logo
Palestinians could do worse than setting up home in Somaliland

Palestinians could do worse than setting up home in Somaliland

Yahoo10-02-2025

I've always had a soft spot for Somaliland. While visits to Somalia, just next door, entailed armed escorts and bullet-proof vests – hence I never went – to get to Somaliland you basically sauntered by foot over its border with Ethiopia, where I was freelancing, and hopped on a minibus which in less than three hours of driving through the desert dropped you off in the feisty capital, Hargeisa, where I'd stay at the wonderful pink-walled Oriental Hotel.
I haven't thought much about the country since I left the Horn of Africa, but now they are talking about it as one of the options, along with neighbouring Puntland – an autonomous region in northeastern Somalia – for rehousing Palestinians from the wasteland of Gaza.
I'm not convinced any of us should be considering or telling Palestinians where they 'can go'. But at the same time, one can't deny that the images of Gaza are pretty astonishing. What it takes to achieve that level of destruction is hard to comprehend, and I worked with a lot of bomb-dropping jets and Multi-Launch Rocket Systems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Palestinians clearly need somewhere to live. Perhaps some of the more centrist ones check out the Daily Telegraph. So this is for them, regarding what Somaliland is like as a potential get-out-of-jail/Armageddon card.
One of the reasons I enjoyed going there is that the people are very friendly, especially after the recalcitrance and obstructionism of trying to report in Ethiopia. Somalilanders – like all Somalis –can't stop talking. They're upbeat, loud and gregarious. And exceptionally welcoming to a stranger.
This was partly due to the fact that the international community still hasn't recognised it as a country, despite its breaking away from Somalia more than 30 years ago, and so it exits in a strange limbo state, unable to access global financing and all the rest of the international community's infrastructure.
So the Somalilanders like the fact when someone comes to visit, thereby giving a degree of recognition to their self-declared sovereign state that no one else is willing to do officially. Hence the surprising proposal for absorbing Palestinians – reportedly in exchange for recognition of the country's sovereign status from Israel.
The warm welcome I encountered also had something to do with them looking favourably on the British as colonisers, who, unlike the Italians in Somalia, didn't leave the place a basket case.
But whether the locals would welcome a load of Palestinians is another matter – that said, Somalianders know all about having their homes and towns reduced to rubble, as happened during the civil war when the jets of Somalia's late dictator Mohamed Siad Barre pulverised Hargeisa.
So its current inhabitants, having rebuilt their city and lives with little international assistance – due to that lack of recognition – might well be sympathetic to the Palestinians' situation.
There is an uncomfortable truth, though, underpinning my good times spent there. Like all Brits embracing exciting adventure in foreign lands, I knew I could leave – as I did.
When I was there, other than carrying out my journalism, I spent much of my time at the tea stalls drinking deliciously sweet brews – it's a booze-free country – and other times chewing the leaves of khat, famed for its nice low-level narcotic buzz; there wasn't much else for a visitor to do. Something a long-term transplant is going to have to confront.
Islamist extremism has been gaining a foothold in East Africa for some time – one day as I walked through Hargeisa, a guy in Muslim frock mimed gunning me with an AK; I don't think it was meant humorously. This is a tough part of the world, and basically off the grid as far as most Western countries are concerned.
So, that said, perhaps having a load of Palestinians – the current cause célèbre – in Somaliland might get people to finally pay more attention to the country, with the mutual benefits helping keep good relations between the locals and newcomers. Hargeisa clearly has advantages to a bombed-out Gaza. Perhaps it could work as temporary residence until Gaza is 'restored'.
While Donald Trump's remarkable suggestions about turning Gaza into a 'Riviera of the Middle East' might seem typically Trumpian and outlandish, based on my time in Iraq, I get where he is coming from to a degree.
My first tour in Iraq was spent in the city of Al Amarah. It was out in the sticks, marooned from the country's main urban focal points. The ungenerous visitor might easily take one look at Al Amarah under the midday sun and describe it as an unbearably remote dump.
But during my first night at CIMIC House, the small civil-military outpost in the centre of the city (and where Rory Stewart initially held sway over the surrounding Maysan province), as I sat outside in my combats at a white plastic table, eating what the army chefs had rustled up and gazing over the Tigris River that ran by one side of the compound, I saw otherwise (this was before everything 'kicked off' and we took the country to hell and back again).
While my fellow officers discussed forthcoming operations, guard routines and the manning of tanks, as the lowering red orb of the sun hovered over the wide shimmering expanse of the Tigris, I imagined the glow of bare shoulders and elegant dresses and the pouring of wine and clinking of glasses. 'This would be the perfect spot for a restaurant,' I mused, 'were there not a war going on.'
I wasn't alone in succumbing to Iraq's hidden charms. Agatha Christie visited Iraq before its independence from Britain in 1932 and lived for a time in the city of Nimrud. Christie felt similarly about what she encountered as I did. 'What a beautiful spot it was,' she wrote. 'The Tigris was just a mile away, and on the great mound of the Acropolis, big stone Assyrian heads poked out of the soil…It was a spectacular stretch of country–peaceful, romantic and impregnated with the past.'
Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza – they all have such special qualities and potential. And yet they've all been taken down a terribly bloody path. Credit, then, to Somaliland for what it's achieved and the peace it's maintained. Perhaps not that bad a place to end up, then, at least for the time being.
James Jeffrey is a writer, assistant online editor for the Catholic Herald and a Camino guide who splits his time between the US, UK and further afield
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Marriott Vacations Worldwide (NYSE:VAC) Has More To Do To Multiply In Value Going Forward
Marriott Vacations Worldwide (NYSE:VAC) Has More To Do To Multiply In Value Going Forward

