Uncategorized
A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary
(JTA) — Israel’s new governing coalition has been called the “most right-wing” in the nation’s history. That’s heartening to supporters who want the country to get tough on crime and secure Jewish rights to live in the West Bank, and dismaying to critics who see a government bent on denying rights to Israel’s minorities and undermining any hope for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While the far-right politics of new government ministers Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir have drawn much of the world’s attention, a series of proposed changes to Israel’s judicial system has also been raising hopes and alarms. On Wednesday, new Justice Minister Yariv Levin announced an overhaul that would limit the authority of the High Court of Justice, Israel’s Supreme Court. It would put more politicians on the selection committee that picks judges, restrict the High Court’s ability to strike down laws and government decisions and enact an “override clause” enabling the Knesset to rewrite court decisions with a simple majority.
Levin and his supporters on the right justify these changes as a way to restore balance to a system that he says puts too much control in the hands of (lately) left-leaning judges: “We go to the polls, vote, elect, and time after time, people we didn’t elect choose for us. Many sectors of the public look to the judicial system and do not find their voices heard,” he asserted. “That is not democracy.”
Critics of the changes call them a power grab, one that will hand more leverage to the haredi Orthodox parties, remove checks on the settlement movement and limit civil society groups’ ability to litigate on behalf of Israeli minorities.
To help me make sense of the claims on both sides, I turned to Tom Ginsburg of the University of Chicago, where he is the Leo Spitz Distinguished Service Professor of International Law and co-directs the Comparative Constitutions Project, which gathers and analyzes the constitutions of all independent nation-states. He’s also a Jew who has transformed a former synagogue on the South Side of Chicago into a cutting-edge arts space, and says what’s happening with Israel’s new governing coalition “raises my complicated relationship with the country.”
We spoke on Friday. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You have written about law in Israel, which lacks a constitution but relies on a series of “basic laws” to define its fundamental institutions. You’ve written that the Israeli judiciary had become “extremely powerful” — maybe too powerful — in imbuing the basic laws with a constitutional character, but worry that the current reforms will politicize the court in ways that will undermine Israeli democracy.
Tom Ginsburg: The proposed reforms were a campaign promise of certain elements of this coalition who have had longstanding grievances against the Israeli judiciary. The Israeli judiciary over the last decades has indeed become extremely powerful and important in writing or rewriting a constitution for Israel, promoting human rights and serving as a check and balance in a unicameral parliamentary system where the legislature can do anything it wants as a formal matter. A lot of people have had problems with that at the level of theory and practice. So there have been some reforms, and the court has, in my view, cut back on its activism in recent decades and in some sense has been more responsive to the center of the country. But there’s longstanding grievances from the political right, and that’s the context of these proposals.
A lot of the concerns about the new government in Israel are coming from the American Jewish left. But in an American context, the American Jewish left also has a big problem with the United States Supreme Court, because they see it as being too activist on the right. So in some ways isn’t the new Israeli government looking to do what American Jewish liberals dream of doing in this country?
Isn’t that funny? But the context is really different. The basic point is that judicial independence is a really good thing. Judicial accountability is a really good thing. And if you study high courts around the world, as I do, you see that there’s kind of a calibration, a balancing of institutional factors which lead towards more independence or more accountability and sometimes things switch around over time.
Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin holds a press conference at the Knesset, the Israeli parliament in Jerusalem, Jan. 4, 2023. (Olivier Fitoussi/Flash90)
You mean “accountability” in the sense that courts should be accountable to the public.
Right. The Israeli promoters of these plans are pointing to the United States, in particular, for the proposals for more political involvement in the appointment process. On the other hand, in the United States once you’re appointed politically, you’re serving for life. There’s literally no check on your power. And so maybe some people think we have too much independence. If these proposals go through in Israel, there will be a front-end politicization of the court [in terms of the selection commission], but also back-end checks on the court [with the override clause that would allow a simple majority to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court]. So in some sense, it moves the pendulum very far away from independence and very much towards accountability to the point of possible politicization.
And accountability in that case is too much of a good thing.
Again, you don’t want courts that can just make up rules. They should be responsive to society. On the other hand, you don’t want judges who are so responsive to society that there’s no protection for the basic rights of unpopular minorities.
What makes Israel either unique or different from some of the other countries you study, and certainly the United States? Part of it, I would guess, is the fact that it does not have a constitution. Is that a useful distinction?
