Dear brothers,
We are all here today despite the brutal conditions faced by our people in Morocco, including brutal massacres of our students and populace, with a death toll exceeding 350, and where the number of prisoners has surpassed the thousands. As of today, there are already more than a thousand individuals subjected to blanket sentencing. Nevertheless, these hardships do not deter us from attending this seminar, and we are determined to express our unwavering, complete, and boundless solidarity with our brothers in the ongoing battle for the liberation of Palestine.
The Brotherhood has honored me by inviting me to present on the topic of Israel’s role in Africa at this seminar, alternatively referred to as the Israeli reality on the African continent. It is incumbent upon us to comprehend this reality, just as it is our obligation to unequivocally denounce it as a comprehensive colonial project. We reject it both as Arabs and as revolutionary fighters. As Arabs, we reject Israel’s role in Africa as an integral component of a colonial agenda aimed at undermining the Arab revolt. Simultaneously, as revolutionary fighters, we reject it because Israel’s role in Africa is a crucial element of the colonial strategy against the global liberation movement.
Israel regards its role in Africa and all underdeveloped nations as vital. David Ben-Gurion conveyed to the 25th Zionist Congress that “Israel’s economic future and international status hinge on the ties we establish with Africa and Asia.”
During this seminar, it is imperative that we address this issue scientifically and objectively as we know that Israel has been able to play a role in Africa. [We will also address] how to prevent Israel from being an instrument of colonialism in Africa, counteracting both the aspirations of the Arab people and the aspirations of the African peoples themselves.
Preparing for the Task: The Image Israel Portrays of Itself
Colonial tools are created for such tasks. Colonialism shapes its tool to fulfill its objectives against the aspirations of peoples, whether this tool is a puppet regime, a fake organization, or an imposed settler-colonial rule like Israel. Israel has been keen to present itself and portray an image that suits and facilitates its occupation. The Israeli model aims to be the ideal model to emulate, especially for underdeveloped countries and young African nations. It believes this model will benefit them and bestow upon them the Israeli experience that ‘they need’ to confront the challenges they face post-independence.
For example, Golda Meir, in justifying Israel’s policy in Africa before the Israeli parliament, stated: “We are a democratic and small nation with no expansionist ambitions, possessing qualities that attract the attention of Africans. Like them, we are a new country that has faced and continues to face similar challenges, gaining unique experiences in development approaches and pioneering methods that could benefit these nations.”
Indeed, this statement is a myth; we will bear witness to its mythical nature. Nevertheless, it had an impact. For example, Modibo Keïta, one of the leaders in revolutionary Africa, was deceived by it. In 1958, influenced by his early interactions with Israel and a limited understanding of the actual situation in Israel, what statements did he make? “Israel has become a pilgrimage for African people seeking inspiration for building their countries,” Modibo Keïta said. “Israel has indeed become the living example of the humane form on which a new society is built.”
And we hear one student say, “If I go to the United States, I can study the history of economic development, but if I go to Israel, I can actually witness the growth myself.”
In November 1960, President Nyerere, also one of Africa’s progressive leaders, said: “Israel is a small country, but it can benefit significantly from a country like mine, and we can learn a lot from it because our problems and those of Tanganyika are similar to those of Israel.” What are these problems? “There are two main tasks ahead of us: nation-building and changing the face of the earth, both naturally and economically.”
This manipulation is how Israel prepared itself to fulfill its role, and this is how the colonial tool was crafted to execute its mission. What is this mission? What are the motives that compelled Israel and colonialists to use Israel to carry out their mission in Asia, [and], in particular, Africa?
Driving factors:
As we said, there are two types [of driving factors]: first, to serve its goals against the Arabs and, second, to fulfill its global colonial mission. After being rattled by the Arab blockade, it became crucial for Israel to destroy this Arab union and seek alternative markets as outlets for itself in Asia and Africa. Simultaneously, Israel aimed to encircle Arab countries with allies who share its perspective. In October 1960, Ben-Gurion addressed the Knesset, stating, “The compassion and friendship of nations, both near and far, are the two factors that enable us, over time, to break through the wall of hatred and boycott that surrounds us.”
Israel was established as a base in the heart of the Arab world for colonial exploitation. Having lost access to the Arab market, Israel and its colonial supporters began searching for a new market, or what we can call “a new lung from which to breathe.”