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Marriott Vacations Worldwide (NYSE:VAC) Has More To Do To Multiply In Value Going Forward

To find a multi-bagger stock, what are the underlying trends we should look for in a business? One common approach is to try and find a company with returns on capital employed (ROCE) that are increasing, in conjunction with a growing amount of capital employed. This shows us that it's a compounding machine, able to continually reinvest its earnings back into the business and generate higher returns. However, after briefly looking over the numbers, we don't think Marriott Vacations Worldwide (NYSE:VAC) has the makings of a multi-bagger going forward, but let's have a look at why that may be. We've found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free. Just to clarify if you're unsure, ROCE is a metric for evaluating how much pre-tax income (in percentage terms) a company earns on the capital invested in its business. To calculate this metric for Marriott Vacations Worldwide, this is the formula: Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax (EBIT) ÷ (Total Assets - Current Liabilities) 0.06 = US$525m ÷ (US$9.9b - US$1.1b) (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). Therefore, Marriott Vacations Worldwide has an ROCE of 6.0%. Ultimately, that's a low return and it under-performs the Hospitality industry average of 9.6%. View our latest analysis for Marriott Vacations Worldwide In the above chart we have measured Marriott Vacations Worldwide's prior ROCE against its prior performance, but the future is arguably more important. If you'd like to see what analysts are forecasting going forward, you should check out our free analyst report for Marriott Vacations Worldwide . There hasn't been much to report for Marriott Vacations Worldwide's returns and its level of capital employed because both metrics have been steady for the past five years. This tells us the company isn't reinvesting in itself, so it's plausible that it's past the growth phase. With that in mind, unless investment picks up again in the future, we wouldn't expect Marriott Vacations Worldwide to be a multi-bagger going forward. This probably explains why Marriott Vacations Worldwide is paying out 41% of its income to shareholders in the form of dividends. Given the business isn't reinvesting in itself, it makes sense to distribute a portion of earnings among shareholders. In summary, Marriott Vacations Worldwide isn't compounding its earnings but is generating stable returns on the same amount of capital employed. And investors appear hesitant that the trends will pick up because the stock has fallen 16% in the last five years. All in all, the inherent trends aren't typical of multi-baggers, so if that's what you're after, we think you might have more luck elsewhere. Since virtually every company faces some risks, it's worth knowing what they are, and we've spotted 2 warning signs for Marriott Vacations Worldwide (of which 1 is a bit concerning!) that you should know about. While Marriott Vacations Worldwide isn't earning the highest return, check out this free list of companies that are earning high returns on equity with solid balance sheets. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Eight killed in latest shooting near Israeli and US-supported aid site in Gaza
Eight killed in latest shooting near Israeli and US-supported aid site in Gaza

Washington Post

time3 hours ago

  • Washington Post

Eight killed in latest shooting near Israeli and US-supported aid site in Gaza

KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip — At least eight Palestinians were killed and dozens more wounded on Sunday in a shooting near Israeli- and U.S.-supported food distribution points in the Gaza Strip , according to health officials. Witnesses blamed the Israeli military, which did not immediately comment. The war in Gaza is still raging, more than 20 months after Hamas' Oct. 7 attack ignited it. That attack also set off a chain of events that led to Israel's surprise attack on Iran on Friday.

