Two African Nations Refuse to Recognize Palestine
Why Two African Nations, Cameroon and Eritrea, Still Refuse to Recognize Palestine: A Strategic Political Stand
While the global tide of recognition for Palestine continues to rise, with over 80% of UN member states supporting its statehood, two African countries, Cameroon and Eritrea, remain firm in their refusal to extend formal recognition to Palestine. This stance stands in stark contrast to the broader African consensus, where most nations have long supported Palestinian self-determination. But why do these two countries continue to stand apart from the rest of the continent, especially as the global momentum grows stronger?
The Growing Global Support for Palestine
At this week’s United Nations General Assembly, nations from all corners of the world reaffirmed their commitment to recognizing Palestine as a state. Prominent countries such as Britain, Canada, Australia, France, and Malta added their voices to the ever-growing chorus, bringing the total number of nations recognizing Palestine to 157. That’s more than 80% of the world’s nations, with many embracing Palestinian statehood as part of a broader commitment to human rights and justice.
Africa, traditionally one of Palestine’s strongest allies, has remained mostly consistent in this regard. Most of the continent’s 54 states have long backed Palestinian recognition. Last year, 38 African nations supported a ceasefire resolution at the UN to address the violence in Gaza. The continent has firmly stood with Palestine’s cause for years, with the African Union (AU) condemning Israeli military actions as violations of international law.
Cameroon and Eritrea: Clinging to Strategic Alliances with Israel
However, among these supportive African nations, Cameroon and Eritrea stand as exceptions. These two countries refuse to recognize Palestine, clinging instead to their alliances with Israel. According to analysts, their positions highlight how national security concerns and regime survival often take precedence over broader regional solidarity or international consensus.
Cameroon has had a longstanding relationship with Israel, one rooted in survival rather than ideology. President Paul Biya, who has been in power since 1982, restored diplomatic relations with Israel in 1986, even as most African countries severed ties with Israel in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. For Biya, this was a pragmatic decision. Israel has provided Cameroon with critical military training, intelligence support, and surveillance technology, all crucial for maintaining control over the country’s elite Rapid Intervention Battalion (BIR), which fights insurgents like Boko Haram and separatist groups in the Anglophone region.
As activist Ken Mbah puts it, “Cameroon’s relationship with Israel is transactional and rooted in regime security.” For Biya, the stakes are high—losing access to Israeli military support could endanger his grip on power. In this context, the question of Palestinian recognition becomes secondary to ensuring regime survival. Even when violence flared in Gaza in October 2023, Biya was quick to express condolences to Israeli President Isaac Herzog, condemning Hamas but making no mention of Palestinian casualties. His stance was widely criticized by the African Union, which called the conflict a result of Israel’s “denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.”
Eritrea, under President Isaias Afwerki, shares a similar approach but for different reasons. Since its independence from Ethiopia in 1993, Eritrea has been politically isolated, both regionally and internationally, often referred to as “Africa’s North Korea.” Relations with Western countries have soured due to human rights abuses, and Eritrea has faced heavy criticism for its involvement in the Ethiopian civil war.
Given its isolation, Eritrea has found a strategic partner in Israel. The two countries’ relationship has been built on security cooperation, intelligence sharing, and mutual interest in controlling vital shipping lanes in the Red Sea. Eritrea’s government, rarely forthcoming about its foreign policy decisions, reportedly views Israel as a vital partner that understands its precarious position in the Horn of Africa. Israel has provided Eritrea with support without demanding political reforms, a lifeline in a region where the country has few friends.
The African Union’s Solidarity with Palestine
The refusal of Cameroon and Eritrea to recognize Palestine has become more noticeable as the rest of Africa continues to press for Palestinian rights. South Africa, for example, has taken a prominent role in calling for justice for Palestinians, invoking its own apartheid history to frame the Gaza conflict. The African Union has hosted Palestinian leaders at its summits, while excluding Israeli representatives in a show of solidarity.
Even countries with close ties to Israel, such as Kenya and Ghana, have consistently supported Palestinian resolutions at the UN. Despite the diplomatic closeness these nations share with Israel, they have not wavered in their support for Palestinian self-determination.
Geopolitical analyst Ovigwe Eguegu notes that the positions of Cameroon and Eritrea have minimal impact on Africa’s collective stance on the issue. With 96% of African UN members recognizing Palestine, the influence of these two countries on the continent’s broader outlook is limited. They are outliers, prioritizing regime survival over continental solidarity, rather than rejecting Palestinian rights.
Political Obstinacy or Practical Necessity?
While some may argue that Cameroon and Eritrea’s refusal to recognize Palestine is rooted in practical necessity, others, like Horn of Africa researcher Biruk Melaku, suggest that their stance is more about political obstinacy. He points out that other African nations, such as Uganda and Rwanda, have forged strong defense and intelligence ties with Israel but have still managed to strike a balance by recognizing Palestine. These countries show that it is possible to maintain relations with Israel while also supporting Palestinian statehood.
For Biruk, the justification that survival necessitates ignoring Palestinian rights doesn’t hold water when other nations have managed to navigate similar diplomatic challenges without sacrificing moral principles. “If Uganda and Rwanda can strike that balance, then the refusal of Asmara and Yaoundé to recognize Palestine looks less like necessity and more like stubborn political choices,” he argues.
Conclusion: The Enduring Battle Between Morality and Survival
The positions of Cameroon and Eritrea underscore the complex intersection of survival, politics, and diplomacy. In both cases, their refusal to recognize Palestine reflects a pragmatic calculation about the importance of maintaining vital alliances with Israel. However, this strategy also isolates them in the eyes of the African Union and much of the international community, where solidarity with Palestine remains a fundamental pillar of foreign policy.
As global momentum builds for Palestinian recognition, the question remains: will these two African nations eventually shift their positions, or will they continue to prioritize strategic survival over broader moral and political commitments? Only time will tell, but for now, Cameroon and Eritrea remain steadfast in their alliances, regardless of the growing consensus around them.
