stop the killing. South Africa has taken a prominent diplomatic and judicial stance against the war. South African foreign minister Naledi Pandor contacted Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in mid-October to discuss crisis resolution, drawing notable western criticism and signaling Pretoria’s ongoing approach to the crisis. Pandor has emerged as one of the world’s most vocal champions of Palestinian rights through this conflict. She has threatened to arrest South African fighters in the Israeli army, defended comparisons between the occupied West Bank to apartheid in her country and has blasted double standards on international law about Gaza.  

South Africa translated its indignation at Israeli actions in December, by preparing a request to prosecute Israel at the International Court of Justice for genocide in Gaza, filed early this year. Although symbolic as Israel will ignore it, this move has significantly damaged Israel's international reputation, prompting a directive from Tel Aviv to diplomats, politicians, and the media of the countries that host its embassies, to counter this narrative. “I must say that I have never felt as proud as I felt today when our legal team was arguing our case in The Hague,” Cyril Ramaphosa said after one of the hearings. Analysts have viewed South Africa’s case as a broader challenge to the western-led global order. “Going forward, it’s going to weaken the hand of the Western world to advance human rights,” David Monyae, the director of the Center for Africa-China Studies at the University of Johannesburg told the New York Times. 

Pretoria’s efforts have succeeded in exerting significant pressure on Israel (and perhaps some of its allies who continue to arm it) in both diplomatic and international judicial tracks, following the ICJ’s decision in January to compel Israel as the occupying authority to take measures “to prevent genocide in Gaza.” Last week South Africa requested additional emergency measures which were granted by the ICJ which ordered Israel to halt its offensive operations in the Rafah governorate. That same afternoon, Israel demonstrated its total disregard for international humanitarian law, targeting the so-called al-Mawasi “safe zone” it created along Gaza’s coast with an airstrike.  

On the legal track, Pretoria has also accused Israel of apartheid this year during a separate case on Israel’s occupation of Palestine. Vusimuzi Madonsela, South Africa’s ambassador to the Netherlands, told the court that Israel’s behaviour in the West Bank was “an even more extreme form of the apartheid” than was instituted in his own country. In an interview with Geeska, Ebrahim Rasool, a former South African ambassador to the US echoed Madonsela saying: “In Palestine there are walls. We have not been carpet bombed. We have had mass jailings and detentions without trial, but apartheid South Africa would at least uphold the facade of being a serious state. What I’m saying is that it is much, much worse.” During the hearing, Ma Xinmin, China representative at the ICJ stunned observers when he reminded them that the right to resist foreign occupation, even by armed struggle, was protected under international law, a right also held by Palestinians.  

South Africa’s legal activism has been met with calls to also do more to ensure aid can reach Gaza. During a meeting with the Danish foreign minister in Pretoria, Naledi Pandor said, force should be used to break Israel’s siege if necessary, calling on the west and other powerful states to escort aid into the strip themselves. “And since these are very close friends of Israel, surely, they will be allowed safe passage. I can't imagine them being fired upon by the Israeli forces," said Pandor. Expressing his gratitude for South Africa’s boldness and determination, Haidar Eid, a professor at Gaza’s al-Aqsa University wrote: “We will not forget how it showed us unwavering support and bravely took a stand for us at the world court when even our own brothers have turned their backs on us in fear.” 

Algeria’s role has been less prominent but still crucial in supporting Palestine. Like South Africa, the Front de Libération Nationale saw parallels in its struggle for independence from France in the current Palestinian struggle. Houari Boumédiène, Algeria’s former president famously quipped in 1974, that “we stand with Palestine, whether right or wrong!” That year Yasser Arafat, then widely depicted in the west as a terrorist, was invited to address the UN by the general assembly’s president Abdelaziz Bouteflika, Algeria’s foreign minister. “I have come with an olive branch in one hand, a fighter’s rifle in the other,” Arafat said, “do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.” 

That bond hasn’t wavered since. As early as October 2022, Algeria was attempting to facilitate reconciliation agreements among various Palestinian factions, including Fatah and Hamas. Algeria also has a long record of coordination with Pretoria in preventing Israel from obtaining observer status in the African Union. Since June 2023, Algeria has focused on its role within the UN security council as a non-permanent member to increase pressure on the US to help end the war. In early February of last year, Algeria drafted a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which was opposed by Washington on the grounds that it would only benefit Hamas. Additionally, Algeria, along with China and Russia, objected to a later US resolution which linked the imperative of a ceasefire to releasing the hostages. This objection came just days before the security council passed its recent resolution on the crisis on March 25th, representing an important diplomatic success for Algeria in an African context as well.