Israel’s announcement recognizing the so-called “Somaliland” as an independent state raises questions that extend well beyond the Somali context, touching the core of regional balances in the Horn of Africa. The issue is not merely the status of a breakaway region; it strikes at a foundational principle governing relations between states: does respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity still guide international behavior, or has it become subject to power politics and shifting political alignments?
Since the end of the Cold War, the international system has undergone rapid transformations that have weakened its traditional safeguards. Collective legitimacy has steadily given way to unilateral actions by regional and global powers, often justified by temporary security or political considerations. In this environment, recognition of secessionist entities is no longer a rare exception; it has become a broader indicator of a system being tested—its coherence, its rules, and its capacity to restrain fragmentation.
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland fits squarely within this pattern. It is not grounded in any internationally recognized legal process, nor does it rest on regional consensus or UN authorization. Rather, it represents a unilateral political move that deepens existing divisions, fuels internal tensions, and provides a dangerously misleading sense of political legitimacy. Regardless of the declared or undeclared motives behind it, this step risks creating a precedent whose consequences will be difficult to contain if treated as a fait accompli.
Legally, Somaliland’s status is not ambiguous. The region has received no international recognition and does not meet the criteria of sovereign statehood under international law—most notably, broad recognition and acceptance within the international system. Somalia’s borders, as those of a UN and African Union member state, are internationally recognized and cannot be altered by the unilateral decision of another state. Any attempt to bypass this framework constitutes a direct violation of international legality.
Yet the risks of this move extend beyond legal considerations. The Horn of Africa is one of the world’s most strategically sensitive regions, overlooking the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandab Strait—key arteries for global trade and maritime security. Any political or security instability in this area quickly transcends local boundaries, directly affecting regional and international interests.
From this perspective, recognition of a breakaway entity becomes an additional destabilizing factor. Instead of supporting state-building processes and strengthening national institutions, it encourages fragmentation—reviving conflict in new forms. Regional experience, from the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, demonstrates that entities born outside a framework of national consensus often become zones of fragility rather than viable, sustainable states.
This move also cannot be separated from the intense regional and international competition underway in the Horn of Africa. The region is witnessing a race for influence expressed through military bases, economic agreements, and control over ports. In such an environment, political recognition becomes a geopolitical instrument rather than an expression of commitment to international law or genuine stability.
Nor can Israel’s decision be divorced from its broader strategic calculations in the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. Despite being part of an internationally recognized Somali state and outside the control of the central government, the region is viewed as a politically and security-permeable space—one that could offer Israel an additional foothold in a highly sensitive zone. This aligns with Israel’s efforts to expand its presence in the southern Red Sea, monitor vital maritime routes, and counter the influence of rival regional powers. From this angle, the recognition reflects geopolitical maneuvering rather than support for self-determination.
Against this backdrop, regional opposition—particularly from Egypt and Arab states—takes on added significance. Egypt’s rejection of the move is not merely symbolic; it stems from a strategic assessment that views Somalia’s unity as integral to safeguarding the security architecture of the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa. Stability in this region is closely tied to the national security of surrounding states, and any disruption carries broader consequences.