The second objective, in addition to securing this vital lifeline, was that Israel and the colonialism behind it, sought to garner votes in the United Nations to ensure their dominance, especially in light of the significant international influence that the African and Asian groups had amassed, aiming to secure support or, at the very least, a position of neutrality.
Here, we must attach great importance to the role played by these new African States in international organizations, whether African organizations or the United Nations itself. For instance, in May 1963, Israel achieved a degree of success by not being condemned at the First Conference of African Heads of State held in Addis Ababa. Israel considered this a victory, and the Israeli-funded magazine The Economist wrote in July 1963 after this conference: “It is no exaggeration to say that pressure from African public opinion will play a decisive role in any settlement in the Middle East. This does not mean that such a solution can be achieved in the near future. It should be noted here that, as a consequence, any Arab politician aspiring to play an active role in Africa will need to invest time and overcome challenges in convincing Africans about the idea of war against Israel.”
The article adds: “A significant number of African Muslim countries, particularly Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Chad, have developed friendly relations with Israel. Even nations with a substantial Muslim population, such as Tanganyika and Nigeria, have aligned themselves with Israel.”
Consequently, this magazine, The Economist, which is essentially serving as Israel’s official mouthpiece, contends that: “Since the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948, Arabs have sought to create an anti-Israel Islamic front. However, Israel has successfully created a significant division on this front through its alliances in Africa.”
This marks the first objective accomplished by Israel after persistent efforts to cultivate ties with these emerging African states. A second, equally pivotal objective, was to serve international colonial interests.
Here, I must pause briefly to draw your attention to the fact that colonialism adjusted its strategies in the face of revolutionary resistance in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. European colonizers, for example, were compelled to compromise in the face of this revolutionary will and recognize the independence of colonized nations. However, they remained committed to safeguarding their fundamental economic and strategic interests through the methods of neocolonialism—sometimes through puppet governments, at times through agreements for alleged cooperation, and occasionally resorting to conspiracy, if deemed necessary.
People often question, particularly in international public opinion, why Israel is accused of being an instrument of colonialism, especially when it offers serves post-colonial African countries; for, as Golda Meir has stated before, Israel asserts it aims to trade with them as a country with no expansionist ambitions.
The truth is that uncovering Israel’s role as a puppet colonizer in Africa is difficult to achieve, as evidenced by the reluctance of African revolutionaries themselves to take an explicit stance before last year. However, we possess documents and accurate evidence proving the link between Israel’s role and the broader international colonial plan.
For instance, I came across what may be considered just a press conference, but it held significant importance in revealing one aspect of Israel’s role in serving colonial interests in Africa. This press conference was featured in L’Arche, a Zionist magazine published in France; we found statements made in May 1962 by a French personality connected to Israel and European capitalist interests, Mr. Roland Pré. The debate included Mr. Raymond Aron, Pierre Gilbert (former French ambassador to Israel), Lée Hamon, Daniel Mayer, and Edouard Sablier, who advocated for Israel’s perspective regarding its entry into the European Common Market. This discussion happened in the aftermath of the Evian Accords, on the eve of Algeria’s independence. The debated question was the possibility of a shift in alliances in the Middle East and Israel’s prospects of relying on French support for admission to the Common Market. Mr. Roland Pré, a former colonial governor and President of the Geological and Mining Research Bureau, stated: “For Israel, the question of joining the European Common Market is of paramount importance. This importance extends beyond the trade exchange between Israel and the European market. It is also aligned with Israel’s increasing focus on its economic future, as it contends with and engages with underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia.”
Undoubtedly, if we examine Israel’s inclusion as a member, purely from the economic interests of the European Common Market, it is challenging to find any document proving the utility of Israeli membership for the European countries. Therefore, I believe that the real justification lies in the political agenda.
Roland Pré states: “We must view Israel as an infiltration point for the West into areas it has abandoned. We must consider Israel as a tool for the penetration of Western influence into the underdeveloped countries of Africa and Asia.” Pré further asserts: “I believe we have the right to demand Israel’s membership in the European Common Market based on this very argument.”
Hence, we can understand this excerpt of President Ahmed Ben Bella’s speech at the Conference of African States held in Cairo in July 1963 when he stated: “Israel replaces imperialism wherever it goes, stepping in wherever imperialism is forced to retreat. It secures credit from European capital, specifically the capital of European banks, and employs technicians trained in its factories funded by European capital. Wherever imperialism is compelled to withdraw, Israel steps in to offer its services.”