They couldn’t agree on a single written constitution at the outset of the country, but they have built one through what you might call a “common law method”: norms and practices over time as well as the system of “basic laws,” which are passed by an absolute majority of the Knesset, where a majority of 61 votes can change any of those. But while they’re not formally entrenched, they have a kind of political status because of that term: basic law.
By the way, the Germans are in the same boat. The German constitution is called the Basic Law. And it was always meant to be a provisional constitution until they got together and reunified.
If you don’t have a written constitution, what’s the source of the legitimacy of judicial power? What is to prevent a Knesset from just passing literally any law, including ones that violate all kinds of rights, or installing a dictator? It has been political norms. And because Israel has relied on political norms, that means that this current conflict is going to have extremely high stakes for Israeli governance for many decades to come.
Can you give me a couple of examples? What are the high stakes in terms of democratic governance?
First of all, let me just say in principle that I don’t oppose reforms to make the judiciary more independent or accountable in any particular country. But then you obviously have to look at the local context. What’s a little worrying about this particular example is that several members of this coalition are themselves about to be subject to judicial proceedings.
Including the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Right. And for example, they need to change the rules so that [Shas Party chairman] Aryeh Deri can sit in the cabinet despite his prior convictions. That indicates to me that maybe this isn’t a good-faith argument about the proper structure of the Israeli, uncodified constitution, but instead a mechanism of expediency.
Any one of these reforms might look okay, and you can find other countries that have done them. The combination, however, renders the judiciary extremely weak. Right now, it’s a multi-stakeholder commission that nominates and appoints judges in Israel, and the new coalition wants to propose that the commission be made up of a majority of politicians. We know that when you change the appointments mechanism to put more politicians on those committees, the more politicized they become.
Think about the United States process of appointing our Supreme Court judges: It’s highly politicized, and obviously the legitimacy of the court has taken a big hit in recent years. In Israel, you’d have politicized appointments under these reforms, but then you also have the ability of the Knesset to override any particular ruling that it wanted. Again, you can find countries which have that. It’s called the “new commonwealth model” of constitutionalism, in which courts don’t have the final say on constitutional matters, and the legislature can overrule them on particular rulings. But I think the combination is very dangerous because you could have a situation where the Knesset — which currently has a role in protecting human rights — can pick out and override specific cases, which really to me goes against the idea of the rule of law.
You mentioned other countries. Are there other countries where these kinds of changes were enacted and we saw how the experiment turned out?
The two most prominent recently are Hungary and Poland, which are not necessarily countries that you want to compare yourself to.
Certainly not if you are Israel.
Right. There’s so much irony here. When the new Polish government came in in 2015, they immediately manipulated the appointment system for the Constitutional Court and appointed their own majority, which then allowed them to pass legislation which probably would have been ruled unconstitutional. They basically set up a system where they were going to replace lower judges and so they were going to grow themselves into a majority of the court. And that’s led to controversy and rulings outside the mainstream that have led to protests, while the European Union is withholding funds and such from Poland because of this manipulation of the court.
In Hungary, Victor Orban was a really radical leader, and when he had a bare majority to change the constitution he wiped out all the previous jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. I don’t think the Israeli government would do that. But still there is this kind of worrying sense that they’re able to manipulate interpretation of law for their own particular political interest.
Another thing I want to raise is the potential for a constitutional crisis now. Suppose they pass these laws and the Israeli Supreme Court says, “Well, wait a minute, that interferes with our common law rules that we are bound by, going back to the British Mandate.” It conflicts with the basic law and they invoke what legal scholars call the “doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments,” which is basically saying that an amendment goes against the core of our democratic system and violates, for example, Israel’s character as a Jewish and democratic society. Israel has never done this, but it is a kind of tool that one sees deployed around the world in these crises. And if that happened, then I think you would have a full constitutional crisis on your hands in Israel.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak speaks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a ceremony in the Supreme Court marking 50 years of law, Sept. 15, 1998. (Avi Ohayon)
What does a constitutional crisis look like?
Suppose you have sitting justices in Israel who say, “You know, this Knesset law violates the basic law and therefore it’s invalid.” And then, would the Knesset try to impeach those judges? Would they cut the budget of the judiciary? Would they back down?
When you compare Israel’s judicial system to other countries’ over the years, how does it stack up? Is it up there among the very strong systems or is it known for flaws that might have maybe hobbled its effectiveness?
