Malta and Palestine’s relationship in history
- Spunt Malta
- Sep 22
- 5 min read
Updated: Sep 23
When Prime Minister Robert Abela stood at the United Nations General Assembly to formally recognise the State of Palestine, he will be drawing a line under nearly five decades of consistent Maltese policy. For Malta, this is a logical end point of a long trajectory that began in the 1970s, when the island had only just become a republic.
From the outset, Malta treated the Palestinian cause as one of principle. Successive governments, whether Labour or Nationalist, framed Palestinian self-determination not as a passing slogan but as an integral part of Malta’s foreign policy identity. The decision to recognise Palestinian statehood therefore, builds on a deep historical foundation.
1970s: Mintoff and early start of Malta-Palestine relations
The story begins in the turbulent years after Malta became a republic in 1974. Dom Mintoff, the Labour prime minister, placed the Mediterranean at the centre of Malta’s foreign policy. He sought to balance relations with Europe and North Africa, projecting Malta as a neutral bridge between blocs.
Within this context, Malta recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people. At the time, few Western governments were willing to extend such recognition. The step was not only diplomatic but symbolic: it aligned Malta with the Arab League, gave the Palestinians legitimacy on European soil, and demonstrated Mintoff’s readiness to stand apart from Western consensus.
In 1979, the PLO opened a Representation Office in Valletta. By European standards, this was exceptionally early. Many states only allowed “general delegations” in the 1980s or 1990s, carefully avoiding the language of embassies. For Malta, however, hosting a Palestinian mission was a statement of principle.
At a Socialist International meeting at London’s Churchill Hotel on 11 November 1973, Dom Mintoff bluntly told Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, “Had I been Palestinian, I would have been a terrorist,” highlighting his identification with the Palestinian struggle. The remark, recorded in the notebooks of his secretary Joe Camilleri, marked a turning point after which Mintoff and the Malta Labour Party severed relations with Israel and their Israeli Labour counterparts.
1990: De Marco at the UN
A decade later, Malta’s support for Palestine found its clearest voice in Guido de Marco. As foreign minister, he became President of the United Nations General Assembly in 1990. That year, the Middle East was overshadowed by the Gulf War and the shifting dynamics of the post-Cold War order.
In his address to the Assembly, de Marco insisted that Palestinians remained dispossessed even as the world claimed to be building a new international system. “It is a great humiliation in life to be denied your homeland,” he said, arguing that rhetorical support was meaningless without tangible action. He called for the long-promised International Peace Conference on the Middle East to be convened, and he cast Malta’s solidarity as part of a wider duty to speak out against injustice.
The speech was controversial within his own Nationalist Party, some of whom worried about alienating allies. But de Marco held his ground. For him, Malta’s small size was no excuse for silence. Instead, it was precisely because Malta was small and vulnerable that it had a responsibility to champion principle.
Later, he supported reconciliation initiatives that brought Israeli and Palestinian youths to Malta for dialogue programmes. His approach was quieter than Mintoff’s confrontational stance, but it kept Malta’s role alive as a facilitator of dialogue and a voice for Palestinian dignity.
The Euro-Mediterranean partnership
By the mid-1990s, the Oslo peace process was faltering. At the same time, the European Union sought to strengthen relations with its southern neighbours through the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP). Malta, as a Mediterranean state about to join the EU, was deeply involved in shaping this new framework.
From the outset, Malta with others, supported the idea that Palestine must be included as a full participant. This was achieved, giving the Palestinian Authority equal status alongside Israel and the Arab states. The logic was straightforward. Mediterranean security and European security were indivisible, and without Palestinian involvement, there could be no credible peace process.
In 1997, Malta hosted an EMP ministerial meeting in Valletta. Prime Minister Alfred Sant presided over a symbolic handshake between Yasser Arafat and Israeli foreign minister David Levy. The moment was largely symbolic, but it reinforced Malta’s role as a neutral stage for dialogue. Even when substantive breakthroughs were elusive, Malta insisted that dialogue itself had value.
2009: Bilateral engagement deepens
The next turning point came in 2009, when Malta opened an embassy in Ramallah. It was among the first EU member states to do so, underlining its commitment to building Palestinian institutions in preparation for statehood. To preserve balance, Malta simultaneously opened an office in Tel Aviv.
This period also saw a series of bilateral memoranda of understanding, covering cooperation in areas such as police training, e-government, education, and heritage conservation. Development aid was directed towards Palestine, making it a priority in Malta’s overseas assistance policy.
Malta drawn into the conflict
Geography and neutrality sometimes made Malta an unwilling participant in the wider conflict. In November 1973, KLM Flight 861, a Boeing 747 hijacked by Palestinian militants, was forced to land at Luqa Airport. Dom Mintoff personally negotiated with the hijackers, warning them that the aircraft could not take off with both passengers and the fuel they demanded. Eventually, most passengers and all crew were released, and the crisis ended without bloodshed.
In October 1995, Malta was the site of a covert assassination. Fathi Shaqaqi, the founder of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was gunned down outside a Sliema hotel in an operation widely attributed to Israel’s Mossad. The killing sent shockwaves across the Palestinian movement and reminded Malta that even its neutrality could not shield it from becoming a stage for Middle Eastern struggles.
Humanitarian commitment
Beyond politics, Malta has steadily contributed humanitarian aid. Over the past five years, more than €1.1 million has been directed to Palestinian needs, including support for UNRWA, UNICEF, and other international organisations. Assistance has expanded in recent years, with contributions tripling in 2023–24 compared to earlier years.
This year alone, Malta has committed 250 tonnes of flour to Gaza, shipped via Cyprus in coordination with the United Nations Office for Project Services and distributed on the ground by World Central Kitchen. Injured Palestinian children have been brought to Malta for urgent care. Scholarships at the University of Malta and MEDAC continue to be offered to Palestinian students and diplomats, fostering long-term capacity building.
2025: Recognition of statehood
Malta’s recognition of Palestine comes against the backdrop of the devastating war in Gaza, triggered by the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023. Since then, thousands have been killed, entire neighbourhoods destroyed, and humanitarian conditions pushed to the brink.
Malta has condemned the Hamas attacks and called for the unconditional release of hostages. At the same time, it has insisted that international law and humanitarian principles must be upheld. Deputy Prime Minister Ian Borg summed up this stance earlier this year when he declared that “hunger must never be a weapon of war” and called for all obstacles to aid delivery to be removed.
Against this background, Robert Abela’s decision to recognise Palestine tonight is not an isolated gesture. It is the culmination of a policy spanning five decades. Recognition, for Malta, is not novelty but continuity. It reflects the belief that peace in the Mediterranean cannot be built on dispossession, and that small states have both the right and the duty to speak for principle when larger powers remain divided.
Comments