Therefore, Israel is indeed serving imperialism in Africa, simultaneously engaging in the colonial plundering of Africa’s resources and wealth, as evident in the content of its commercial exchanges. This is not to disregard its specific objectives in countering Arab revolutionaries. Thus, we observe that this tool, Israel, serves local colonial purposes against Arab resistance and international objectives for colonialism in general. It actively participates in the colonial exploitation of Africa’s wealth, evident in the trading relationships between Israel and these countries.
In confronting the tool known as Israel, created to fulfill these objectives, we must realize that there were certain assurances and working conditions established for Israel to carry out its mission. Given the severe and malicious nature of these objectives, we cannot underestimate the gravity with which this Israeli tool operates and how colonizers must be held accountable for this abuse. From a revolutionary standpoint, we also need to approach the fight against colonialism and Israel with the same level of severity.
Establishing the conditions for success:
First, this tool [the Israeli State] sought to play its role effectively. It started by presenting itself as an exemplary model for economic development, and also, engaged in a meticulous study of African issues to acquire genuine technical expertise. This was aimed not only at understanding these challenges but also at efficiently addressing the technical aspects of its work. Behind the technical facade lurks a strategy and mission to serve imperialism.
To present Israel as an ideal growth model for African states, Ben Gurion wrote in a report published by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “Our State has created a new societal model that is particularly suitable for young countries. This model is based on mutual assistance and free cooperation. It develops an approach to work that brings progress and prosperity to workers. Such a societal model shapes an army that not only ensures national security but also emerges as a key factor in community integration.”
These are the questions that Africa seeks to answer: How can we build a new society? How can the diverse groups within a society fuse? Israel has provided an answer to these questions.
There are also specific scientific and economic issues facing Africa, and Israel has provided some answers to these questions. Specialists have studied agricultural problems suitable for African society, and there is an agricultural organizational experience that Israelis are offering for rural development in Africa, namely the models of ‘mochav’ and ‘kibbutzim,’ which have already begun to be applied in some regions in Asia and Africa, such as Myanmar and Nigeria.
Additionally, there are problems specific to arid countries concerning the types of crops and experiments conducted on the land. Israel is studying and experimenting with plant species suitable for desert regions like the Negev. It has also researched the types of irrigation needed by African countries and the types of diseases similar to those found in arid areas. Israeli scientists have specialized and given special attention to the study of diseases that affect nomads, such as heart diseases and diseases relevant to dry countries. The problems of youth organizations have also been carefully studied to extend the methods of Gadna and Nahal to Africa.
More importantly, Israel has formed experts with a pioneering spirit and mentality, and these experts are the ones sent to Africa to carry out their tasks. Senior journalist Mr. Bernard Reich, who visited Africa and saw the role of Israeli experts in Africa, noted: “While European and American technicians require air-conditioned offices and only appear in elegant suits and white shirts when training African peasants in production development methods, we most often find the Israeli expert in the fields amidst farmers, dressed in khaki shorts and short-sleeved open shirts.”[2]
These are the means by which Israel prepared for its mission in Africa.
Types of aid and activities in Africa
This mission has a significant technical dimension, as previously mentioned. Its colonial dimension is concealed, [yet] we see it in various aspects such as training within Israel, technical missions Israel dispatches, and collaborations with local economic institutions. Official statistics provide insight into the scale of this mission. Official statistics, as reported by the ACTA AFRICANA journal,[3] reveal that the number of technicians sent by Israel to develop countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America from 1958 to 1963 reached 1,500 experts, of which 1,098 were designated for Africa alone. In the single year of 1963, 544 expert technicians were dispatched to 58 developing countries, including 424 experts in 30 African countries
The total number of foreign students receiving scholarships from Israel for training from 1958 to 1963 was 6,165, with 3,431 being from Africa alone. For the year 1963, 1,231 African students from 36 countries received scholarships from Africa. Some of these students will first study in Israel at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, using French or English with a foundational level of Hebrew. And then, for instance, a student in the medical program, which is designated for Africans, admitting 20 students per year, will follow a course duration of six years. Some scholarship recipients also benefit from international scholarships, such as those provided by the International Health Organization. Other students are admitted to the Veterinary Institute, the Nuclear Energy Center, and the Haifa Institute of Electricity and Agriculture. Several trainees also receive scholarships from the Asian-African Institute for Trade Union Training. A special mention should be given to this institute, established in 1960 by the Israeli trade union organization “Histadrut” with the support of the American union, A.F.L.C.I.O., which contributed $180,000 in the first year alone. The inaugural session was attended by 60 union delegations from Dahomey, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, Rhodesia, Senegal, Mali, Chad, and Guinea. So far, ten sessions have been organized, and some countries are no longer participating. For example, in 1962, only the unions of Cameroon, Angola, Central African Republic, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, and Chad were present and participated.
