An Israeli commentator argues that Somaliland should seek international recognition while maintaining control over its sovereignty, warning that excessive reliance on foreign mediation could complicate its long-standing quest for independence
HARGEISA — As discussions about Somaliland’s international recognition gain momentum and reports emerge of growing U.S. interest in the strategic Horn of Africa territory, an Israeli commentator is urging Somaliland leaders to proceed cautiously, warning that foreign support can come with political costs that may ultimately undermine national aspirations.
In a sharply worded commentary titled “Somaliland, Don’t Let America Steal Your Sovereignty,” the Israeli writer argues that while the United States can be a valuable partner, Somaliland should avoid allowing Washington to become the primary architect of its quest for international recognition.
Drawing heavily on Israel’s own experience with American diplomacy, the author contends that foreign mediation often transforms questions of sovereignty into subjects of negotiation.
“American help can be useful. But American involvement can be disastrous,” the writer states.
The commentary comes at a time of heightened geopolitical interest in Somaliland, whose strategic location along the Gulf of Aden and near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has attracted attention from regional and international powers seeking partners in one of the world’s most important maritime corridors.
Israel’s Experience as a Cautionary Tale
The author frames Israel’s history with the United States as a warning for Somaliland policymakers.
While acknowledging decades of American military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel, the writer argues that such assistance has often been accompanied by pressure to make concessions in pursuit of broader regional objectives.
“America has helped Israel militarily, economically, and diplomatically. But that help has never been free of pressure,” the article says.
According to the author, Washington’s involvement in major Middle East peace initiatives repeatedly constrained Israel’s strategic freedom and encouraged policies that ultimately failed to deliver lasting peace.
The commentary specifically references the Oslo peace process and Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, arguing that both decisions produced unintended consequences.
“It was the Oslo Accords that gave us two intifadas and hundreds of dead civilians,” the author writes. “It was the Gaza disengagement that eventually gave us Hamas and October 7th.”
These claims reflect the author’s perspective and remain subjects of debate among historians, policymakers, and security analysts.
Concerns Over Somaliland’s Recognition Process
The central argument of the article focuses on Somaliland’s long-running campaign for international recognition.
The writer praises Somaliland’s political development over the past three decades, noting its relative stability compared with much of Somalia.
“Somaliland has spent decades proving it is not Somalia,” the author argues. “It built functioning institutions. It maintained relative stability. It held elections. It secured itself while Somalia collapsed into chaos.”
According to the commentary, those achievements form the strongest case for Somaliland’s claim to recognition.
However, the author warns that if international actors—particularly the United States—take control of the recognition process, Somaliland could find itself under pressure to negotiate core questions of sovereignty.
“Once America becomes the broker, sovereignty becomes negotiable,” the writer contends.
The article suggests that greater U.S. involvement could introduce additional stakeholders into discussions over Somaliland’s future, including the Federal Government of Somalia and regional actors with differing interests.
“Suddenly, Mogadishu gets a seat at the table. Suddenly, hostile actors become stakeholders. Suddenly, Somaliland is told to compromise for regional stability,” the commentary states.
Regional Dynamics and Foreign Interests
The writer also raises concerns about broader regional politics, arguing that Washington’s relationships with Gulf states could influence its approach toward Somaliland.
The article points specifically to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which the author characterizes as generally supportive of Somalia’s territorial position.
“Somaliland must ask itself a serious question: If America steps in as the referee, whose interests will Washington actually protect?” the writer asks.
While offering criticism of potential U.S. mediation, the commentary does not advocate isolation. Instead, it encourages Somaliland to continue expanding international partnerships while maintaining control over its political future.
The author suggests strengthening ties with countries and partners that have engaged directly with Somaliland, including Israel, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and Taiwan.
A Debate About Sovereignty
At its core, the article reflects a broader debate facing unrecognized or partially recognized states: whether international recognition is best achieved through diplomatic mediation or through the gradual accumulation of political, economic, and strategic partnerships.
For the Israeli commentator, the answer is clear.
“Take help where interests align. Never let foreign diplomats manage your sovereignty,” the writer concludes.
The article ends with a warning that Somaliland’s greatest achievement has been building functioning institutions and stability without waiting for international approval.
“Somaliland survived because it did not wait for permission. It built reality on the ground,” the author writes.
As international interest in Somaliland continues to grow amid rising competition in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa, debates over how the territory should pursue recognition—and which foreign partners it should trust—are likely to become increasingly prominent both within Somaliland and beyond.
