By Tendai Makaripe
Global news outlets show that the smoke has not lifted over Gaza.
Ambulances weave through rubble as families count the missing. Yet in New York and across African capitals, the map is shifting: more countries are recognising Palestine, and a UN plan to protect civilians is back on the table.
That turn gives Zimbabwe a rare opening to lead with African Union /SADC priorities and turn solidarity into results for people in Gaza, and for its UN Security Council bid.
France backed recognition and floated a possible UN-mandated mission focused on civilian protection.
Britain, Canada, Australia and Portugal followed with recognitions that they say should restart a two-state path.
At the same time, Palestine publicly endorsed Zimbabwe’s run for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council.
The question for Harare is now practical: how to turn AU and SADC positions into visible UN action that protects civilians and strengthens its campaign.
Africa’s line is steady.
The African Union has restated “unwavering support” for two states living side by side in peace and security.
SADC leaders have called for an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages and talks toward a durable settlement, while condemning attacks on civilians.
Those points give Zimbabwe a clear script.
The task is to convert them into concrete work at the U.N.
Palestine’s envoy in Harare, Tamer Almassri, has pressed for more than sympathetic words.
“History will not forgive the bystanders. Justice will not be denied,” he said, thanking Zimbabwe for its solidarity and urging stronger civilian-protection steps.
His message links endorsement to performance: support opens doors, delivery keeps them open.
Analysts argue that Zimbabwe’s first step is clarity.
Harare can place AU/SADC language at the top of each statement — cease-fire, hostages, talks, civilian protection — then add a sharp edge: children’s safety, protected schools and hospitals, and predictable humanitarian access.
A child-protection lens is both moral and effective. It travels across blocs in New York and aligns with Zimbabwe’s wider advocacy on children’s rights.
Foreign-policy analyst Gibson Nyikadzino said leverage grows when rhetoric meets delivery.
“Principle matters, but votes move when states see practical work,” he said.
“Harare should co-sponsor balanced humanitarian texts, host a side-event with the AU and UNICEF on children in conflict, and pledge support to agencies delivering aid. That is how you turn solidarity into trust.”
If the discussion of a U.N. stabilisation mission for Gaza advances, the hard work will sit in mandate design. Africa’s recent experience in the DRC and CAR offers lessons.
Conflict resolution researcher Lazarus Sauti said: “Any mission must centre on civilian protection, guarantee aid corridors, and tie operations to a political horizon for the two states. Avoid vague tasks. Avoid open-ended timelines. If the politics stall, the mission will bleed credibility.”
Henry Ngara, board chairperson of Shoulder to Shoulder with Palestine, called this “smart solidarity.”
“You do not abandon principle,” he said. “You show that a principled Africa can design a workable U.N. text. Sponsor, convene and vote in ways that save lives. That is how you win friends without trading your history.”
The vote math matters.
Endorsements help, but the Security Council ballot is secret and unforgiving.
Harare will need to work with CARICOM, Pacific small states and parts of Eastern Europe and Latin America, where missions often prefer steadiness over slogans.
South Africa-based analyst Suraya Dadoo said the message should stay tight.
“Lead on civilian protection, keep faith with international law and avoid language that boxes you into anyone’s hard line,” she said. “States want an African problem-solver, not another combatant in a rhetorical war.”
France’s stabilisation idea will face detailed scrutiny: Who authorises it? Who leads? How will it link to Palestinian civil authorities and aid agencies?
National Chairperson of Zimbabwe Palestine Solidarity Council Mafa Kwanisai Mafa, said SADC should set out clear guardrails.
“If this advances, SADC should table strong rules of engagement to protect civilians, independent incident reporting, guaranteed aid access and a clear link to a credible political process,” he said. “Put those in black and white. If they are not in the mandate, they will not happen.”
Economics sits in the frame as well.
Recognition debates are moral, but diplomacy shapes trade, finance and scholarships. International relations analyst Caroline Magedi Gwandingwa urged a calibrated line.
“A clear humanitarian stance can open doors to development finance and technical partnerships,” she said.
“But consistency is key. Mixed messages risk confusing partners in the Gulf, Europe or Asia who value predictability.”
Political analyst Blessing Mafudza said the Council race rewards focus.
“Share a short ‘Zimbabwe on Council’ note with missions,” she said.
“Keep three priorities. Please make one of the children in conflict. Promise transparent voting on humanitarian files. Then do it. Consistency earns you second-order gains you cannot script — co-sponsors, corridor access, quiet support in the ballot room.”
Risks remain.
Some capitals argue that recognition rewards Hamas.
Others may hear any talk of a Gaza mission as picking sides. The way through is disciplined language and verifiable steps.
Repeat SADC’s priorities. Add specific, civilian-protection measures. Avoid maximalist rhetoric that alienates swing votes. Above all, match words with actions at the U.N. and at home.
France’s case for recognition ties process to outcome: a two-state settlement, a reformed Palestinian Authority and a security-and-aid architecture that lowers the human cost.
That framing leaves room for SADC’s additions. Zimbabwe can use that space to insert Africa’s experience: mandate clarity, protection-first design and honest reporting that prevents drift.
It can also back a light AU–SADC consultative track that feeds regional ideas into New York in real time.
Almassri’s warning points to urgency, but urgency does not require overreach. The credible path is steady. Co-sponsor humanitarian access resolutions.
Back language that protects schools and hospitals and reunites separated families. Support impartial mechanisms that track harm to children.
Convene with a regional lens and speak to solvable problems: aid corridors, de-confliction for medical evacuations and time-bound commitments tied to talks.
This moment tests whether Zimbabwe can separate the message from the theatre.
The goal is not to echo the loudest voice. It is to prove Africa’s constructive value when headlines fade.
If Harare leans into AU and SADC positions with care, shows up with workable text and keeps its child-protection niche in front, it can do more than signal solidarity. It can help save lives and build the trust that counts in a secret ballot.
Applause fades after recognitions and resolutions.
What lasts is whether Harare turned Africa’s common lines into measurable protections for civilians — and a consistent record that persuades silent voters in the General Assembly.
As Mafudza puts it: “Diplomacy is not an Instagram reel. It is the hard work between headlines.”
If Zimbabwe does that work, it will argue not only for a seat but for what Africa plans to do with one.