Another form of study is conferences. For instance, the World Conference held in Rehovot in August 1961 had the theme of “Science in the Service of Developing Countries,” with the participation of twenty-eight delegations from Asia and Africa. Congo Leopoldville, Sierra Leone, Congo Brazzaville, and Togo represented Africa.
Another conference on rural planning issues was organized in the autumn of 1963. There was also a conference for senior officials of Africa held from December 20, 1960, to April 26, 1961, attended by 26 African trainees, including 16 from Congo Leopoldville alone. Additionally, a six-week conference for African women entitled “The Role of Women in Developing Society” was attended by 63 women from Cameroon, Congo, Dahomey, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Tanganyika, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and Upper Volta.
In March 1964, an international conference was held on cooperation issues, with the participation of delegations from Eastern Europe (10 experts), eight from Western Europe and North America, six from each of the three continents of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and two from the FAO. The conference focused on the role of cooperative enterprises in rural development.
Secondly, another facet of Israel’s engagement in Africa involves various missions for activities needing technical assistance. These missions operate in agriculture, disease prevention, village planning, transportation organization, and even within the armed forces. It’s worth noting that training exercises were conducted in Israel, including sessions for youth organizations and paratrooper training in the Congo, with notable participation in August 1963 and a visit from General Mobutu.
Finally, the third dimension of Israeli activity in Africa is economic assistance, provided either through the establishment of joint venture companies or loans. However, economic assistance in the form of loans is relatively limited and constitutes an exception. Israel initiated its first loan to Ghana in 1956, considering Ghana a key location for its African presence. The initial loan amounted to 20 million dollars.
However, Israel’s economic strategy goes beyond sending experts and providing training. It involves establishing joint-venture companies in collaboration with the host state, its institutions, and Israeli companies. One notable example is the Solel Boneh Company, which is affiliated with Histadrut and funded by certain American investment institutions.
In these joint-venture companies, 60% of the shares belong to the capital of the African State, while Solel Boneh owns 40%. This approach, seemingly giving the State a nominal majority, effectively leaves the essential elements of processing and services in the hands of the company with the lower percentage. By 1960, the turnover of Solel Boneh in Africa exceeded 16 million dollars.
The projects undertaken by these companies span various fields across Africa. Examples include road construction, factory buildings, hotels, schools, government buildings, student districts, and electricity centers in Nigeria. In Sierra Leone, projects include the parliament, government buildings, airports, and banks. In Ivory Coast, public facilities, radio and television stations, and laboratories were developed. Road construction, airport development, and sewage projects were implemented in Ethiopia. In Tanganyika, the construction of the Kilimanjaro hotel, and in Djibouti, warehouses at the marina and the airport, etc...
Exposing Deception:
Through the enumeration and analysis of the various aspects of Israel’s activities in Africa on both technical and economic fronts, we realize that these crucial activities reveal the deceptive nature of Israel’s role in Africa. This role can create a misconception for the involved countries and the international public opinion. Therefore, exposing the truth and unveiling the falsification is imperative, shedding light on the underlying colonial motives.
While Israel may present itself as offering a model of rapid economic development to supposedly backward countries, projecting an image of a progressive and socialist society, it is essential to unmask the colonial agenda behind these claims.
President Ben Bella emphasized this point during the Conference of African Heads of State in Cairo in July 1964, stating, “This socialism is the one experienced by all those who found themselves on the frontlines of war; it is the socialism that I personally knew of the military barracks, the socialism of fortified camps. It is the socialism of those who live amid danger and have made communal life necessary for survival.”
