According to an official statement by the Moroccan royal family, in a letter sent by Prime Minister Netanyahu, he recognized Western Sahara as the territory of the North African kingdom. Of course, the human rights organizations revolted, because that is their Pavlovian conditioning, but this time I actually support the prime minister's move, not necessarily for the reasons that motivated him to take it.
Netanyahu did this in order to respond to the Moroccan expectation/demand on the matter, and to deepen the ties between the two countries. I think it's good that he did, but not because of any of that, but because of something a Moroccan guy told me.
King Mohammed VI of Morocco Photo: WireImage
A year ago, I went as part of a delegation to Morocco. Before the trip, we were briefed to be careful in our language on two issues: not to speak out against the king, not even a hint, not even jokingly, and not to enter into a political discussion about Morocco's right or non-right to Western Sahara. And so it was.
No right to intervene
That was until I met a Moroccan who told me that until recently he, like most of his friends, supported the Palestinian side of our Arab-Israeli conflict. Then he realized something: He understood that just as he would not want an outsider to come and intervene in the conflict over Western Sahara, as we were briefed (and just as no one was briefed when he arrived in Israel, of course), so too he had no right to intervene in our conflict.
Israeli and Moroccan flags at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Moroccan capital (archive),
"I don't understand anything about your war. I feed off the media, and it has an agenda, even though it tries to appear neutral. So just as it makes me angry that someone comes from outside and tells me what to do, it must annoy you too. This is your problem just as the Sahara is our problem. And that's it. Since then, I've treated Israel cleanly, without involving the conflict in which I don't understand anything." It was the spirit of his words that surprised me with its simplicity.
So yes, the world has a role and responsibility to intervene when necessary. We know very well what happens when he does not intervene, or delays in doing so while trying to destroy our people. But in most cases, this is simply out of the question.
Autonomy - a basic need
One of the basic needs of man, as basic as food, security and love, is autonomy. Independence. But contrary to the response in the enlightened world to deliberate starvation, the same world has no problem trampling on the independence of many countries when it comes and simply instructs them what to do. If they don't do as he says, he threatens them until they are forced to obey.
Jaouad ACIM
There are sovereign countries in the world today that are forced to give up their independence to one degree or another, because their very existence is in danger due to the crude intervention of other countries, whose worldview is fed by foreign interests and biased media, not facts.
Therefore, just as I have no pretension to take a stand on the Catalan demand for independence from Spain, the Kurdish from Iraq, the Ambzonian from western Cameroon, or that of the Faroe Islands from Denmark, I ask, in fact, the Danes, the Spaniards, the Iraqis, the Cameroonians and all the other peoples who stick their noses in my war to concentrate on their problems. Because, as you know, what you hate will not do to your friend.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us