Last week, at the Arab-Islamic Summit in Riyadh, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu made a bold and strategic declaration in support of the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His statement not only reaffirmed Nigeria’s longstanding commitment to a peaceful resolution of the issue but also marked a significant return to the core principles that have underpinned Nigeria’s foreign policy since independence in 1960.
Tinubu’s call for a “negotiated two-state solution” that ensures both Israel and Palestine can live side-by-side in peace aligns with Nigeria’s longstanding position that recognizes the right of Palestinians to self-determination while also acknowledging Israel’s right to exist as a state. This diplomatic stance draws upon Nigeria’s history of supporting justice, equality, and the right to self-determination for all peoples, principles which have guided Nigerian foreign policy through various administrations, even when political winds shifted.
The President’s statement is a clear return to Nigeria’s foundational principles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also subtly corrects the foreign policy course set by former President Goodluck Jonathan, whose government voted against granting Palestine observer status at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2012. While Jonathan’s decision was framed as a response to regional geopolitics, it marked a departure from the trajectory set by Nigeria’s post-independence leaders, who had consistently balanced support for Palestine with recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
Tinubu’s statement last week signals a return to the middle ground—one that seeks to balance Nigeria’s historical support for Palestinian aspirations with the reality of Israel’s role in the Middle East. This principled approach is in line with the Nigerian stance on international peace and justice, reinforcing Nigeria’s active participation in global diplomacy for fairness and equality.
While President Tinubu’s position aligns with the values of Nigerian foreign policy from its earliest days, it is crucial to remember that Nigeria’s relationship with Israel has not always been smooth. In 1967, during the Six-Day War, Nigeria severed diplomatic ties with Israel in solidarity with the Arab world, particularly after Israel’s military occupation of Egyptian territories. At that time, Nigeria also adopted a strong anti-colonial stance, advocating for the decolonization of Africa and opposing the minority rule in southern Africa, particularly in South Africa, where apartheid persisted.
However, in 1986, under the leadership of then-President Ibrahim Babangida, Nigeria moved to restore relations with Israel. This shift was part of a broader effort to recalibrate Nigeria’s foreign policy towards greater pragmatism and engagement with international partners across the ideological spectrum. Babangida’s government also took the bold step of joining the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in 1986, highlighting Nigeria’s commitment to balancing its Muslim and Christian constituencies while pursuing an independent foreign policy that promoted peace, stability, and development in Africa and beyond.
In retrospect, Babangida’s decision to restore ties with Israel and engage with the OIC paved the way for Nigeria to position itself as a key player in global diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East and African contexts. Tinubu’s recent declaration to support the two-state solution is thus a continuation of this balanced approach, one that ensures Nigeria remains true to its core values of non-alignment, peacebuilding, and respect for international law.
Tinubu’s diplomatic declaration is significant not only for its immediate relevance to the Middle East peace process but also for its implications on Nigeria’s broader foreign policy trajectory. By reaffirming the principle of a negotiated two-state solution, Nigeria is positioning itself once again as a champion of international justice and self-determination. If this stance is maintained, Nigeria could regain its reputation as an active global voice for peace, human rights, and the fight against colonization in all its forms.
It is vital that this foreign policy move is not politicized domestically. The President must resist any attempts to turn this issue into a partisan battle. Foreign policy should not be subject to the whims of internal politics; rather, it should be driven by national interest, moral responsibility, and a commitment to global peace. Nigeria’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must remain a matter of principle, not a bargaining chip in domestic politics.
President Tinubu has the opportunity to shape Nigeria’s legacy as a nation that stands firm on the global stage for the right causes—one that balances the imperatives of national interest with the greater good of humanity. The international community is watching, and if Nigeria continues to align itself with its historic principles, the country could once again emerge as a beacon of diplomacy and peace, playing a leading role in the struggle for justice in the Middle East and beyond.
President Tinubu’s firm endorsement of a two-state solution is a diplomatic victory for Nigeria. It is a step toward restoring the country’s responsible foreign policy posture, one rooted in the ideals of equality, justice, and the right to self-determination. The path forward is clear: if Nigeria stays the course, it will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping a fairer, more peaceful world order.