But this does not prevent Israel from appearing in its true colors in various fields of its activity, particularly in Africa, where Israel increasingly plays the role of the quintessential instrument of external imperial forces, cushioned by billions of dollars, to resolve nearly two-thirds of its deficit-ridden budget. Yet, there are still those who perpetuate the myth that Israel is the ‘nucleus of progress,’ while everyone knows, especially Arab countries, that Israel, instead of being a harbinger of progress in this region, is, on the contrary, a nucleus of stagnation that lends support to the most reactionary forces.
The Contradictory Myth of Development and the Rapid Growth Model
Relying on official statistics, we will demonstrate the fallacious nature of the so-called Israeli economic development presented as a model to African states.
Population Composition:
Firstly, the population composition in Israel indicates a colonial society. Only 37% were born in Israel, while 35% came from Europe and America. Their conduct in Israel mirrors that of colonizers in settlement communities, even for Jews who migrated from underdeveloped regions—16% are from Asia, and 12% are from Africa.
It is worth noting the labor distribution in Israel, which is abnormal, not that of a balanced society: the primary sector employs one-fifth of the population in agriculture, the secondary sector employs 3/10 in industry, while services occupy 50%, portraying a society with skewed proportions.
Foreign Financing:
Furthermore, this is a society with abnormal funding, where the external factor plays a significant role. Israel receives assistance from abroad, amounting to $100 per person annually. As President Ben Bella noted, the budget deficit sometimes reaches three times the services. The budget deficit exceeds 5% for capital expenditures.
The entire trade deficit depends on external factors, with external financing reaching 500 million dollars in the four years between 1959 and 1962, with three-fifths of it coming from the U.S. and Canada. This financing includes levies paid by Jews worldwide and German reparations, totaling 7 billion dollars.
As for private investments from abroad, the amount reached over 500 million dollars from 1959 to 1962, with three-fifths coming from North America. In 1964 alone, according to the official Israel Yearbook, private investments from abroad continued. The deficit remained between $300 and $400 million per year in foreign trade until 1962.
I won’t delve into these statistics, nor do I want to dwell on the figures, but it’s crucial to highlight that taxes[4] on Jews abroad in 1963 amounted to [sic][5] million dollars, according to a statement from Jospeh Meyerhoff, President of the United Jewish Collection Association.[6] [This statement includes a comment that] 80% of the collections came from 10% of the donors. This means that 80% of taxes on Jews come from capitalist, colonial monopolies not from average Jews outside of Israel.
Therefore, Israel’s economy is not the growth model presented to African states as an example for their development. It is an imbalanced and parasitic economy. As one economist said, it is “a transplant economy,” much like the French colonial economy transplanted in Algeria before independence. While it may have expanded as an extension of the French economy, it is not an Algerian economy.
Here, too, the myth of Israel’s high national income comes into play. Israel’s published statistics provide comparative data on the national income per capita in Israel versus the national income per capita in Arab countries. For instance, an official bulletin in May 1964 indicates a per capita income of $940 per year in Israel, whereas the Arab countries had a rate lower than $200 per year, whereas, in the United Arab Republic, it is $123 a year, Saudi Arabia, $167, and Yemen does not exceed $90, among others. These numbers reveal that Israel’s so-called high level of national income, exceeding 11% per year, does not signify genuine development. Income in Israel is not a genuine national income, as long as the economy is an artificial one, thriving like a parasite. Therefore, we cannot attribute scientific value to the Israeli economy as a model nor trust the figures published and used to indicate the speed of progress and development.
The Israeli Model Cannot Be Transferred
Recent scientific research indicates that the transfer of the Israeli model is not feasible. They affirm that this experience cannot serve as a model outside of Israel, even if it has locally valid characteristics. One Jewish and pro-Israel economist, Jean Halperin, a professor of economics and sociology at the University of Zurich, expressed this sentiment in his writings, where he asserts that, “the conditions at the inception of Israel differ so significantly from those of newly independent young states that it is impossible to consider Israel as a model for these states. He highlights a fundamental difference, stating that Israel had a cadre present at its founding, a resource lacking in many other countries, and emphasizes the disparity in cultural levels between the Israeli population and those of the newly independent states. This distinction arises from Israel’s foundation, facilitated by European immigration.”[7]
Other comprehensive scientific research, such as the book Lessons in the Israeli Experience (Enseignements et L'Éxpérience Israélienne, Collection Tiers Monde) by economist Joseph Zlatzmann, further supports this perspective. The book argues that the experience of the kibbutzim cannot be transferred to developing countries due to financial constraints and the absence of an expert apparatus [like the one] in Israel. Zlatzmann also points out that some economic decisions in Israel are essentially political. For instance, he references the establishment of certain kibbutzim on the border not as agricultural farms but as fortified camps.
