In fact, “protests” are contained within a country; the organized crossing of a frontier is an invasion...the march tactic is not civil disobedience: It is an attempt at foreign conquest by the Arab states...
Eugene Kontorovich, The New Arab Tactic against Israel
Sending Palestinians across borders into Israel was certainly dramatic--but it was not original. As Eugene Kontorovich writes in The New Arab Tactic against Israel, this particular tactic isn't new at all:
In 1975, Spain appeared ready to pull out of much or all of Western Sahara, a large desert region between Mauritania and Morocco. Rabat hoped to annex the mineral-rich territory, but its claims of sovereignty were successively denied by a report of a U.N. fact-finding mission and an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, both of which favored self-determination for the region.So much for international law: an inconvenient thing that seems to get in the way--unless one can apply it to Israel. After all, what was the world reaction to what Morocco did?
Morocco was not deterred.
Right after being rebuffed by those international organs, it mounted the Green March — sending 350,000 unarmed Moroccans on a well-choreographed hike into Western Sahara. Spain was not willing to fight against such numbers, and evacuated the territory. The Moroccan military moved in, and the territory remains under Moroccan control to this day.
In 1975, when Western Sahara was the victim, the world community was clear on this point (even though the Moroccans were unarmed, while the Syrians and Lebanese attacked Israeli soldiers with stones and other objects). Other Arab leaders called the Green March “a violation of the sovereignty of” Western Sahara and “an act contrary to international law.” Prominent international scholars described it as an illegal use of force, a “stealing of the Sahara,” in the words of one of the leading international lawyers of the time. The U.N. Security Council passed a measure that “deplored” Morocco’s invasion.But even with that difference between 1975 and 2011, there are interesting comparisons which highlight more hypocrisy when applying international law:
Rabat has occupied Western Sahara almost as long as Israel has occupied the West Bank, and with much less legal pedigree. Yet international efforts to end Morocco’s occupation have been scant and half-hearted. The occupation has been effectively accepted since the “peace process” in the region collapsed in 2004, when Morocco rejected a peace plan endorsed by the Security Council, with no damage to its international relations. Moreover, Morocco has implemented a massive policy of government-orchestrated settlement of Western Sahara. Yet the failed U.N. peace proposals did not contemplate uprooting a single Moroccan settler. Indeed, in the Security Council’s failed plan, the settlers, who now outnumber the natives, would get to vote in a plebiscite on the territory’s future.So will the UN condemn what Syria did in sending people across the border?
Technorati Tag: Nakba and Morocco.
7 comments:
Daled and of course the presence of every Jew in Yesha is "a violation of "international law" and every Jew must be uprooted from there.
In the eyes of the world, Israel is the Jew among the nations.
What a pathetic comparaison! the western sahara was a part of Morocco before the spanish colonisation, and the whole probleme after 1975 was a cold war issue, beacause the Est block supported the separatists. And since then, Algeria is supporting the separatists. It's better for you not talk about Morocco and the sahara issue since you don't know the history and the specifications of the region. Don't try to consider Morocco as a occupier, Morocco is not Israel. And the International court of justice, said, there was links between the western sahara and Morocco, they called for a referundum for self determination, Morocco accepted, because he knew he will get it, but the communist separatists strated to play dirty and refused for the sahrawis who were against theme, the right to vote.
I don't know the history, but Wikipedia does contradict your version and supports the article I quoted--the key point being that Morocco did not accept the ruling of the ICJ:
Morocco intended to vindicate its claims by demanding a verdict from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was issued on Oct. 16, 1975. The ICJ stated that there were historical legal ties of allegiance between "some, but only some" Sahrawi tribes and the Sultan of Morocco, as well as ties including some rights relating to the land between Mauritania and other Sahrawi tribes. However, the ICJ stated also that there were no ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory and Morocco, or Mauritania, at the time of Spanish colonization; and that these contacts were not extensive enough to support either country's demand for annexation of the Spanish Sahara. Instead, the court argued, the indigenous population (the Sahrawis) were the owners of the land, and thus possessed the right of self-determination. This meant that regardless of which political solution was found to the question of sovereignty (integration with Spain, Morocco, Mauritania, partition, or independence), it had to be explicitly approved by the people of the territory. Complicating matters, a UN visiting mission had concluded on October 15, the day before the ICJ verdict was released, that Sahrawi support for independence was "overwhelming".
However, the reference to previous Moroccan-Sahrawi ties of allegiance was presented by Hassan II as a vindication of his position, with no public mention of the court's further ruling on self-determination. (Seven years later, he formally agreed to a referendum before the Organisation of African Unity). Within hours of the ICJ verdict's release, he announced the organizing of a "green march" to Spanish Sahara, to "reunite it with the Motherland".
According to this--and according to the ICJ--Morocco did in fact annex land that it clearly did not have a right to.
Your wikipedia article (and we know that anyone can edit this article) is not a proove that western sahara does not belong to Morocco, i loved the passage where it's indicated (((The ICJ stated that there were historical legal ties of allegiance between "some, but only some" Sahrawi tribes and the Sultan of Morocco))) the intention of the writer is so clear ;) and what you don't know is that thoes "some tribes" are the bigest ones, they represent 80% of sahrawis. (Rguibat, Ait Lahssen, Ait Oussa, Izergyin...)
