Let’s now turn from America to Africa, where Jerusalem has made significant diplomatic inroads in the last decade. South Africa, where the ruling party is fully aligned with the Palestinian national movement, has led the legal campaign against Israel at the International Court of Justice and elsewhere. Arab countries in North Africa have also responded to the present war with typical hostility, with the exception of Israel’s allies Morocco and Egypt. As for the other African nations, Asher Lubotzky examines their reactions:

Most African countries, including a number of countries that have good bilateral relations with Israel (such as Uganda and Angola), have either employed ambiguous and neutral language in statements or have completely ignored the war.

The litmus test of Israel’s standing in Africa during the war was the UN votes on October 27 and December 12. The resolutions adopted on these dates called for an immediate ceasefire and did not condemn Hamas, and, thus, Israel and its close allies opposed them. These resolutions won substantial support in Africa, and even countries friendly to Israel, such as Kenya and Ghana, voted for them. At the same time, a few African countries stood by Israel.

Furthermore, the weakening of American influence in Africa vis-à-vis both China and Russia in recent years has negatively affected the ability of the United States to gain support from African countries for Western interests around the world, such as the war in Ukraine and the war against Hamas. Countries that have become close to Moscow in recent years, such as the Central African Republic, have also tended to adjust their UN votes to reflect Russia’s views. . . . Conversely, Israel has good relations with Christian-majority countries in eastern, central, and western Africa.

Lubotzky also notes one especially good piece of news:

As of the writing of this article, not a single African country—including the Muslim countries that have recently established relations with Israel, such as Chad, Sudan, Guinea, and Morocco—has officially severed its relations with Israel. From a historical perspective, this alone is an Israeli achievement; . . . during the Yom Kippur War and in its aftermath, more than twenty African countries broke off diplomatic relations with Israel.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.