Another specialist, Professor Dresch, responded to a question during a student seminar in Paris in January 1962 dedicated to agrarian reform in the Arab Maghreb. When asked why he didn’t mention Israel as an example, Dresch stated that the Israeli experience is not a socialist experiment or an agrarian reform. He highlighted these institutions' debt problems, emphasizing that they operate within a capitalist framework.
Here, we see the falsity of this economic model presented to Africa; since this model is invalid, what is its colonial mission? What role does Israel play in colonization? How does the work behind technical assistance serve as a camouflage and, in reality, serve imperialism?
I believe that merely presenting developing countries with a false model of growth is, in itself, a disservice to these countries, a means of misleading them and hindering their progress for the benefit of neo-colonialist aims. It spreads misinformation and disrupts these countries.
Moreover, we discover other aspects favorable to imperialism in Israel's activities in Africa. One such aspect is the special ties between Israel and the epitome of a fascist state in Africa, maintaining its colonial domination in its most execrable form, South Africa. Israel’s connections with the highly colonized country of South Africa are often overlooked in discussions about Israel. Israel maintains close ties with the fascist government in South Africa.
For instance, Israel’s trade with South Africa and, if we add to that trade with Portuguese colonies in Africa, reached 29% in 1961, 30% in 1962, 25% in 1963, and approximately 20% in 1964. Although there was a decline after 1962 due to Israel opening new markets in newly independent countries, the financial relationship between South Africa and Israel remained significant. Israel had a unique advantage until 1962, being the sole entity allowed to transfer funds without control from South Africa. This advantage changed when Israel took a stand against South Africa, leading to the imposition of the same censorship on fund transfers as England. However, economic ties between Israel and South Africa persisted despite this change.
Additionally, there is a dangerous colonial role that we should pay attention to, which is the role of experts and trainers. As I said, there are suspicious training programs, such as Israel’s interest in women and youth, training them to establish organizations like those present in Israel. Moreover, there is a focus on military and police training. The colonial army fighting in Congo, the army of Mobutu, their paratroopers were trained in Israel. Now, in Congo, there are some Israeli experts with the colonial army. There are also police and intelligence trainings that toomk place in other countries. If we wanted to know the danger of these trainings, we should look what appeared in the news yesterday. We read a report in the newspaper “Al Ahram Al-Arbia’”[8] on the latest offensive against revolutionary forces in the Congo.
There is an even more dangerous reality. The leaders of the Congolese revolution informed me that Israel is providing training to the Ugandan army, which comprises no more than two battalions. The Ugandan Air Force includes a few Israeli aircraft, with all pilots being Israeli officers. Additionally, the Uganda Border Forces are being trained and organized by Israeli experts.
Within the Ugandan government, Israel has agents occupying high-ranking positions. A senior African military officer in the Ugandan army has conveyed to me that Prime Minister Milton Oboté is alarmed by the extent of Israeli influence in his country. The penetration is so deep that the Prime Minister, fearing surveillance, cannot discuss important matters over the phone. He mentioned that when American planes affiliated with the Tsumbé government carried out two airstrikes on Ugandan territory, the Prime Minister issued orders to the Air Force to retaliate and shoot down the attacking planes. However, Israeli planes would fly over and then return to their base in Entébe, reporting that they had not encountered any enemy aircraft.
This is the truth of [Israel’s] colonial role in Africa. During a press conference held by the newspaper “Jebini” yesterday, the President of the Congolese Revolution emphasized that Israel is complicit with the head of State of Uganda, the sultan known as “Kabaka,” a title denoting king. This individual is collaborating with Israel against his own government and Prime Minister Obote.
The struggle to expose [Israel’s] colonial role is ongoing
As Arabs and revolutionary activists, we find ourselves engaged in a constant battle against Israeli influence. It’s crucial to acknowledge that this battle experiences fluctuations, with victories and setbacks, as sometimes we emerge triumphant, while at other times, colonialism gains the upper hand on the ground.
The debate surrounding Israel’s colonial role in the region has persisted since the Bandung Conference. It is noteworthy that President Gamal Abdel Nasser played a significant role in bringing this issue to the international forefront. Israel was initially barred from attending the Bandung Conference despite interventions by India and Burma to include it. The conference took place in April 1954.
In light of the prevailing tension in the Near East, exacerbated by the situation in Palestine and the threat it poses to global peace, the Conference of Asian and African States declares its support for the rights of the Arab people in Palestine. It calls for implementing United Nations resolutions and advocates for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian question.
This marked the first instance of such a position, thanks to revolutionary Arab participation in the conference. However, governmental stances were not consistently aligned, while popular organizations consistently maintained a hostile stance towards colonialism. The inaugural Asian-African People’s Congress in Cairo held from December 1957 to January 1958 boldly declared the State of Israel as a ‘colonial base threatening the progress and integrity of the Middle East.’ It condemned Israel’s aggressive policies as a threat to world peace, affirming the rights of Arabs in Palestine and expressing solidarity with Palestinian refugees.
This was the first international step, beyond the Arab world, to affirm the truth and declare the rights of the Arab people in Palestine. Subsequent conferences followed. In April 1958, the Conference of African States in Accra made a simple statement of “deep concern about the Palestinian issue that represents a threat to world peace” and demanded a just solution to this issue. In December 1958, the Organization of African Peoples met but did not condemn Israel as an instrument of colonialism due to the African political climate.
In April 1960, the Asian-African Solidarity Organization met in Conakry and took a clear stance, with only Liberia’s representative excluded. In March 1961, the Organization of African Peoples met in Cairo, unequivocally stating that Israel was a pillar of neocolonialism and posed a severe threat to newly independent or soon-to-be-independent African countries. This decision was reiterated at an Asian-African solidarity meeting in Bandung.
At the Casablanca Conference, the Arab revolutionary leadership successfully imposed a clear decision. The conference noted with condemnation that Israel consistently supported colonialism, particularly on critical African issues such as those of Algeria, Congo, and atomic tests in Africa.
This was a significant decision as, for the first time, it was endorsed by representatives of three African countries (Guinea, Ghana, and Mali) that have diplomatic relations with Israel. However, it proved ineffective, lacking real impact, as the circumstances surrounding the Casablanca conference were somewhat artificial. Some nations participated to defend themselves, while others attended to conceal their betrayal in the Congo. In essence, it served as another occasion to mislead people through conferences where neocolonialism played a role.
Following the Casablanca decision, a diplomatic war ensued between Israel and the revolutionary Arab leadership represented by Cairo. Cairo initiated efforts to invite African leaders to reveal the reality of the Arab struggle, while Israel continued extending invitations to African presidents.
The two years of 1961 and 1962 witnessed an exchange of visits between the Arab revolutionary camp and African presidents, as well as between the colonial camp represented by Israel and African presidents. The Non-Aligned Conference convened in September 1961, but on this occasion, colonialism achieved a victory, failing to produce a clear resolution akin to the decisions of the Bandung Conference or the Non-Aligned Countries in Cairo.
By October 1963, Israel deemed its diplomatic mission successful. African countries got [Israel] to take a stand against South Africa at the United Nations. Israel also garnered support from eight countries in Africa and Latin America, submitting a resolution calling for direct negotiations under the framework Israel demands. The Addis Ababa conference saw some success, with no decisive decision on the issue of Israel.
Even when some African countries expressed anti-Israel sentiments, as seen in Casablanca, Israel continued its economic activities with those nations. For instance, the Middle East Journal noted, “Despite unfriendly decisions and statements made by African countries towards Israel, these nations still value maintaining relations with Israel. They seem to view these statements as mere formal political positions that do not affect their productive and useful technical and economic ties with Israel. Simultaneously, Israel perceives these ties as contributing to serving its own interests.”
Position Since the End of 1964
The period of imperialist influence began to wane in the summer of 1964, starting with the second conference of African heads of State held in Cairo last July, and then at the non-aligned states conference, also convened in Cairo, which adopted, as we mentioned, a clear stance toward Israel leading to the Israeli press expressing regret about this shift in the countries of Asia and Africa in October 1964.
