International Journalist – Italy
The Maldives, the postcard-perfect island state lost in the Indian Ocean, has recently made headlines not for its pristine beaches, but for a political decision that is shaking international opinion: the ban on entry to Israeli citizens, announced as a gesture of solidarity with Palestine and in response to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. This move, reflecting the sentiment of a Muslim-majority nation, is part of a broader context in which countries in the so-called Global South are emerging as new flashpoints in defending the human rights of Palestinians, while Western states seem increasingly struggling to manage internal dissent and criticism of Netanyahu‘s policies.
The Maldives episode is not an isolated case, but a sign of a social and political upheaval that is redefining the global balance, with developing countries taking a moral lead on issues that the West struggles to address and manage coherently. On June 2, 2024, the Maldivian government, led by President Mohamed Muizzu, declared that it would amend laws to prevent entry to anyone holding an Israeli passport. On April 15, 2025, the Third Amendment to the Immigration Law was ratified, making the ban official. The motivation stemmed from “growing public anger” over Israeli military operations in Gaza, which began after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack and were considered by many international observers to be disproportionate and inhumane.
The Maldives, which welcomes more than a million tourists annually, including about 15,000 Israelis, has chosen to sacrifice a slice of its lucrative tourism industry to send a clear message that support for the Palestinian cause is a priority. Muizzu’s stance is not new: back in November 2024, the president suspended all relations with Israel, including trade in Israeli products, proclaiming “national solidarity” with Palestine. Indonesia, for example, has stepped up its criticism of Israel, with President Joko Widodo calling for an immediate ceasefire and access to humanitarian aid, while Malaysia has banned Israeli ships from its ports, denouncing violations of international law committed by the Israeli government.
South Africa, the first country to take a public stand against Tel Aviv, has taken an even stronger step, taking Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in January 2024, accusing it of genocide. The ICJ, finding South Africa’s charge not manifestly unfounded, found Israel’s violation of the Genocide Convention plausible and ordered precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm pending final judgment. The verdict immediately galvanized other African and Asian countries to support the Palestinian cause such as Algeria, Mali and Mauritania.
These states, often perceived to be marginal in geopolitical balances, are exploiting international organizations and platforms to amplify their voices, challenging the hegemony of Western powers that have historically proclaimed themselves to be the guardians of human rights. Western states themselves appear increasingly contradictory in their approach to the Palestinian issue. In the U.S., unconditional support for Israel-with more than $3 billion annually in military aid-comes up against growing popular discontent, especially among young people. Pro-Palestinian protests are often suppressed by force: across the country, police have cleared university campuses, arresting hundreds of protesters.
On the Old Continent, the situation is no different. In France, the government has banned several pro-Palestinian demonstrations, citing risks to public order; in Germany, authorities have restricted the use of Palestinian symbols, such as the keffiyeh, at some public events and demonstrations. In the UK, a 2024 Al Jazeera report denounced “double standards” in media coverage by BBC and CNN, which were accused of downplaying Israeli actions in Gaza. The indicted newspapers allegedly used a different news treatment of the Israel-Gaza conflict than of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, applying principles and moral outrage selectively, depending on who was involved: outright condemnation for Russia, caution and justification for Israel, despite the fact that in both cases there were serious documented humanitarian violations. Media and social restrictions have fueled the accusation that the West is stifling debate on Palestine, while its leaders continue to reiterate Israel’s right to self-defense without a similar emphasis on protecting Palestinian civilians.
The contrast between the Global North and Global South thus reveals a paradox: while Western states, with their institutions, media, popular culture, and diplomatic skills, are supposed to embody universal principles of justice and freedom, it is often developing countries that take the lead on pressing moral issues. These countries, while having limited resources compared to Western powers, are using their diplomatic clout to fill a vacuum left by those, such as the United States or the European Union, who seem more concerned with maintaining strategic alliances than addressing the accusations of genocide levelled against Israel by international law experts and NGOs such as Amnesty International.
The Maldives’ decision, in this sense, is emblematic of a historic shift. It is not just a tourist veto, but a symbolic act that is reflecting a new global political awareness. Nations of the global South, particularly those in Africa, Asia and Latin America, see the Palestinian struggle as a reflection of their colonial experiences, characterized by economic dispossession, cultural oppression and denial of self-determination. This historical similarity generates strong empathy: the Palestinian struggle is seen as a continuation of the battles for national liberation waged against colonial powers. Countries like South Africa, which experienced apartheid, find parallels between their past and the system of segregation in the occupied territories. Solidarity with Gaza becomes not just a religious or cultural issue, but a refusal to accept a world order in which the lives of some are worth more than others. The Maldives, with its economy dependent on tourism, could have chosen silence to avoid economic or diplomatic retaliation. Instead, they opted for a principled stance, knowing that the political cost could be high. Israel responded by advising its citizens to leave the archipelago and advising against future travel.
The divide between the West and the global South is also evident in international arenas. While the U.N. General Assembly has seen a majority of countries in the South vote on resolutions for a ceasefire in Gaza, it should be remembered that the United States has used its Security Council veto to block similar measures, most recently in December 2024. This has reinforced the perception that the West is complicit in a system that perpetuates the Israeli occupation. In contrast, the Maldives, South Africa or Nicaragua do not have veto power, but use their influence to build coalitions that challenge the status quo, such as the Non-Aligned Movement ( states that during the Cold War chose not to align with either the Western (U.S.) or Soviet bloc) or the G77 (the group of 134 developing countries that promotes their collective economic and political interests, strengthening South-South cooperation and negotiating with industrialized nations in areas such as trade and development), which have repeatedly condemned Israel’s actions.
Their refusal to passively align themselves with Western narratives is forcing the world to rethink who the true defenders of human rights are. Western democracies, caught between geopolitical interests and growing domestic pressures, risk permanently losing credibility if they continue to suppress pro-Palestinian dissent or silence anyone who tries to pass judgment. The Maldives decision is one piece in an intricate global mosaic in which developing countries are redefining the paradigms of international justice. It may be true that social upheaval alone will not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is changing the way the world perceives it, questioning who has the right to dictate the rules of the game. Solidarity with Palestine, expressed from an archipelago thousands of miles away from Gaza, shows that geography is not an obstacle when it comes to taking a stand for what you believe is right.
