As Gaza has been enduring a genocidal war for over eighteen months, a quiet shift is taking place in Africa: a diplomatic awakening on the Palestinian cause. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) acknowledged the plausibility of genocide in Gaza, following the complaint filed by South Africa. This commitment is historic, even though it has not succeeded in putting an end to Israeli violence. In the wake of this, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a resolution condemning Israeli “apartheid”, which holds African states accountable.
But solidarity with Palestine remains fragmented. It is driven by countries such as South Africa, Algeria, Namibia, and Senegal. Cameroon and Eritrea still refuse to recognise the State of Palestine. Rwanda, despite being marked by the 1994 Tutsi genocide, remains an ally of Tel Aviv. Morocco, despite massive protests against the normalisation of its relations with Israel, continues its security and technological cooperation.
How can these discrepancies be explained? What role do diplomatic calculations, security partnerships, or the growing influence of pro-Israeli evangelical churches play? What can the continent do for Palestine? Abdal Karim Ewaida, Ambassador of Palestine to Côte d’Ivoire and non-resident ambassador to Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso and the Democratic Republic of Congo, answers these questions in an interview with Afrique XXI, where he analyses the political battles within the African Union (AU) and calls on the African continent to transform its historical memory into diplomatic strength.
“It is a patient, methodical and confusing diplomacy”
Raouf Farrah: In 2020, Israel attempted to obtain observer status at the African Union (AU). This sparked an intense diplomatic battle that led to its exclusion in 2023. This was not the first time: Israel has been courting the AU for two decades. What does this sequence reveal, in your opinion?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: This attempt was not insignificant. Israel sought to redefine the continent’s diplomatic balances to its advantage, betting on internal divisions within the African Union. Since 2002, it has been intensifying efforts to obtain official status that would allow it to influence African collective decisions from within. This offensive has revealed a division between states that prioritise immediate strategic partnerships, security, agriculture, technology and those that remain loyal to the founding principles of the African Union: self-determination, human rights, and solidarity with oppressed peoples.
Granting Israel this status would have represented a major symbolic break: it would have weakened Africa’s collective commitment to Palestine and undermined its credibility on the international stage. Fortunately, countries like South Africa, Algeria, and Namibia mobilised to block it.
But this refusal did not put an end to Israel’s strategy. This strategy continues in other, more discreet forms: reinforced bilateral relations, especially with influential countries such as Ethiopia, the AU’s headquarters and Kenya. It is a patient, methodical and confusing diplomacy. Unless it is offset by a stronger Palestinian presence, it could gradually weaken Pan-African support for our cause.
Raouf Farrah: Would you say that Israel is exploiting Africa’s vulnerabilities to strengthen its influence and weaken African support for Palestine?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: The expansion of Israeli presence in Africa is part of a deliberate strategy: to strengthen its diplomatic influence, build strategic alliances, and reshape regional balances in its favour. Israel is investing in key sectors – security, agriculture, and innovation – which aligns with the immediate needs of many African states facing terrorism, food insecurity, or climate challenges. Several governments see this cooperation as a tool for modernisation.
In 2017, Benjamin Netanyahu became the first non-African head of state to address the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Since then, interactions between African leaders and Israeli officials have intensified. But behind this technical cooperation lies a political strategy. By strengthening its economic and military partnerships, Israel is also seeking to weaken African support for Palestine in international forums, particularly at the United Nations. Patterns of dependency are emerging, making some capitals hesitant to criticise for fear of losing support or investment.
“PLO fighters were trained in several African countries”
Raouf Farrah: There are also ideological and religious dynamics behind the support for Israel on the continent. How does the rise of Christian Zionism influence the Palestinian cause in Africa?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: Christian Zionism in Africa draws its roots from the legacy of Western Christian missions, which have shaped many evangelical communities across the continent. Today, many of these churches, influenced by American networks, see support for Israel as a religious duty linked to the fulfilment of biblical prophecies. This perspective contributes to a strong dominance of pro-Israeli narratives that often marginalise, or even completely deny, Palestinian suffering.
In some contexts, this influence even fuels rhetoric that is openly hostile toward Palestinians. However, it is important to emphasise that Christian Zionism does not represent the entirety of African religious voices. Many organisations, intellectuals, and spiritual leaders particularly in West Africa and South Africa continue to actively support the Palestinian cause. That said, confronting the growing impact of Christian Zionism requires much more than statements of principle. Awareness-raising is crucial: integrating discussions on human rights, colonial history, and the realities on the ground into faith communities, can help to deconstruct biased storylines and foster a more balanced and empathetic understanding of the Palestinian struggle.
