Israel has long wanted to be friends with the AU. Though the Israelis punch above their weight in many fields, the country needs friends, including those on the African continent. Stuck in the legacy of bloody territorial battles bequeathed by a careless colonial decision, the people of Palestine and Israel also fight their battles beyond the disputed territories, in the diplomatic world.
Although the decision to accept Israel as an observer member of the African Union is a unilateral decision made by the African Union Commission, it reflects Israeli interest in the African continent and recent Israeli breakthroughs in the co-opting of many of its countries, and normalization with others, including Arab countries.
In July this year Africa and the world woke up to news reports that Israel had observer status at the AU. Several African governments were appalled, Palestinians included. It would be foolish to ignore relations with the anti-imperialist African collective. By sheer weight of numbers and historical profile, the African voice counts. Sympathy and solidarity with the Palestinian cause is evident in the African collective. Hence, with the dogged persistence of an unwanted sibling, Israel has long courted acceptance in the African brood.
As a start, at least 23 African countries, Zimbabwe included, have issued statements opposing the decision. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) instructed its ambassadors in Ethiopia to seek clarity from the commission. The objecting countries have now united in a formal move for the commission to rescind its decision by placing the matter for debate at the next session of the AU executive council. The thrust of the objections from the African countries is that the commission did not consult AU member states before taking the decision. The admission of Israel as an observer, or receiving her diplomatic credentials at the very least, contradicts the AU’s position against the continued occupation of Palestine by Israel. The objecting countries consider the decision as a unilateral move by the commission’s chairperson. The matter also raises questions about AU procedures, and in particular, member states’ relations and powers versus their own secretariat headed by the commission’s chairperson.