It’s always been seen around the world as a very strong judiciary. Under the leadership of Aharon Barak [president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006] it became extremely activist. And this provoked backlash in Israeli politics. That led to a kind of recalibration of the court where it is still doing its traditional role of defending fundamental rights and ensuring the integrity of the political process, but it’s not making up norms left and right, in the way that it used to. This is my perception. But it’s certainly seen as one of the leading courts around the world, its decisions are cited by others, and because of the quality of the judges and the complex issues that Israel faces it’s seen as a strong court and an effective court and to me a balanced court.
But, you know, I’m not in Israel, and ultimately, they’re going to figure out the question how balanced it is or where it’s going to go. I do worry that an unchecked majoritarian system, especially with a pure proportional representation model like Israel, has the potential for the capture of government by some minorities to wield power against other minorities. And that’s a problem for democracies — to some degree, that’s a problem we face in the United States.
How correctable are these reforms? I am thinking of someone who says, “These are democratically elected representatives who now want to change a system. If you want to change the system, elect your own majority.” Is the ship of state like this really hard to turn around once you go in a certain direction?
This is an area in which I think Israel and the United States have a lot of similarities. For several decades now, the judiciary has been a major issue for those on the political right. They thought the Warren Court was too left-leaning and they started the Federalist Society to create a whole cadre of people to staff the courts. They’ve done that and now the federal courts are certainly much more conservative than the country probably. But the left didn’t really have a theory of judicial power in the United States. And I think that’s kind of true in Israel: It’s a big issue for the political right, but the political left, besides just being not very cohesive at the moment, isn’t able to articulate what’s good about having an independent judiciary. It is correctable in theory, but that would require the rule of law to become a politically salient issue, which it generally isn’t in that many countries.
How do you relate to what is happening in Israel as a Jew, and not just a legal scholar?
That’s a great question, because it really raises my complicated relationship with the country. You know, I find it to be a very interesting democracy. I like going to Israel because it’s a society in which there’s a lot of argument, a lot of good court cases and a lot of good legal scholars. On one level, I connect with my colleagues and friends there who seem very demoralized about this current moment. And I honestly worry about whether this society will remain a Jewish and democratic one with the current coalition.
The rule of law is a part of democracy. You need the rule of law in order to have democracy function. And I know others would respond and say, “Oh, you’re just being hysterical.” And, “This isn’t Sweden, it’s the Middle East.” But the ethno-nationalist direction of the country bothers me as a Jew, and I hope that the court remains there to prevent it from deepening further.
—
The post A law professor worries Israel could become the next Hungary appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
New York City Mayor’s Office Releases Antisemitism Report as Jews Brace for Mamdani Administration
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
New York City on Wednesday released its first mayoral report on antisemitism amid major looming changes to the city’s government, which will soon be in the hands of an avowed democratic socialist who has made anti-Israel activism a cornerstone of his political career and been accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric.
Unveiled by the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, which was established in May, the document arrived hours before Zohran Mamdani is inaugurated to become the next mayor of New York City on Thursday.
Mamdani, an anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
The new report, replete with statistics showing a connection between anti-Zionism and historic surges in antisemitic violence, reads as a rebuke of the nexus of ideas which forms the worldview of Mamdani and his subordinates.
It defends the city’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which Mamdani has accused of “chilling free speech.” It denounces the boycott, divest, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel as discrimination based on “race, creed, color” and other immutable characteristics. Mamdani supports BDS, calling it “consistent with the core of my politics.” Additionally, the report argues that anti-Zionism is antisemitic, a statement with which Mamdani disagrees — in 2021 he said, “Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism.”
“The connection between Jewish identity and the Land of Israel is not political preference but religious and cultural foundation extending back millennia,” the report says. “The practical consequence of anti-Zionist rhetoric is the dehumanization of Zionists (the vast majority of Jewish people) and the dehumanization of all Jewish people. When Zionism itself is characterized as racist or illegitimate, Jewish people become targets for hostility and violence. This dynamic helps explain why attacks on Israel’s legitimacy correlate with increased antisemitic incidents in the diaspora, targeting all Jewish people regardless of their politics.”
It adds, “Understanding modern antisemitism requires recognizing that Jewish identity is intrinsically tied to Israel. Municipal responses that fail to account for this dimension misunderstand the contemporary manifestation of this ancient hatred.”