Raouf Farrah: Nearly all African countries, except for Cameroon and Eritrea – officially recognise the State of Palestine. Has this political recognition translated into genuine support?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: For many African countries, the Palestinian cause is not seen as a foreign issue but as a natural extension of their own struggles for freedom, emancipation, and dignity. It’s worth remembering that the State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988 in Algiers, on African soil, a powerful symbol. And even before that, as early as 1974, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was granted observer status at the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the African Union (AU). These are deeply meaningful political gestures that affirmed a profound and shared historical connection. But this bond was not limited to rhetoric, it also took very concrete forms on the ground. PLO fighters were trained in several African countries, notably in Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, and Tanzania. There was a military and revolutionary solidarity among liberation movements.
The ties between the PLO and South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) are a powerful example: they shared networks, support systems, and strategies of resistance. For many years, the PLO’s rear base in Tunis also served as a key centre for political and diplomatic coordination, regularly hosting African and international delegations.
This solidarity also manifested on the international stage. In the 1970s and 1980s, Africa played a key role in major multilateral forums – whether at the United Nations, within the Non-Aligned Movement, or through the now-defunct OAU – to defend the rights of Palestinians to sovereignty and self-determination. It is a historic alliance forged through shared struggles against colonialism, apartheid, and systemic oppression.
Countries such as South Africa, Namibia, Nigeria, and Algeria continue to maintain strong commitments alongside Palestine today. But to preserve this solidarity, Palestine must strengthen its presence on the continent – not only diplomatically but also culturally, economically, and among the people. Support from African civil societies is essential to counterbalance Israeli influence and to revive a bond that has historically been rooted in shared liberation struggles.
Diplomatic recognition has been much more than a mere symbol. It has been grounded in deep historical, political, and human ties. The real question today is how to revive this solidarity in a world that has profoundly changed.
“This resolution revitalises African involvement in human rights”
Raouf Farrah: Another strong signal came from the African Union. After more than two decades of relative silence, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted a resolution in 2024 condemning Israeli “apartheid”. Does this stance mark a new phase?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: Yes. The adoption of Resolution 611 marks a turning point in the African institution’s commitment to the Palestinian cause, following a period of relative inaction punctuated only by statements of solidarity.
This resolution revitalises African involvement in human rights debates concerning Palestine, but Africa cannot stop there; this text must be the starting point for more concrete and better-structured engagement. For example, establishing a permanent monitoring mechanism on the situation in Palestine would allow systematic documentation of violations – including forced expulsions, military assaults, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on freedoms. Such data would be invaluable for future diplomatic and legal actions.
The publication of reports incorporating testimonies and legal analyses would increase pressure on African states to adopt clear positions on Palestine and their ties with Israel. The Commission can also encourage African governments to translate resolutions into concrete actions, particularly in humanitarian aid and economic cooperation with Palestine.
At the same time, improved collaboration between African and Palestinian human rights NGOs would help strengthen these commitments. In fact, these voices played a key role in the adoption of Resolution 611. Therefore, while this resolution represents progress, it must lead to active advocacy, concrete policies, and sustained mobilisation.
Raouf Farrah: South Africa’s action before the International Court of Justice against Israel has not stopped the genocidal war being waged in Gaza and the West Bank. Beyond the legal proceedings, what significance does this action hold for the Palestinians?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: This action marks a major legal and political turning point in the history of the Global South, as an African country reaffirms the validity of the 1948 Genocide Convention and mobilises international law as a tool against Israeli impunity. On January 26, 2024, following South Africa’s initiative, the ICJ issued an order recognising the plausibility of the genocide allegations and instructed Israel to take immediate measures to prevent any genocidal acts and to facilitate humanitarian aid access for Palestinians in Gaza. None of these measures have been implemented.
By bringing the case to the ICJ, South Africa sends a clear message to the world that the systematic and widespread violence inflicted on the Palestinians of Gaza cannot go unpunished. Other countries, including several African nations, as well as the African Union, have since joined this initiative, strengthening its legitimacy and demonstrating a growing international consensus on the need for justice.
