By Paulie Mugure Mugo
In the 1960s and 70s, many African nations saw Palestinians’ quest for a state as a mirror of their own liberation struggle. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, more than forty African states severed ties with Israel, aligning politically with the Arab world. From then on, a number of African newspapers would frame Israel as a settler state enforcing racial segregation – an apartheid analogy born from anti-colonial sentiments.
But time reshaped the narrative. From the 1990s onward, Israel quietly rebuilt bridges through diplomacy, agriculture, and technology. Israeli expertise in irrigation, IT, counterterrorism, and health drew renewed interest across the continent.
In this new era, headlines about Gaza now coexist with stories about Israeli innovations impacting the continent. This creates a duality – outrage from some quarters and admiration from others – that defines much of Africa’s contemporary media tone.
In South Africa, support for Palestine remains part of the national DNA. Editorials in outlets such as the Mail & Guardian and Sunday Times liken Israel to apartheid South Africa. When the government took Israel to the International Court of Justice in 2023, headlines framed it as a moral duty, a final chapter of anti-apartheid justice.
Yet one intriguing aspect is often forgotten: many Jewish South Africans played key roles in the anti-apartheid struggle. Figures such as Ruth First, Joe Slovo, and Helen Suzman stood at the forefront of resistance, often at great personal risk. And while current politics may obscure it, the commitment to racial equity that motivated many Jewish activists during South Africa’s apartheid era likely remains just as strong in Israel today.
In East Africa, coverage tends to be pragmatic. Israel’s presence in tech, water management, and counterterrorism earns frequent positive press in the region. Business supplements highlight Israeli innovations, while political pages treat Gaza news with restraint. Countries like Kenya with significant evangelical and pro-Western leanings add further nuance: empathy for both Israel’s security and Palestinian needs.
Nigeria and Ghana present a fascinating duality. Muslim-majority northern audiences lean toward the Palestinian narrative; Christian-dominated southern audiences often sympathize with Israel’s biblical symbolism. As a result, media tone is mixed – factual but occasionally militant.
Moroccan, Tunisian, and Egyptian media largely mirror Arab editorial lines – critical of Israeli policy and empathetic to Palestinian views. Even after normalization under the Abraham Accords, many outlets tread cautiously, balancing diplomatic pragmatism with deep public sympathy for Palestinians.
Thus, Africa’s opinion map is anything but uniform. But another dynamic is heavily at play. In many parts of the continent, media outlets rely heavily on foreign news wires even as they publish local features complimentary of local Israeli partnerships. The same paper that mourns Gazan civilians may later celebrate an Israeli fintech deal.
Without local correspondents, many media outlets inadvertently import someone else’s narrative – whether Western, Arab, or Israeli. Strengthening fact-finding capacity and producing original African-framed analysis would allow African media to participate in shaping the global conversation rather than merely echoing it.
As the continent’s media grows more confident, so too should its ability to tell the story of Israel and the wider Middle East in its own voice – nuanced, historically aware, and distinctly African.
Leave a Reply