The Israeli Economist stated: “In addition to the Arabs, we find a group of countries that take a cold, if not hostile, position on Israel in the political field, namely Indonesia, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Somalia, Guinea, and some socialist countries such as the People’s Republic of China, North Vietnam, and North Korea.”
The newspaper was discussing the policies of Asian and African countries toward Israel.
The official mouthpiece magazine of the Israeli State showed great displeasure with the change in India’s and Guinea’s positions vis-à-vis Israel: “On the other hand, there are countries that still take initiatives to defend Israel against Arab attacks in the diplomatic field, including Burma (now the Republic of Myanmar), Ivory Coast, Upper Volta, Central Africa, Madagascar, and Nepal.”
Israel sensed danger, prompting Golda Meir to embark on a trip through Africa in early November 1964. During this trip, she faced challenges, especially in Nigeria, where the colonial press had to mobilize itself to defend her and Israel despite her imprudent alignment with imperialist views on the Congo during a press conference held in Lagos.
This marks a shift in the situation, a significant change that occurred in Africa, one that must be carefully monitored. It is essential to address this shift to ensure its continuation and make the revolutionary tide prevail over colonial and neo-colonial maneuvers.
Factors for Success
Several factors contribute to our success, and it is crucial to recognize and focus on them. Firstly, Africa's atmosphere changed, influenced by the Arab Revolution’s political and social victories in the Middle East and the Maghreb—particularly the establishment of a revolutionary, popular, and democratic regime rule in Algeria. The revolutionary governance in Algeria has played a pivotal role in altering African perceptions of Israel’s role on the continent, as well as placing the struggle for the liberation of the Palestinian people in its true context.
Additionally, the Arab experiences in the East and the Maghreb, building genuinely advanced societies independent of foreign assistance, are noteworthy. The results achieved in Arab countries through economic and social development experiences can serve as growth models for the new African states. These experiences are free from colonialism, capitalist monopolies, feudal allies, and puppet bourgeoisie. They will play a vital role in convincing African officials and popular organizations that the Arab struggle against Israel is under the banner of liberation, development, human progress, socialism, and freedom.
These material bases of the Arab revolution in the Middle East and the Maghreb will help shift the Palestinian question from an emotional framework to a practical one, facilitating effective liberation.
Today, the Palestinian issue transcends Arab-Jewish tensions; it is a revolutionary Arab movement against colonial powers without racial fanaticism. The progressive and revolutionary forces in Africa, understanding the humanitarian and practical nature of the Palestinian cause, are likely to stand in solidarity with the Arabs in their struggle for justice. The Palestinian question is part of the overall international liberation movement in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It is not a matter between Jews and Arabs but an Arab revolution against imperialist machinations without any racial discrimination.
Due to this new human and scientific dimension of the Palestinian issue, we are entitled to count on the solidarity and support of progressive and revolutionary forces in Africa and the world.
The model and process of liberation for the Palestinian people is connected to Palestine’s specific circumstances but aligns with models seen in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s statement at the Conference of African Heads of State resonates with this approach: “The fate suffered by the Palestinian people is the same as that experienced by the peoples of Africa. Foreign settlers came to settle under the pretext of racial supremacy. They seized the land and expelled the rightful owners. They found support only from imperialists who use them in various forms as instruments in return.”
This appeal aligns with the African revolutionary perspective, as demonstrated by President Sékou Touré, the President of the Conference of African States in July 1964, who expressed satisfaction with Nasser’s appeal: “The heartfelt and morally elevated appeal made by our brother and friend, President of the United Arab Republic Gamal Abdel Nasser, in his opening speech, will undoubtedly have a profound impact. This conference takes satisfaction in acknowledging this appeal as the best guidance to realize the aspirations of the peoples of Africa. When we address the various problems that concern Africans in a spirit that is distinctly African, characterized by both realism and steadfast determination, we must find the right solutions with the resolve to ensure, through our active efforts, not only the liberation and happiness of our peoples but also the construction of a new world. This new world we aspire to is based on principles of justice and peace.”
Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Sayed Fawzi
The citation for the original version of this text is as follows:
Ben Barka, Mehdi. “Isrāīl fī afrīqiyā.” In al-maghrib wa falasṭīn: falasṭīn qadiya waṭniya,
Abdessamad Belkbir, ed, 29-47. al-dār al-baydhā’: al-Najāḥ al-Jadidah, 2021.