Beyond its legal dimension, this procedure carries significant political weight. By compelling the international community to legally examine Israel’s actions, South Africa and its allies help to broaden global awareness of the ongoing crisis in Gaza. This initiative could increase pressure on Israel and fuel broader debates on human rights and the enforcement of international humanitarian law. The support of other countries for this legal action reflects diplomatic solidarity that goes beyond rhetoric and translates into concrete steps, such as the formation of The Hague Group – a coalition of Global South states backing South Africa’s complaint.
If the ICJ ruled in favour of South Africa, it would set a major precedent that could be used in other cases involving serious human rights violations and international crimes. Such a judgment would not only concern Israel but also send a strong message to all states engaging in systematic oppression.
“Atrocities were perpetrated in the name of the so-called civilising mission”
Raouf Farrah: You mentioned the importance of mobilising collective memory and shared historical experiences between Africa and Palestine. In what ways do the experiences of Palestinians resonate with the colonial crimes suffered by Africans?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: The massacres committed by former colonial powers in Africa bear strong similarities to the current situation in Palestine. Across the continent, atrocities were perpetrated in Namibia, Algeria, Congo, and Cameroon just to name a few carried out in the name of the so-called civilising mission and justified by a racist ideology that dehumanised colonised peoples.
This racist logic aimed at erasing the identity of the indigenous people is reflected in the narratives that legitimise the Israeli occupation, denying Palestinians their humanity and aspirations. Colonial practices such as forced displacements, massacres, and the destruction of livelihoods find a troubling echo today in the Palestinian territories, particularly in Gaza and the West Bank.
Another striking parallel is the international inaction. Just as with the African genocide, the international community remains paralysed by the geopolitical interests of certain countries, fostering a climate of total impunity.
Raouf Farrah: Despite these historical parallels, some African countries remain silent about the genocide in Palestine. Notably, Rwanda, marked by its own genocide, and Cameroon, affected by a bloody liberation war. How can these distances be explained?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: This is a complex issue. The reluctance of some African countries to support Palestine does not necessarily stem from fundamental disagreement, but rather from internal political priorities: stability, economic development, and national security.
Abdal Karim Ewaida: In some cases, it is also a matter of strategic diplomacy. These states avoid taking international positions deemed sensitive, notably so as not to jeopardise their relations with Israel or influential Western partners. It is also important to understand that some people in power adopt a cautious stance, justified in the name of “pragmatism”. Sometimes silence is preferred over a stance that could be perceived as risky.
That said, this institutional caution stands in sharp contrast with an African public opinion that is often much more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause: an opinion shaped by narratives of colonisation, resistance, and a strong identification with the suffering of the Palestinian people. This gap between governments and their populations highlights the tensions currently affecting the foreign policies of several African countries: on one side, state interests and geopolitical balances; on the other, a moral and historical expectation of consistency. It is precisely within this space that the continent’s credibility on the international stage is also at stake.
“To enrich solidarity between Palestine and Africa”
Raouf Farrah: The African media landscape, much like the religious sphere, is currently marked by competing narratives about Palestine. In your view, do African media still allow the Palestinian voice to be heard?
Abdal Karim Ewaida: Honestly, the coverage is very uneven. In some countries, the Palestinian issue regularly appears in newspapers or televised debates. But in others, it is absent. This disparity is explained by several factors: first, the weight of political alliances and governmental pressures. Where governments maintain close ties with Israel or its Western allies, the media tend to self-censor. Simply addressing the Palestinian issue can become politically sensitive, even risky.
Many African countries are going through major crises: internal conflicts, economic instability, social tensions. In this context, newsrooms naturally prioritise local emergencies. This is not always a political choice. Sometimes, it’s simply about covering what captures the public’s attention.
But there is also another aspect that is often overlooked: media ownership and ideological influences. Some avoid taking a stand so as not to offend influential political or religious groups. Others, often funded from abroad, adopt pro-Israeli narratives, sometimes implicitly.
The media have an essential role to play. It is not enough to simply report the news from Gaza or the West Bank during outbreaks of violence. We must go further: produce investigative journalism, share first-hand testimonies, analyse the roots of the conflict, and connect them to African experiences of colonialism, resistance, and the struggle for dignity. It is not just about countering Israel’s influence; it is about enriching the political, cultural, and human solidarity that has always existed between Palestine and Africa.
If you believe in the importance of open and independent journalism:
