Jerusalem’s Tears, Somaliland’s Target: The Al Jazeera Contradiction

Abstract

This article critically examines Al Jazeera’s decision to amplify a spontaneous clip of Somaliland schoolchildren, transforming it into a manufactured political crisis broadcast to millions. The analysis argues that the network’s editorial choice—not the children’s words—constitutes the real event. By selecting and magnifying an innocent clip while ignoring the broader context of official Arab normalization with Israel, Al Jazeera has abandoned professional journalism for yellow journalism. The network exploits children’s innocence to serve Qatari geopolitical interests, creating a distorted political impression of Somaliland in the Arab and international public spheres. This article demonstrates how Al Jazeera’s coverage exemplifies systematic media manipulation, selective outrage, and the weaponization of the Palestinian cause against stateless peoples who lack the capacity to respond.

Keywords: Al Jazeera, yellow journalism, Somaliland, media bias, children’s exploitation, political communication

 The Editorial Decision That Became the Story

A clip of Somaliland schoolchildren in their uniforms, expressing spontaneous views, has been transformed by Al Jazeera into a major political issue broadcast to millions across the Arab world and beyond. The question is not what the children said in their innocence, but why the network chose to amplify this particular clip and present it to its audience in this manner.

As Somaliland conducts its 2025–2026 national primary and secondary school examinations, two female students from Dayib guray Secondary School—where I served as principal four years ago—recorded a video after completing their history examination. In the video, they remarked that Somaliland’s curriculum should include the study of Israeli history because, in their view, Somaliland has relations with Israel and Israel has recognized Somaliland.

This clip does not represent official policy in Somaliland. It does not reflect a general societal trend. It is merely a spontaneous moment, like tens of thousands of clips broadcast daily on social media, in which people express their personal opinions and ideas. Yet Al Jazeera transformed this passing clip into a political indicator, linking it to the complexities of foreign relations—a profoundly unprofessional amplification and an attempt to create a false impression.

The problem is not the clip itself, but Al Jazeera’s choice of this clip and its transformation into media material that creates a distorted political impression of Somaliland in the Arab and international spheres. When a channel like Al Jazeera uses a clip of children to build a political narrative and present a false image of Somaliland, we are not witnessing balanced professional coverage, but rather biased media framing that serves a political agenda.

This article argues that Al Jazeera has increasingly departed from recognized professional media ethics, approaching the style of yellow journalism that seeks sensation rather than truth and context.

The Clip: From Innocence to Weapon

The event was not in the children’s words. The event was in the editorial decision that plucked a spontaneous clip from the sea of the internet and turned it into a “political issue” broadcast to millions of viewers. Here we are not talking about a journalistic slip, but about a deliberate choice to use the innocence of children as fuel for a political battle they do not understand.

This is not media framing, but the exploitation of innocence to serve a pre-prepared narrative. Journalism that reduces peoples to truncated snapshots is not free journalism, but the manufacturing of directed consciousness.

The clip itself represents nothing. It is a momentary expression by children in school uniforms, like countless similar clips across the Arab and Islamic worlds. Children in Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Morocco express their views daily—yet Al Jazeera does not broadcast these clips as “political crises.”

Why This Clip? The Editorial Decision Exposed

The question that Al Jazeera will not answer is: Why this clip? Why these children? Why Somaliland?

The answer lies not in journalism but in politics. Somaliland is a stateless entity—outside “the club” of recognized states. It has no voice in the halls of power, no diplomatic corps to respond, no lobby to defend its image. It is vulnerable.

By choosing a clip of Somaliland children and amplifying it as a “matter of faith” and “a betrayal of the Palestinian cause,” Al Jazeera sends a dangerous message to its audience stretching from the Atlantic to the Gulf: “This people is your enemy.” It turns a spontaneous clip of children into “evidence” that the people of Somaliland are apostates from the “Islamic line,” and that being hostile to them is a religious duty.

This is not media coverage. This is sectarian incitement in disguise.

Yellow Journalism: The New Face of Al Jazeera

From Professionalism to Sensationalism

Al Jazeera was once celebrated as a voice of professionalism in the Arab media landscape. It offered alternative perspectives, challenged authoritarian narratives, and provided a platform for diverse voices. Yet in recent years, the network has increasingly departed from these principles.

The Somaliland case reveals this decline starkly. Instead of balanced coverage that presents context, Al Jazeera chose sensation. Instead of investigating the complex historical and political realities of Somaliland, it chose a clip of children. Instead of reporting on the Arab states that have normalized relations with Israel, it chose to manufacture outrage against a stateless people.

This is the essence of yellow journalism: seeking sensation over truth, emotion over context, and political utility over professional ethics.

The Exploitation of Children

Where is the professional responsibility? Where is the child protection that journalistic charters boast about? Al Jazeera did not amplify the clip because it was “news”—the real news is that entire Arab countries have normalized relations with Israel. Rather, it chose it because it serves a specific political function: justifying hostility towards Somaliland, facilitating future regional pressure on it, and convincing the Muslim public that being hostile to this vulnerable people is “jihad,” while normalization with powerful states is “realpolitik.”

International journalistic standards explicitly prohibit the exploitation of children for political purposes. Article 7 of the International Federation of Journalists’ Declaration of Principles on the Conduct of Journalists states that journalists shall respect “the right of children to privacy and protection from exploitation.” Al Jazeera has violated this principle egregiously.

The network knows that its Muslim audience is emotionally and religiously influenced by the Palestinian cause. It exploits this emotion to create a new internal enemy—not the Arab states that normalised relations with Israel, but a stateless people who do not even have the right to respond on screen.

. The Erased Context: What Al Jazeera Will Not Show

What Al Jazeera systematically erases is Somaliland’s historical case. Somaliland gained independence from Britain on 26 June 1960—five days before the former Italian Somaliland. It was recognized by 36 countries and joined the UN.

Somaliland voluntarily entered a non-avoid (invalid contract) union with southern Somalia on 1 July 1960. However, this union was never fully ratified through a mutually accepted legal instrument. When the Somali state collapsed entirely in 1991, Somaliland reasserted its sovereignty. This is not secession, but a restoration of sovereignty after a failed union.

Between 1988 and 1991, the Siad Barre regime killed between 50,000 and 200,000 civilians in Somaliland and caused an exodus of over 300,000 to Ethiopia. Al Jazeera has never produced a documentary on this genocide. It has never investigated the mass graves. Somaliland only appears when it can be used for an attack.

After restoring independence, Somaliland has functioned as a de facto state. It has held multiple peaceful transitions of power and pluralistic elections. Since 2003, it has conducted four peaceful transitions of power and pluralistic elections that met international observer standards.

This is not a client state—it is a reconstituted state after the collapse of a failed union. Somaliland has governed itself continuously without international recognition, peacekeeping forces, or inherited state institutions.

The Question of Double Standards

The same channel that amplifies a clip of children in Somaliland passes in total silence over decades of official Arab normalization with Israel. Egypt signed a peace treaty in 1979. Jordan in 1994. The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan signed the Abraham Accords in 2020. Seven Arab countries officially recognize Israel and trade with it for billions of dollars.

But Al Jazeera does not launch campaigns against this normalization. It does not host scholars to condemn the governments of these countries on air. Why? Because they are in “the club”—the club of recognized states. And Somaliland is outside it.

A comparison of Al Jazeera’s coverage reveals a clear inconsistency. Egypt, which normalized relations with Israel in 1979, received minimal coverage and generated little public outrage from the network. Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty attracted similarly limited attention. Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan’s participation in the 2020 Abraham Accords produced only modest reporting, while the UAE received somewhat more coverage but primarily focused on economic and business cooperation rather than political condemnation.

By contrast, Somaliland—despite the absence of any verified evidence of formal normalization with Israel—became the subject of extensive and inflammatory reporting that generated significant political controversy. The network devoted substantial airtime and editorial resources to amplifying a spontaneous clip of schoolchildren, framing it as evidence of a political betrayal that warranted moral outrage across the Arab and Islamic worlds.

This disparity raises fundamental questions about Al Jazeera’s editorial priorities. Why does the network reserve its most intense coverage and harshest condemnations for a stateless entity with no formal diplomatic relations with Israel, while offering only minimal scrutiny to Arab states that have signed official peace treaties and trade agreements? The inconsistency suggests that Al Jazeera’s editorial approach has been driven less by the existence of relations with Israel than by selective framing and political context. Somaliland, lacking diplomatic representation and a voice in international forums, becomes an easy target for manufactured outrage, while powerful states with normalized relations remain largely beyond the network’s critical gaze.

Weeping for Jerusalem

A striking contradiction lies at the heart of Al Jazeera’s editorial posture. While the network presents itself as a steadfast defender of the Palestinian cause and frequently frames Israel as the central moral issue in the region, Qatar itself has long engaged in diplomatic contacts and indirect engagement with Israeli representatives. At the same time, Qatar hosts Al Udeid Air Base, the largest United States military installation in the Middle East, which plays a central role in regional military operations. This contrast raises an obvious question: how can a Qatari media outlet invoke the Palestinian cause to condemn Somaliland while its own state simultaneously pursues complex strategic and diplomatic arrangements? From this perspective, the issue is not one of journalistic principle but of selective application, revealing an institutional inconsistency between editorial messaging and geopolitical reality.

This contradiction became even more pronounced following the Israeli strike targeting Hamas leadership in Doha during Operation Summit of Fire in September 2025. Despite Qatar’s role as host to one of the region’s most significant American military facilities, the incident underscored the complexity of the country’s regional posture. Yet none of these realities received the level of sustained moral outrage that Al Jazeera directed toward a spontaneous video recorded by Somaliland schoolchildren.

Viewed in this broader context, the issue extends beyond media bias to what critics describe as the political weaponization of the Palestinian cause. Rather than simply reporting on Somaliland, Al Jazeera framed an isolated video of schoolchildren in a manner that associated an entire society with allegations of political and ideological betrayal. By presenting an innocent and spontaneous clip as evidence of alignment against the Palestinian cause, the network transformed individual expressions into a collective political narrative.

Such framing redirects legitimate public concern for Palestine toward a vulnerable and unrecognized people with limited capacity to respond. Instead of scrutinizing official state policies or formal diplomatic decisions, the narrative focuses on ordinary citizens and even schoolchildren. Consequently, the Palestinian cause is employed not only as a humanitarian or political issue but also as a powerful rhetorical instrument through which selective outrage is mobilized against those least able to defend themselves.

6. The Real Threat: Why Somaliland Terrifies “The Club”

The campaign is not about Israel, nor is it about children. It is about threatened interests.

Turkey has invested billions in Mogadishu and does not want a democratic alternative that exposes the bankruptcy of the “client state” model. Turkey’s investments in Mogadishu include military training, infrastructure development, and economic partnerships that would be threatened by Somaliland’s success.

Qatar uses Al Jazeera to shape narratives that serve its own balancing act—hosting American bases while pretending to be the voice of resistance.

The Arab League fears the precedent. Recognition of Somaliland would challenge the principle of territorial integrity that Arab states rely upon to maintain their own borders.

The African Union clings to the map of colonial borders. The African Union has long been concerned that recognizing Somaliland could set off a chain reaction, where separatists could demand recognition for the territories they claim.

Somaliland built a state without recognition, held elections without UN oversight, managed ports without bank loans, and maintained peace without peacekeeping forces. It is a living rebuttal to the narrative that Africa needs external saviours.

The hysteria emanating from Mogadishu reveals less about Israeli intentions than it does about the fragility of the Somali Federal Government. For over three decades, the international community has poured billions of dollars into Mogadishu, attempting to prop up a central government that exercises little authority beyond the capital’s blast walls. Meanwhile, to the north, Somaliland has built a functioning state with its own currency, elections, and coast guard, all without UN recognition.

Questions Al Jazeera Will Not Answer

The following questions, to which Al Jazeera has yet to respond, reveal the network’s systemic bias:

1. If a clip of Egyptian children praising Israel were to spread, would Al Jazeera broadcast it as a “political crisis”? Or would it be sidelined as irrelevant, thanks to the official peace treaty?

2. Why do you not broadcast clips of Qatari children expressing their views on Israel? Is it because those countries are in “the club,” and their children’s words are “not worthy of media attention”?

3. How many investigative hours did Al Jazeera spend on Qatari-Israeli trade negotiations? How many reports on the coordination between Mesaieed and Israeli military operations?

4. If Somaliland’s alleged relations with Israel are the problem, why does the campaign focus on children instead of the democratically elected government? Is it because attacking children requires no evidence, while attacking the government requires facts?

5. Where is Al Jazeera’s documentary on the 1988–1991 Somaliland genocide? On the bombing of Hargeisa? On the mass graves? Or does Somaliland only appear when it can be used for an attack?

Final Reflection: A Gap in Understanding

This reflects a gap in Al Jazeera’s understanding of Somaliland’s realities.

What Al Jazeera may overlook is the deeper political reality that shapes Somaliland’s external relations and national outlook. The people of Somaliland remain firmly committed to the long and unfinished process of state-building, grounded in resilience, self-determination, and the pursuit of international partnerships that advance their national interests. Within this context, Somaliland’s engagement with Israel is not a matter of external imposition or diplomatic provocation, but a reflection of sovereign agency in defining its own foreign relations.

Such relationships are understood domestically as part of a broader strategy of international engagement rather than ideological alignment or geopolitical alignment dictated by external actors. Israel, in this sense, is viewed as a partner within a pragmatic framework of mutual interest and diplomatic openness. Consequently, criticism directed at Somaliland is often interpreted not as neutral analysis, but as part of a selective narrative that applies uneven standards to similar political realities elsewhere. From this perspective, the issue is less about the existence of relations and more about the politics of representation, framing, and media consistency in international reporting.

History has changed. And those who do not realize that will be mercilessly left behind by time.

---

 

 About the Author

Gulaid Yusuf Idaan is a senior lecturer and researcher specializing in diplomacy, international law, and international relations in the Horn of Africa. He forecasted the February–April 2026 counter-alignment activation in publications including “India, Israel, Somaliland, and the Reordering of Security Alignments in the Horn of Africa and Red Sea” (Horn Diplomat, January 18, 2026), “India vs Türkiye–Pakistan Alliance: The Battle for the Horn of Africa” (News.az, January 20, 2026), and “From Addis to Berbera: India’s Strategic Pivot in Horn of Africa” (Addis Standard, December 29, 2025). Portfolio: https://muckrack.com/gulaid-idaan

---

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the Horndiplomat editorial policy.

If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis, please email it to Opinion@horndiplomat.com.
Horndiplomat reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information, and political affiliations.