Despite such statements in the report, Mamdani’s transition and administrative appointees have histories of antisemitic rhetoric, support for terrorist groups, or affiliations with organizations hostile to Israel and the Jewish community, according to a new report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
In a detailed document released last week, the ADL said it reviewed more than 400 individuals appointed on Nov. 24 to serve on 17 transition committees responsible for staffing the incoming administration and shaping its policy agenda. The ADL said at least 20 percent of these appointees have either a “documented history of making anti-Israel statements” or ties to radical anti-Zionist organizations that “openly promote terror and harass Jewish people.”
More broadly, Mamdani’s administration will be staffed with lawyers who have defended al Qaeda members, advocated mandatory housing for the deluge of undocumented migrants straining the city’s public services, and as previously reported by The Algemeiner, would have included a woman who once fulminated on social media against who she described as “money hungry Jews” if the comments had not been revealed by the ADL and led to her resignation.
Other members of Mamdani’s team hold ties to the Nation of Islam, whose leader has called Judaism a “gutter religion”; participated in the anti-Israel encampments which convulsed higher education campuses following the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel; and have been photographed promoting Hamas by brandishing its symbol, an inverted red triangle.
Mamdani will be sworn in as mayor amid a surge in antisemitic hate crimes across New York City.
Jews were targeted in the majority (54 percent) of all hate crimes perpetrated in New York City in 2024, according to data issued by the New York City Police Department (NYPD). This week’s report from the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism noted that figure rose to a staggering 62 percent in the first quarter of this year, despite Jewish New Yorkers comprising just 11 percent of the city’s population.
As The Algemeiner has previously reported, antisemitic hate crimes have eroded the quality of life of New York City’s Orthodox Jewish community, which is the target in many, if not most, antisemitic incidents. In just eight days between the end of October and the beginning of November 2024, three Hasidim, including children, were brutally assaulted in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. In one instance, an Orthodox man was accosted by two assailants, one masked, who “chased and beat him” after he refused to surrender his cellphone in compliance with what appeared to have been an attempted robbery. In another incident, an African American male smacked a 13-year-old Jewish boy who was commuting to school on his bike in the heavily Jewish neighborhood. Less than a week earlier, an assailant slashed a visibly Jewish man in the face as he was walking in Brooklyn.
In 2025, New Yorkers have seen organized antisemitic harassment. Last month, hundreds of people amassed outside a prominent New York City synagogue and clamored for violence against Jews.
Mamdani issued a statement which “discouraged” the extreme rhetoric used by the protesters but did not unequivocally condemn the harassment of Jews outside their own house of worship. Mamdani’s office notably also criticized the synagogue, with his team describing the event inside as a “violation of international law.” The protesters were harassing those attending an event being held by Nefesh B’Nefesh, a Zionist organization that helps Jews immigrate to Israel, at Park East Synagogue in Manhattan.
In the new mayoral report, the outgoing mayor, Eric Adams, uttering what will be one of his final public statements as New York City’s chief executive, said it is the job of both the government and the people to oppose antisemitism.
“New York City is home to the largest Jewish community outside of Israel — a point of pride and a responsibility,” he wrote. “Antisemitism is not only a Jewish problem — it tests our city’s character. I invite you to read this report as both a record of what we have done and a blueprint for what we must continue to do: confront hate with moral clarity, back words with action, and ensure every New Yorker knows that in this city, hate has no home.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
London Cafe Owner Features Face of Alleged Hamas Operative on Outdoor Chairs
Demonstrators attend the “Lift The Ban” rally organised by Defend Our Juries, challenging the British government’s proscription of “Palestine Action” under anti-terrorism laws, in Parliament Square, in London, Britain, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
In London, a restaurant which has fashioned itself as a hotspot for anti-Israel advocacy has put forth a new provocation with the decision to feature images of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, a Palestinian pediatrician and neonatologist who was allegedly a key figure in facilitating Hamas’s terrorist operations, on the backs of chairs facing the sidewalks.
On Monday, Heidi Bachram — a Brighton, England-based, pro-Israel writer and social media personality with more than 51,000 followers — shared a video on X of Shakeshuka, a Palestinian eatery, showing off the face of Abu Safiya.
“Shakeshuka guy put the face of a Hamas Colonel on chairs outside his cafe in London,” Bachram posted. “This place is a five-minute walk from a popular Jewish restaurant. He’s despicable.”
The accompanying video shows owner Haleem Kherallah standing outside of his establishment, a self-described “Palestinian Kitchen,” with images of Abu Safiya attached to the backs of wooden chairs with woven seats.
Shakeshuka guy put the face of a Hamas Colonel on chairs outside his cafe in London. This place is a five minute walk from a popular Jewish restaurant. He’s despicable. pic.twitter.com/G5OplXSvYB
— Heidi Bachram
(@HeidiBachram) December 29, 2025
The restaurant declares itself “a home, a hub, a heartbeat.” At the top of its homepage, a large video features readings from Palestinian activists and poets.
“Over the years, Shakeshuka has become more than a space, it’s a community,” the website states. “A gathering point for authors, artists, activists, filmakers [sic], changemakers, and everyone who stands with Palestine, united in their voice, their creativity, and their commitment to justice. In these walls, conversations have sparked, connections have grown, and the fight for peace has been held with strength, dignity, and hope.”
The restaurant’s homepage describes ShakeShuka as “the brainchild of Haleem Kherallah from Palestine” and explains how he draws inspiration “from his mother’s cherished recipes and the bountiful fresh ingredients found in Palestine.” ShakeShuka calls itself “a unique dining experience in the heart of London” and “the first Palestinian restaurant in the city” which offers that with “every bite, diners are transported to the authentic tastes of Palestine.”
In June, ShakeShuka attracted attention for its anti-Israel advocacy when video emerged of customers celebrating during an Iranian missile attack against Tel Aviv.
Kherallah “operates as a Palestinian activist, making it shocking that such an establishment exists in central London,” Dr. Amira Halperin, a professor at the University of Nottingham who researches terrorism, said at the time, according to Israel Hayom.
Halperin described how “walking into the restaurant just one day after the terrorist attack against two Israeli diplomats in Washington felt like entering a Hamas command center.”
“Gaza photographs and anti-Israel messaging covered the walls,” Halperin observed. “Tables displayed Palestinian flag colors alongside ‘save Gaza’ slogans. One image promoted an ‘Apartheid Free Zone’ campaign connected to the BDS movement. The owner actively participates in Cage International alongside attorney Fahad Ansari, who represents Hamas in legal proceedings seeking to remove the organization from Britain’s terrorist list. Moussa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official, directs the case and advises the legal team.”
Advocating on behalf of Abu Safiya has become a popular cause in the pro-Hamas support network around the world. On Monday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a statement calling on the Trump administration to “demand” the Abu Safiya, describing him as “the Gazan doctor who walked toward Israeli tanks in an iconic video, and who has been held for one year without charge or trial after being kidnapped by Israeli forces.”
Last December, Israel arrested Abu Safiya and several other people while conducting a raid on the Kamal Adwan hospital in northern Gaza, where the Israeli military was fighting Hamas terrorists. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it arrested Abu Safiya because he was “suspected of being a Hamas terrorist operative.” The IDF also insisted that the hospital has been used as a “command and control center” for the Palestinian terrorist group.
The following month, a new report citing terrorists’ confessions revealed Israeli hostages were held in Kamal Adwan hospital, where the Israeli raid had uncovered a sprawling network of terrorists operating within the hospital’s walls, leading to the detention of over 240 Hamas terrorists, some of whom admitted that the facility was used as a base for Hamas operations.
Israeli forces also discovered that Abu Safiya was actively complicit in Hamas’s terrorist activities. As interrogations of detainees progressed, it became clear that the doctor was more than just a passive observer — he was a key figure in facilitating Hamas operations, according to Israel. Despite his alleged involvement in the group’s actions, however, an international campaign emerged since then to call for his release, a movement spurred by his media appearances throughout the war.
“We realized that the person at the heart of it all, the one organizing the terrorism and Hamas activities within the compound, was the hospital director himself,” Lt. (res.) D., a field investigator in military intelligence, told Israel’s Channel 12 news in January, referring to Abu Safiya. “The world must understand that there is close and clear cooperation between the medical team and the senior leadership of the terrorist organization: they cynically exploit our desire to avoid harming the helpless and use the medical platform to establish a base for terrorism.”
Terrorists inside the facility reportedly distributed grenades, mortars, and equipment for ambushing IDF troops.
On Saturday, the Qatari network Al Jazeera uploaded a video of Abu Safiya’s son pleading for his father’s release. The House of Thani monarchy in Qatar has long funded Hamas and offered safe harbor to Muslim Brotherhood leadership.
On Dec. 22, the Middle East Monitor published an op-ed by Adnan Hmidan, chair of the Palestinian Forum in Britain, declaring that Abu Safiya deserves the title of “Hostage of the Year 2025.”
Uncategorized
Somaliland already operates as a de facto state. So why is Israel’s recognition of it so controversial?
Last week, Israel became the first nation in the world to recognize Somaliland as a country, prompting global outcry and an emergency meeting of the United Nations.
The de facto state on the northern coast of the Horn of Africa has long operated independent of Somalia, but before Israel’s announcement, its sovereignty had not been officially recognized by any UN members.
After the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime in Somalia in 1991, Somaliland declared independence. The breakaway region has its own democratically elected government, military, currency, license plates and passports. It is often lauded for bringing relative stability to the region, with a record of peaceful transfers of power, though it is still only rated “partly free” by Freedom House amid crackdowns on journalists.
Somaliland also benefits from relative social cohesion, with the Isaaq clan comprising the majority of the population— a factor which has contributed to its stability in a clan-based society, according to Seth Kaplan, a lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies who has researched Somaliland.
Somalia, however, considers Somaliland to be part of its territory, and slammed Israel’s recognition as an “illegal act” that undermines the region’s stability.
Is the recognition illegal?
There is no international law that bars countries from unilaterally recognizing a state. But countries generally consider international norms, including deference to the preservation of existing borders so as to prevent cascading secessionist conflicts.
The African Union has been especially committed to this principle, adamant that post-colonial borders remain intact to avoid instability and ever-changing lines.
“Any attempt to undermine the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Somalia runs counter to the fundamental principles of the African Union and risks setting a dangerous precedent with far-reaching implications for peace and stability across the continent,” Nuur Mohamud Sheekh, spokesperson for the African Union, wrote in a statement.
In Somalia’s case, its border disputes trace to the late 19th century, when the north was governed by Britain as British Somaliland, the south by Italy as Italian Somaliland, and the area that is now Djibouti by France as French Somaliland. In 1960, the British and Italian territories gained independence and united to form the Somali Republic.
In Somalia, tens of thousands of people protested against the recognition, many waving Somali flags. Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, also called Israel’s move to recognize Somaliland illegal.
At the same time, there is no blanket ban on recognizing breakaway states that challenge existing borders: Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, and more than 100 UN member states, including the United States, recognize it. Serbia does not, nor do five European Union countries, which have cited concerns that recognition could embolden separatist movements within their own countries.
Meanwhile, U.S. ambassador to the UN Tammy Bruce accused the international body of applying double standards when it comes to unilateral recognition, noting that several countries have independently recognized Palestine as a state without triggering emergency UN meetings.
Somaliland’s bid for recognition is bolstered by the fact that it already functionally operates as a relatively stable, autonomous state, according to Kaplan. It meets many of the widely cited criteria for statehood, including a permanent population, a defined territory, and an independent government.
“In general, I support those norms of not recognizing breakaway states,” Kaplan said. “But if there’s one country or one state in the world that deserves it, this would be the one place.”
Israel’s goals
For others, resistance to Somaliland’s independence appears less driven by objections to Somaliland’s sovereignty than by opposition to Israel’s goals in the region.
While Israel’s exact motivations remain unclear, Kaplan said the move seems intended to secure a strategically important foothold in the Horn of Africa. As part of the recognition, Somaliland has agreed to join the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and Muslim-majority nations.
“From the Israeli perspective, this is going to be a base that it can leverage to get a better handle on Yemen, as well as anything that Iran or other rivals of Israel might be doing in the Red Sea,” Kaplan said.
There is also fear about ulterior Israeli motives, with Israel having reportedly contacted Somaliland about sending Palestinians forcibly displaced from Gaza to the region. Somaliland denied that such a discussion took place.
Even in Somaliland, some residents expressed disappointment that the long-awaited recognition came from Israel of all countries, though most coverage has depicted scenes of celebration.
“It would be less controversial if Ethiopia or the UAE had done it,” Kaplan said. “But for the people of Somaliland, you can understand why they might be happy with this decision by the Israeli government.”
The post Somaliland already operates as a de facto state. So why is Israel’s recognition of it so controversial? appeared first on The Forward.