The Myth of Peace in the Middle East: Deconstructing the Naturalization Narrative

April 16, 2021Articles,

American-Israeli delegation visit to Morocco in December 2020. (Photo: US Embassy Jerusalem, via Wikimedia Commons)

By Mohamed El Metmari

This critical essay deconstructs the political narrative surrounding the naturalization agreements that have occurred between some Arab countries and Israel formally known as the Abrahamic Accords or Jared Kushner’s plan for peace in the Middle East. It offers unique perspectives and analysis of these accords and their true geopolitical intentions. Primarily, it argues how the peace promised by these newly established ties remains just a myth as it explores the true objectives behind them. Interestingly enough, it also highlights the true goals behind the U.S’ mediations in these Accords.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one of the hottest yet unresolved political issues of today. Whereas this conflict is not heading towards any resolutions soon, the recent naturalization agreements that have occurred between some Arab regimes and the apartheid state of Israel may mark a future shift in Middle East’s political scene.

Earlier to these agreements, boycotting Israel was these Arab nations’ approach to show support for Palestinians and their claims. Before 2020, only two bordering countries have had diplomatic ties with Israel; that is, Egypt and Jordan. This number has risen to six as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco have set full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel as part of Jared Kushner’s plan for peace in the Middle East known formally as the Abrahamic Accords.

Celebrating the first occurrence of the Abrahamic Accords, Trump hosted a signing ceremony in the White House and had the following rash statement to announce: “We’re here this afternoon to change the course of history. After decades of division and conflict, we mark the dawn of a new Middle East.” By this politically immature statement, Trump seemed as if he had finally found a solution to the conflict in the region.

As for peace in the region is concerned, Jared Kushner’s peace plans do not make any sense. Apart from Sudan, none of the countries involved with these accords are in conflict with Israel. On the opposite, Morocco and so the Gulf States have retained very healthy diplomatic relations with Israel, even if they were undeclared publicly. For instance, Morocco has had a fair share of intelligence-sharing with Israel since the mid-sixties. On top of that, the two countries had liaison offices in Tel Aviv and Rabat from Sept. 1, 1994, to Oct. 23, 2000. Not to mention Morocco’s contribution in populating Israel by handing over its Jewish population to the newly established Jewish state during the reign of the Moroccan king Hassan II.

Granted, Israel supports the totalitarian regimes of the region mainly because these totalitarianisms do not demand accountability for its human rights and international law violations. Hence, most Arab dictatorships have been dealing with Israel on political and security levels; especially after the outbreak of the Arab spring where these regimes had to obtain the latest spying and security tech to topple every dissident in their population who desires regime change. Whereas the case of the Washington Post’s correspondent Jamal Khashoggi remains the most covered case, Amnesty International has reported that Moroccan journalist Omar Radi’s phone has also been infected with the Israeli Pegasus spyware.

The Myth of Peace: Deception, Expansion and Dispossession.

Each time an Arab country initiates full diplomatic relations with Israel, its local propaganda machine makes it look as a major historical event that has occurred in the country. Some media outlets have gone far with this. For example, they take the religious tolerance preached in the Muslim faith as a pretext for setting these normalization agreements with this ‘Jewish’ nation. Other media platforms, however, have beautified the image of Israel’s apartheid regime via elaborate historical descriptions of Jewish culture and heritage. This is not wrong at all, but what is wrong is to evoke this history only at this particular event ignoring Israel’s present violations of International Law and Human rights and most of all occupation of Palestinian lands. This is why it is easy to deconstruct the naturalization narrative and prove that it is just a myth.

First of all, the context of these agreements was preceded and controlled by the 2020 US elections. Trump’s administration had tried to convince the American public that it will be the first administration that ends the conflict in the Middle East and thus planning on gaining a potential leverage in the election race. But despite the occurrence of the Abrahamic Accords last year and even Trump’s administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on December 6, 2017, it still was not enough to win Trump the approval of the devastated American public. This is mainly because Americans wanted Trump out of the White House at any cost; even if it meant choosing the lesser evil of the two candidates in the elections.

Meanwhile, these events come as a perfect opportunity to boost the reputation of the Likud party and more specifically the reputation of Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu whose image has been stained by his corruption and monopoly of the Israeli political scene. Unlike Trump, the chances of him getting replaced in the upcoming Israeli elections are relatively low because of his firm grip on power and the lack of his equal in the Israeli political arena. Furthermore, with the massive press coverage that comes with such events, Netanyahu, similarly to Trump, wanted the spotlights on him to distract the public from his administration’s terrible handling of Covid-19 and thus gaining significant leverage in the elections.

Second, the biggest gain for Israel from these new ties with the Arab States and Morocco is that it reinforces its political influence in the Middle East. Not only this, but unlocking Israel’s geo-political isolation in the region as well. And since this newly granted influence to Israel is an approved one, it gives it freedom to expand and occupy more without any opposition. Of course, if Israel is gaining a legitimate influence in the region, this means that Palestine’s position will exacerbate. And thus the Palestinian cause will no longer have the leverage it has on the Middle Eastern political scene.

