REBUTTAL TO MUNIR ZULU’S MISPLACED PETITION ON ISRAEL-ZAMBIA RELATIONS

 

REBUTTAL TO MUNIR ZULU’S MISPLACED PETITION ON ISRAEL-ZAMBIA RELATIONS

By Ephraim Shakafuswa

Munir Zulu’s petition against Zambia’s diplomatic ties with Israel is not only legally frivolous but politically misguided, historically selective, and diplomatically reckless.

First, let’s set the record straight: the rekindling of Zambia–Israel relations did not begin with the New Dawn government. It was under the Patriotic Front administration, starting with President Michael Sata, that Zambia reopened its mission in Israel. President Sata appointed our first Ambassador, Mr. Martin Mwanambale, signaling a deliberate re-engagement with Israel after decades of dormancy.

President Edgar Chagwa Lungu built on this by visiting Israel and signing bilateral agreements that laid the foundation for stronger cooperation. What we are witnessing today — the opening of the Israeli Embassy in Zambia is the fruit of seeds planted years ago. It is disingenuous and misleading to present this as an isolated decision of the current administration.

Second, Munir Zulu’s reliance on Articles 8(d) and 9(1)(c) of the Constitution is a shallow attempt to weaponize constitutional values without context. Human dignity as a value does not translate into an automatic ban on relations with any nation. If this logic were applied consistently, Zambia would have to sever ties with dozens of countries whose histories, governance, or foreign policies have faced international criticism. The role of diplomacy is not moral absolutism, but engagement, creating bridges even where disagreements exist.

Third, the invocation of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda’s 1973 decision to cut ties with Israel is misplaced. Kaunda acted in the geopolitical context of the time — the Cold War, the Non-Aligned Movement, and Africa’s collective stance in solidarity with Palestine. But Zambia has evolved since then. Our foreign policy today must reflect current national interests, not be frozen in the ideological posture of the 1970s. Kaunda himself was pragmatic, he engaged both East and West, always adjusting Zambia’s external relations to serve the moment. To invoke his decision without appreciating its context is to strip it of meaning.

Fourth, Zambia stands to gain from stronger ties with Israel in agriculture, technology, health, and security cooperation. Israel has pioneered water management, irrigation, and innovation systems that can directly benefit Zambia’s food security and economic transformation. Turning away from such opportunities on the basis of ideological grandstanding is to sacrifice Zambia’s practical development needs on the altar of outdated rhetoric.

Finally, this petition is a political stunt dressed up as a constitutional case. It is not about human dignity, nor about Palestine, nor about Zambia’s sovereignty. It is about attention-seeking and undermining Zambia’s strategic diplomacy for narrow political ends. Zambia’s foreign policy must not be hijacked by individuals seeking relevance.

Zambia’s relations with Israel are not unconstitutional, they are strategic, beneficial, and rooted in continuity from the PF era through to the New Dawn government and to our incoming government. Munir Zulu’s petition deserves to be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.