At a virtual ceremony attended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the head of the secessionist Somaliland region, Abdirahman Irro, Israel announced, as the first country in the world, its recognition of this unilaterally declared entity, which constitutes part of the Somali state.
This recognition was immediately met with widespread condemnation from Islamic countries, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, as well as regional and international organisations such as the African Union, the Arab League, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
This striking development in the region did not escape the attention of strategic affairs analysts, who moved quickly to assess Israel’s objectives and the underlying interests behind this step.
Israel previously welcomed the secession of South Sudan from the Islamic state of Sudan, as well as the separation of East Timor from the Islamic state of Indonesia, and was among the first countries to recognise these secessionist entities and the resulting new states.
In this context, analyses focused on the geographical importance of the territories under the control of the secessionist Somaliland regional government, particularly their proximity to the strategic Bab al Mandab Strait, their oversight of the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean, and their location near Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Beyond this perspective, a closer examination of the historical background of the issue and the general approach adopted by the Zionist entity toward the map of Islamic states reveals another dimension that is deeper and more significant.
From this standpoint, recognition of the Somaliland region is not the first measure taken by Israel to dismantle the map of Islamic states. Israel has previously supported similar paths on multiple occasions.
Among the most prominent examples is its support for the secession of the Kurdistan region from Islamic states, particularly Iraq and Syria. It is well known that Israel has a record of political and military support for separatist movements in Iraqi Kurdistan, and it was the only entity in the world to openly endorse the 2017 independence referendum of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
Before that, Israel welcomed the secession of South Sudan from the Islamic state of Sudan, as well as the separation of East Timor from the Islamic state of Indonesia, and was among the first to recognise these secessionist entities and the new states that emerged from them. Separatist movements in South Sudan also received clear Israeli support before independence.
In the contemporary context, this Israeli approach to the map of Islamic states is evident in attempts to dismantle Syrian geography through support for Kurdish and Druze separatist tendencies. By backing these forces under the pretext of defending their rights and self-rule, Israel seeks to prevent Damascus from reasserting control over all Syrian territory and to block the restoration of Syria’s official state map.
Israel’s negative and destructive interventions in the map of Islamic states are not limited to these cases alone. In earlier stages, Israel attempted to push toward the establishment of a separate Maronite entity in Lebanon or to place Lebanon, or parts of it, under Maronite rule.
It sought to implement this plan during its invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and its occupation of the south, but failed to achieve its objectives. In North Africa, Israel views certain components in a similar manner, such as the Amazigh, as a latent capacity for dismantling the political and geographical map of the region. However, this view remains, to date, within the realm of theoretical conceptions and does not appear to have transformed into an openly declared practical policy.
The significance of these developments becomes clearer when considering their geographical and demographic dimensions. Sudan, before the secession of its south, was the largest Islamic country by land area, while Indonesia is the largest Islamic country by population.
Nevertheless, the most dangerous arena of Israeli penetration into the map of Islamic states can be considered the Kurdistan file, as the secession and independence of this region directly threaten the security and stability of four major and influential Islamic states: Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria.
These repeated and documented cases of Israeli intervention in the map of Islamic states, through support for separatist tendencies and the dismantling of existing entities, point to elements that can be placed within the framework of a comprehensive plan aimed at redrawing the map of the Islamic world.
A brief look at Israel’s geography and its position within the current map of the Islamic world reinforces this conclusion. From this perspective, Israel appears as a small island surrounded by a belt of Islamic states, largely characterised by hostility and rejection of its existence and occupation at the heart of Islamic geography.
From a geopolitical standpoint, Israel does not feel secure within this existing map, but rather views its Islamic surroundings as a permanent threat to its existence.
Among the primary means it relies upon to change this troubling reality is the attempt to tamper with the map of Islamic states by encouraging separatist tendencies and transforming large and powerful Islamic states into smaller and weaker entities.
Despite the sensitivity of this idea and its secretive nature, it has found its way into the writings of a number of prominent Zionist thinkers and strategists. Alongside the views of the well-known Jewish thinker Bernard Lewis, reference can be made to the article by Oded Yinon titled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”.
Yinon, an official in the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an adviser to Ariel Sharon, affirmed in this article, published in 1982 in the Hebrew quarterly journal Kivunim issued by the World Zionist Organisation in Jerusalem, the necessity for Israel to adopt a strategy based on fragmenting the map of Islamic states, particularly Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Sudan.
These theses demonstrate that friendly or peaceful positions adopted by some Islamic governments toward this entity do not necessarily lead to a change in its interventionist outlook, which is rooted in the ideological objectives of Zionism and its geopolitical needs.
Naturally, the Zionist entity avoids any official declaration of adopting such policies, given the wide and unpredictable consequences they could entail for hundreds of millions, indeed nearly two billion Muslims, and more than fifty Islamic states around the world.
However, the availability of theoretical foundations and practical evidence of this approach, which has become more apparent today with the official recognition of the Somaliland region, makes it difficult to deny the existence of this orientation.
This threat is not confined to a single state but affects all Islamic countries, particularly those with vast geographical expanse, large populations, or significant power and capabilities that enable them to challenge Zionist objectives in the region.
Islamic states are thus faced with two choices:
Either to ignore this possibility and remain in a state of silence and inertia, allowing the implementation of this hostile policy toward the Islamic world and the gradual fragmentation of Islamic lands.
Or to adopt a responsible position based on a precise understanding of Israel’s behaviour, leading to coordination of efforts and collective action to obstruct these interventionist and destructive policies.
This option remains possible through pursuing a realistic and wise Islamic national path, one of whose most prominent pioneers was the late King Faisal bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia.
Sunna Files has no billionaire owner or shareholders demanding profit.
We are fiercely independent, and every dollar we receive is reinvested directly into our journalism
Helping us pursue the stories that matter and ensuring our reporting remains open and accessible to everyone.
Click here to donate & fund your Islamic Independent Platform