The world won't acknowledge it yet, but we owe Israel a debt of gratitude
The world won't acknowledge it yet, but we owe Israel a debt of gratitude

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

The world won't acknowledge it yet, but we owe Israel a debt of gratitude

'I swear I believe Armageddon is near.' This was Ronald Reagan's initial reaction, writing in his diary, after hearing news of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak on June 7 1981. The Israeli attack was a major operational success, destroying Osirak and denying Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein a nuclear bomb. In time, American leaders would come to recognise that they owed Israel a huge debt of gratitude for disarming Iraq's monstrous tyrant. Yet this is not how they reacted publicly at the time. For the deeply religious Reagan, with his profound aversion to nuclear weapons, his initial reaction was a mix of horror and confusion. As the historian William Inboden put it in The Peacemaker, his recent book on the US president's national security strategy, 'Reagan worried that his first year in office might also be the last year of Earth's existence.' President Donald Trump may not share Reagan's religious faith but he has spoken repeatedly over many years of his fear of nuclear war. This is likely to colour his response to the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Like the Reagan White House, the Trump's administration's avowed policy positions should, on the surface, lead it to endorse the strikes – support for Israel, opposition to nuclear proliferation and disgust at the target, in both cases a tyrannical regime that has committed itself to Israel's destruction and unleashed bloodshed across the region. Yet other diplomatic considerations led the Reagan administration to publicly disassociate itself from Israel. The White House denounced the attack. At the United Nations, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick allowed a Security Council Resolution condemning Israel to pass without issuing a US veto. And initially the US suspended any further sales of F-16s to positions derived from a number of conflicting policy priorities. First, there was concern about the reaction of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. Secondly, there was a growing sense in the White House that the US should support Saddam's Iraq in its war with Iran, which had begun the previous year. Thirdly, there was concern about the potential for wider regional escalation, particularly in Lebanon. That war-torn country, occupied by Syria, had served as the base for regular Palestinian guerilla attacks on Israel and was now hosting Syrian SA-6 missiles. Israel was determined to remove this threat but the Reagan administration wanted to negotiate a settlement. Fourthly, and overhanging all of this, was the wider fear that America's Cold War antagonist the Soviet Union might exploit the regional there were other officials in the administration who recognised that what Israel had done at Osirak was necessary, not only for its own security but that of the US too. And while Reagan reprimanded the Israeli ambassador that the US was 'caught by surprise,' he would very quickly begin to empathise with the Israelis. 'Indignation on behalf of Iraq is a waste,' he wrote in his diary. 'Saddam Hussein is a 'no good nut' and I think he was trying to build a nuclear weapon.' What's more, he had 'called for the destruction of Israel' and the threat thus had to be removed. After reflection, Reagan resumed sending F-16s to like Reagan, President Trump has distanced his administration from the Israeli strikes, although he has not yet gone so far as to issue any condemnation. Like Reagan, Trump had hoped to solve broader regional issues by negotiations rather than strikes. Yet there are important differences with 1981. Firstly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that Israel had informed the US ahead of time that 'this action was necessary for its self-defence.' Secondly, many of America's Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, have long feared what Iran's theocratic Shiite rulers will do with a nuclear weapon. They are less likely than they were in 1981 to be condemning Israel's attack on Iran behind closed doors, whatever they say publicly. Thirdly, Iran has moved well beyond Saddam's rhetorical denunciation and support for terrorist attacks. Since October 7th 2023, they and their proxies have unleashed a broad, multi-front attack on Israel with its by escalating its conflict with Israel, Iran has also left itself weaker, with its proxies devastated and its own air defences largely demolished by Israel last year. The Iranian nuclear weapons programme might be more sophisticated and spread out than the Iraqi one at Osirak. But Iran is also more isolated in the region. Even more so than with Saddam in 1981, the moment of maximum danger has already approached for Israel. While intelligence then suggested Osirak would become operational within months, the Iranians are currently enriching uranium to such levels that they are already a threshold nuclear state that could step over that precipice in as in 1981, much of the region and the wider world will condemn Israel's actions. But just as then, I suspect in time, the vast majority will come to be exceedingly grateful for what they have done. Iranian drones are already enabling Russia to pound Ukrainian cities, while the Islamic Republic's agents are targeting dissidents in the West, interfering in our elections, and unleashing violence on our streets. A nuclear weapon in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei would have been as dangerous, if not worse, than one in the hands of Saddam remains to be seen if the Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities prove as successful as their previous attack on Osirak. If it does then Western governments should be grateful to Israel. Just don't expect to hear much thanks. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store