Furthermore, Israel’s decision to create ties with the Gulf countries in specific is not arbitrary. This move was motivated by economic reasons. As it is known, the Khaleeji people are the biggest consumers in the region. Hence the khaleeji market becomes a perfect destination for Israeli goods. Israeli products, foods in specific, can even replace other products coming from other countries because of the close distance and the low shipping costs. Additionally, Sudan may not offer much as markets are concerned, but it is definitely a great source of agricultural imports for Israel. Being the mediator between Israel and its “new” allies, the US benefits from these agreements as well since it is Israel’s biggest ally. After all, any ongoing political conflict between Israel and any of the Middle Eastern countries is primarily endangering US’ political and economic interests in the region. In other words, the mediation of the US in these so-called Peace agreements is not out of a sort of altruism because the US is only after its share of the pie.

Third, to say that these newly established ties will bring “peace” to the region is ludicrous and rash but not totally wrong. But for whom this peace is served; for Palestine, for the Arab States, or for Israel? To give a rather simple and short answer, it is apt to say it remains just a myth for the Palestinians in specific, but it means more security and power for the Israeli side in particular. To put it differently, with Israel having full diplomatic ties with these Arab countries and Morocco, it becomes easy for it to carry its annexation plans and dispossession of Palestinian lands without being held accountable. And the Palestinians are likely to be displaced gradually and implicitly to one of these countries. Apparently, Morocco and the rich Gulf states are the biggest fish that Israel could ever come to terms with. Since they provide financial comfort and political stability, some Palestinians may choose these destinations over their currently Israeli-occupied and war-inflected homes.

However, it is worth mentioning that the Emiratis as well as the Saudis despise the Palestinians. Hence, the Palestinians will never accept the reality of being displaced to one of these two countries. Meanwhile, this does not apply to either Kuwait or Oman in which do not have a strong political influence in the region. Apart from Morocco, they maybe the desired destination Israel is looking for to displace the Palestinians to after annexing their lands. Whether the two countries agree to normalize relations with Israel in the future or not, it does not really matter as long they are subservient to UAE and Saudi Arabia. Apparently, the Palestinians are likely to resist as they usually do.

Concurrently, Israel is likely to pressure them to accept this bitter reality as it has been doing for the last decades. Hence, Israel will possibly seek not only to increase its siege and pressure on the borders and checkpoints, but it may also instigate a war with Hamas as a pretext for a military escalation. Hamas, on the other hand, will be, as always, scapegoated for the whole thing especially that it is classified as a terrorist organization. Therefore, the peace that Israel is seeking is a peace with the Palestinians out of Palestine.

However, Israel is not the only benefactor from these agreements. Clearly, the Gulf States have paid for US military protection by signing these accords. But UAE in specific have had further arms deals and gained even more political protection against the Iranian influence in the Arab peninsula. Nonetheless, when a country signs a peace deal, it does not instantly demand acquirement of advanced F-35 stealth Jet, which is what this Gulf State did, because the two are paradoxical. Therefore, in opposition to the classic definitions of peace treaties, the brokered peace from these agreements is a purchased one like many peace agreements that have been signed before it in the region. After all, Sudan agreed to normalize relations with Israel so it is de-listed from the state-sponsors of terror, the Gulf States signed them as a payment for US military protection and Morocco got support for its sovereignty over Western Sahara.

Therefore, as all the purchased peace agreements the Middle East has witnessed over modern history- whether it is peace for land, peace in exchange of monopoly or what have you- this one is also doomed to be broken by conflict since it is not based on a balanced compromise where two equal parties meet in the middle. Rather, it is a political move towards accumulation of power where the main side of this conflict, meaning the Palestinians, is not even included in these agreements.

The US, Morocco, and Israel: A Geopolitical Chess Game over Africa

The fact that Israel has pursued diplomatic relations with Morocco- a country so far away from the Middle East’s political discourse- is by no means for peace as it is claimed by any of the Accords’ orchestrators. The moment it was announced that Morocco was to resume relations with Israel, Moroccan propaganda machines overshadowed the controversies that come with this event by preaching to the public about the Moroccan Jewish heritage and the coexistence of the Abrahamic religions in this homogeneous sphere. This normalization was depicted as a win-win situation for Morocco especially that Trump has rewarded Morocco’s approval of its resumption of relations with the apartheid regime by signing a presidential proclamation that recognizes Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara.

The celebrations following this recognition covered up totally for the naturalization. This proclamation has even become an independent narrative of its own. The official discourse in Moroccan media has asserted that this recognition is the fruit of long-lasting diplomatic ties between Morocco and the US and not as a part of the Abrahamic Accords. Moreover, many factors influence politics, but altruism is not one of them. Taking the fact that Morocco was the first country to recognize the independence of the US in 1777, and the two countries long diplomatic relations, it stands as a surprise that it took so much time for the US to recognize Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara or at least support its claim diplomatically.

Meanwhile, political terminology is important here because Moroccan media had it intentionally mixed up to alleviate the Moroccan public’s rage. Trump’s presidential proclamation does not recognize the Western Sahara region as a Moroccan entity as they have claimed, but it only recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over it. These are two different things, because Morocco has already been practicing sovereignty over the region although with some difficulties mainly caused by intense altercations with the Algerian-backed Polisario Front. The only thing that Morocco has needed is legitimacy and this proclamation happens to be it. Obviously, this is a simple treat from the US for Morocco’s acceptance of the resumption of relations with Israel.

Nevertheless, the majority of the Moroccan public welcomed Trump’s move, but they abhorred Morocco’s establishment of ties with Israel. