This article, “When the Abraham Accords Become an Empty Brand, Reality Chooses Somaliland,” discusses Israel’s recognition of Somaliland as an independent state and contrasts it with the broader context of the Abraham Accords.
Here’s a breakdown:
-
Israel recognizes Somaliland: The author, Shay Gal, argues this is a significant move because Somaliland is a functioning de facto state with its own institutions, elections, and stability.
-
Critique of the Abraham Accords: The author contrasts this with what they see as the hollow branding of countries like Kazakhstan as successes of the Abraham Accords, arguing that some additions are merely symbolic and lack substance.
-
Trump’s perspective: The piece criticizes Donald Trump’s transactional view of foreign policy, where recognition is seen as a bargaining chip rather than a recognition of reality.
-
Somaliland vs. Somalia: The author highlights Somaliland’s self-built institutions compared to Somalia’s reliance on foreign powers like Turkey.
-
Call for recognizing Taiwan: The author suggests Israel should consider applying the same logic to recognizing Taiwan, given its de facto independence.
-
Strategic honesty: The piece concludes that Israel’s recognition of Somaliland demonstrates strategic honesty and highlights the gap between genuine progress and political maneuvering.
-
Overall argument: The main point is that recognizing Somaliland is a meaningful action based on reality, unlike some of the symbolic additions to the Abraham Accords, which the author views as politically motivated and lacking substance.
The complete piece is as follows:
When the Abraham Accords Become an Empty Brand, Reality Chooses Somaliland
By Shay Gal
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland cuts through the noise. While Donald Trump shrugs at statehood as a “big deal” and Washington inflates the Abraham Accords by branding countries like Kazakhstan as diplomatic breakthroughs, Somaliland stands as the opposite: a de facto state that built institutions, held elections, and secured stability where others sold sovereignty. This was not recognition as ceremony or marketing – it was recognition of reality. In a region of proxies and performances, Somaliland earned statehood, and Israel chose it deliberately.
“Does anyone even know what Somaliland is?” Donald Trump asked from his golf course, hours after Israel’s official recognition. He added two words: “Big deal”.
In a single question – and a note of contempt – the gap was exposed: between a politics that hunts for headlines and a foreign policy that grapples with reality.
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is dramatic not because of Somaliland itself, but because of the precedent it sets. Israel signed a declaration of mutual recognition, committed to diplomatic relations and cooperation. Predictable condemnations followed – from Somalia, the African Union, and regional actors – all in the name of stability and sovereignty.
But the real story is not the recognition itself, but the way it was framed. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved quickly to link the decision to the “spirit of the Abraham Accords”, almost as if Donald Trump’s name had been written onto the document, even though the decision was entirely Israeli. This was not a historic declaration but a polite gesture, a signal to Washington that Israel was continuing the initiative.
Trump’s predictable response made clear that the United States was not mobilized. For Trump, foreign policy is not a principle – it is utility.
In Washington, “Somaliland” has surfaced more than once – almost always as a trial balloon. From the perspective of the Trump administration, recognition is first and foremost a transaction. As a result, American discourse revolves not around institutions or democracy, but around Bab el-Mandeb – one of the most critical maritime arteries for Israel and global trade – around Yemen, and around China’s presence in Djibouti. The question is not who governs territory, but who profits from it.
And this is precisely where Israel’s move stands apart. Israel acted without coordination, without ceremony, and without seeking approval – and that is what gives the decision its weight. In foreign policy, values are not speeches; they are the price one is willing to pay.
To understand how unusual this is, it is enough to contrast it with Kazakhstan’s so-called “joining” of the Abraham Accords. Israel and Kazakhstan have maintained full diplomatic relations since 1992; there was nothing to normalize and nothing to “open”. The announcement changed no reality – it produced a headline. When even a country that has enjoyed full relations with Israel for three decades is suddenly branded an “Abraham” success, what once broke taboos turns into a sticker.
In Jerusalem, the move was received with embarrassment. Behind official closed doors, it drew criticism and mockery; in public, silence. That silence was deliberate – a policy choice to stay out of someone else’s theater.
For Washington, however, the move served a very different purpose. Kazakhstan sits at the heart of Central Asia, at the crossroads of minerals, influence, and competing strategic architectures. It is neither Middle Eastern nor aligned with the geographic logic the Abraham Accords were designed to advance. Trump mixed maps: he wrapped a state embedded in Eurasian land corridors – a continuous axis of railways, minerals, and influence running through Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Turkey – in Middle Eastern branding, linking a Mediterranean-oriented framework to a route designed to bypass it, and sold a symbolic achievement without leverage.
The result was strategic confusion. Partners could not tell which direction the United States was actually pursuing. Israel gained nothing; the Abraham Accords lost coherence.
When everything becomes “Abraham”, what was meant to expand peace erodes. If Kazakhstan is “Abraham” without substance, Somaliland is substance without “Abraham”. Linking the recognition to the accords was therefore polite – but strategically mistaken.
By contrast, Somaliland has functioned as a de facto state for more than three decades – not as a proxy and not as a client. It has held competitive elections, managed peaceful transfers of power, and maintained stability in one of the world’s harshest regions. While Somalia sold its sovereignty to Turkey – bases, ports, a hospital bearing President Erdoğan’s name, and military influence – in exchange for protection and infrastructure, Somaliland built institutions.
The international community has avoided formal recognition, yet behaves as if Somaliland already exists: unofficial diplomatic presence, strategic investment in Berbera Port, and approved security cooperation. According to local reports, this has also included Israeli defense systems sold to another country and transferred onward with the prior, rigorous approval of Israel’s Defense Export Control Agency. Such approval is never routine. Israel’s recognition sends a clear message: there is a limit to a diplomacy that rewards fiction and punishes reality.
Along the corridor between an Iranian proxy in Yemen and a Turkish proxy in Somalia, Somaliland is the last democratic coastline not leased to anyone.
There is one other case where this logic should force an Israeli debate: recognition of Taiwan’s independence. Not as a provocation against China, but by the same standard – a democratic, sovereign entity in practice, kept outside the formal system due to great-power pressure.
Ultimately, Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is a lesson in strategic honesty. It exposes how the “spirit of the Abraham Accords” has shifted from a framework for reshaping reality into a language of politeness. It highlights the gap between a Washington searching for bargaining chips and a Jerusalem that chose, this time, to act alone.
It was a “big deal” for exactly the reason Trump failed to grasp: not because Somaliland is large, but because Israel chose reality over ceremony.
An earlier version of this essay was published in Hebrew on Walla (Israel) under the title “כשהסכמי אברהם הופכים למותג ריק, האמת בוחרת סומלילנד”. This English version has been revised by the author.
Shay Gal is a senior strategic advisor and analyst specializing in international security, defense policy, geopolitical crisis management, and strategic communications. He served as Vice President of External Relations at Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and previously held senior advisory roles for Israeli government ministers, focusing on crisis management, policy formulation, and strategic influence. 
