William Ruto’s “Kenya stands in solidarity with Israel” statement issued early yesterday in response to the ongoing Anti-Palestinian war, has further solidified the perception that he is a neocolonial puppet masquerading as a pan-African to advance imperial interests across Africa. Ruto not only diverged from the positions of other African leaders and countries but also contradicted the African Union, creating a semblance of division regarding Africa’s position on the conflict.
Some have suggested that he took this contradictory position impulsively and hastily, but this is not the case. Ruto’s statement, posted yesterday, followed statements from most other African leaders the previous day and after the African Union had already issued its statement.
Africa’s Stand on Israel-Palestinian War
In its statement, the African Union emphasized that “the denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, particularly their right to an independent and sovereign state, is the main cause of the enduring tension between Palestine and Israel.” As Africa’s continental representative, this statement represents the lowest common denominator, a compromise position for African nations to align with, even if they hold varying views on other aspects of the Palestinian question.
In line with this stance, other African countries and leaders have either expressed support for Palestine or taken neutral positions, aligning with the solidarity of formerly colonized countries worldwide and oppressed people worldwide.
Uganda’s Museveni in his well-considered 38-word statement alluded to a two-state solution, echoing the Palestinian people’s right to an independent and sovereign state. The Economic Freedom Fighters party of South Africa in its statement, reaffirmed the Palestinian people’s ‘right to self-determination’ and ‘sovereignty’.
Even the Kingdom of Morrocco, which often conceptually leans toward Europe, in its statement echoed similar calls for independence and sovereignty of Palestine, “based on the resolutions of international legality and the two-state principle, as agreed internationally”.
Nigeria too, surprisingly gave a balanced, albeit generalized statement, calling for both sides to “prioritize the safety of civilians”, as did Tunisia. Generally, the rest of Africa has echoed the African Union’s Position.
Ruto’s reversal of Kenya’s Policy against Palestine
Contrary to every other African leader, and to the position of the African Union, Ruto posted his anti-Palestinian statement early yesterday. This followed an earlier statement by his Principal Secretary at Kenya’s Foreign Ministry, Korir Sing’oei, assigning blame to Palestinians as “planners, funders, and implementers” of the current conflict, and callously asserting Israel’s “right to retaliate. ”
In his statement, Ruto not only expanded upon that statement but also reinforced it. He declared Kenya’s stands in solidarity with Israel and further described the Palestinian resistance as the “perpetrators, organizers, financiers, sponsors, supporters, and enablers” who should be brought to justice.
For starters, Ruto’s anti-Palestinian position is hardly surprising, as Kenya has often aligned itself with oppressors at many points in its history, including during apartheid in South Africa. However, Ruto has taken this historical pattern to a new and deeply disheartening level in the context of Palestine, as shown by his ill-advised statement which presently stands isolated in its anti-Palestine tone as the only one of its kind across Africa.
Even Daniel Arap Moi, who, perhaps out of political expediency within Kenya, continued the colonial ban on Mau Mau fighters who had fought and banished British colonialism in Kenya, did not pursue the same blind colonial-leaning foreign policy stance as slavishly as Ruto is doing. Moi, for example, recognized the PLO as the sole and authentic representative of the Palestinian people and granted it full diplomatic recognition on October 4, 1980. He also continued to support the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, and the establishment of their own state.
Mwai Kibaki, Moi’s successor, followed a similar path, restating Kenya’s position on the issue of Palestine during the 16th Plenary meeting of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly on September 22, 2011. He expressed belief in a “two-State solution where the territorial integrity of Palestine within the 1967 borders is upheld, and the peace and security of Israel are both assured and guaranteed.” And added, “It is therefore our hope that Palestine will be welcomed into the community of nations with full membership in the United Nations.”
Even Ruto’s predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta maintained a level of support for the occupied Palestine, and supported the Palestinian course by backing a number of UN resolutions that were viewed by Israel as unfavorable, including publicly condemning Israel at the United Nations Security Council for human rights violations in occupied Palestine.
Ruto’s anti-Palestinian Position is not surprising
It’s important to note that while Kenya’s foreign policy toward Palestine has seen shifts and variations throughout its history, Ruto’s recent stance represents a U-turn from the diplomatic positions, albeit lukewarm ones, maintained by his predecessors. The current stance comes after Kenya set several unnoticed foreign policy reversals against Palestine immediately after Ruto ascended to power.
For instance, with Ruto’s presidency only just two months old, Kenya, following the foreign policy of his predecessor, Uhuru Kenyatta, on November 10, 2022, during the fourth committee, voted in favor of Palestine’s request to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue an advisory opinion relating to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.
However, a month later, as Ruto asserted his authority, Kenya backtracked at the General Assembly and voted against Palestine’s request to have the International Court of Justice provide an opinion on the legal consequences of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.
On May 24th this year, the country again abstained from a World Health Organization (WHO) vote tabled by the Syrian and Palestinian delegations requiring the global health body to hold the same debate during the 77th World Health Assembly in the following year and to prepare another report on the health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Dividing Africa’s Consensus on Israel-Palestinian War
Why has Ruto chosen to openly contradict the position of other African countries and leaders, especially that of the African Union? For all intents and purposes, Ruto’s contradictory statement was not a result of misguided excitement or impulsively quickened thinking, but a deliberately crafted stance to counter that of other African leaders and undermine the position of the African Union in alignment with the preferred narrative of his Western handlers.
Ruto’s decision to demonize the Palestinian resistance as ‘perpetrators, organizers, financiers, sponsors, supporters, and enablers’ creates an unsettling parallel with the colonial-era practice of labeling the Mau Mau fighters as terrorists. These were Kenyan fighters whose immense sacrifices in the struggle against British Colonialism ultimately paved the way for Kenyan independence.
By siding with the oppressive Israeli occupation of Palestine and ignoring the plight of the Palestinians while admonishing the Palestinian resistance as “perpetrators, organizers, financiers, sponsors, supporters, and enablers” of heinous crimes, Ruto not only shows insensitivity to the memory of his countrymen, the Mau Mau, who, like the Palestinian resistance today, were labeled terrorists for fighting against the British occupation of Kenya in the 1960s, but he is clearly an enemy to oppressed people worldwide.
What stands out even more prominently is Ruto’s choice to disregard the unified stance of his African counterparts, particularly the AU’s established common African position on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which is grounded in the collective historical experience of the African continent under colonial rule. Ruto’s deviation from this African consensus further confirms his instrumentalization within the fabric of neocolonial maneuvers as a divider and underminer of Africa’s unified positions on critical geopolitical issues.