First of all, the ICJ in the 1974 was not so independant, it was a question of cold war, between the pro-western Morocco and the Estern block (leaded by algeria and the Gaddafi's Lybia, secondly the referundum was not an ICJ idea, but it was a moroccan initiative in 1956 (right after the moroccan independance), so it is normal that Morocco accepted the call for a referundum, Now the problem was, on what basis the referundum must take place ? Morocco called for a referundum who give the rights to ALL sahrawis to vote, all sahrawis who are originated from the western sahara, it means :
1- The refugie sahrawis who left western sahara to the north of Morocco under the spanish occupation.
2- The refugies from the 1958 war between the pro-moroccan sahrawis and the spanish amy. (Armée le Liberation du Sud)
3- The sahrawis who lived in western sahara, the Ait Oussa tribe (the Estern part of the territory) who were not taken in consideration by the snanish census of 1975)
4- The nomad sahrawis who lived between Center Morocco and Western sahara.
The polisario Front, don't want all of those sahrawis to vote, beacuase they knows that they are pro-moroccan. The polisario want just sahrawis counted by the biased spanish census of 75 to vote, and they also add big numbers of sahrawis from Mauritania, Algeria and Mali, since the sahrawis in the refugie camp are not counted since 1975 by the UNHCR. It's just a big problem of voters, and because No one will enter a vote unless he is sur of the results, a referundum is just impossible, Morocco offred a large autonomy where he just control the army and the foreign affairs, now algeria is financing and arming the polisario because she want the leadership of the region.
And for your information, the UN security council NEVER called Morocco an "occupier", and if westen sahara is a "territoire non autonome" this is beacause Morocco asked the UN to solve the spanish occupation, Morocco asked for his sahara in 1956, The Polisario frente is created in 1975. And, Morocco don't fear a referundum; but again ALL sahrawis have to vote.
Of course, the advantage of Wikipedia over what you write is that it does provide sources that can be checked.
According to the ICJ site, they concluded:
The materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.
What you wrote originally:
And the International court of justice, said, there was links between the western sahara and Morocco, they called for a referundum for self determination, Morocco accepted, because he knew he will get it, but the communist separatists strated to play dirty and refused for the sahrawis who were against theme, the right to vote.
is contradicted by one of the Wikipedia sources:
On October 1975 the International Court of Justice declared - in an opinion requested by Morocco - that “the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity.” Hours later King Hassan claimed the opposite. The Hague, he told his subjects, had vindicated his irredentism: 350,000 Moroccan civilians would march into the Spanish Sahara as mujahedin to “reclaim” it for the motherland.
Contrary to what you implied, the fact Morocco asked for the opinion does not mean they accepted it.
You write Morocco called for a referundum who give the rights to ALL sahrawis to vote--but the indication is that they called for the opinion, and when it did not go their way, they took it.
I know nothing of the history of the area and was quoting from an article. However, the sources I have seen so far do not support your main point.
Did you know what's the meaning of beia ? Or allegeancelinks in Islam ? The icj does not consider that as a territory links because they don't know the specification of the region. It was a matter of nomadic tribes and the beia or allegeance was a religious and political link to the sultan of Morocco. The icg was not a perfect tribunal and was clearly influenced by the cold war, and after all the icj was not supposed to talk about referundum, the judges had to answer to questions : The western sahara was a terras nullus ? And is there any links between western sahara and Morocco. They answered a third question who was not asked!
To clarify one thing, Morocco did not accept the call to a referundum after the court decision, even if the idea was't new, the first referundum has to be organized at 1958, Morocco organized the "green march" to reinforce his position in the area, we know that no one will help you unless you do it for your self. the annexion of the sahara camed after an agreement with Spanish, after that it was a war between Morocco supported by France, Usa and the Polisario supported by Algeria, Libya and URSSS
At 1991 the parties ageed on a ceasfire and they began the processus of organising a referundum, at 2007 And after all the problems outlined before Morocco proposed an autonomy plan for the teritory, it's supported by France, USA and Spain, the only coutry who is against that is Algria, but even the Algerian position is changing now after the Arab revolts. If I don't give you sources because all of mine are in French, the idea is the matter is very complicated and I'm disponted to see that you took the allegations of one party to justify the comparaison between the Green March and what happened in Israel lately. If you wat I can send you ebooks in French about the western sahara issue.
If I don't give you sources because all of mine are in French, the idea is the matter is very complicated.
Fair enough.
I'm disponted to see that you took the allegations of one party to justify the comparaison between the Green March and what happened in Israel lately.
Of course, I could say the same about you.
In any case, I quoted a post by someone else because he made an interesting analogy. If you think that the analogy is based on an erroneous understanding of the history, that's fine--anyone interested will see your comments and at the very least see that it is a complicated issue.
As far as the ebooks go, don't bother.
Je ne comprends pas le français.
Post a Comment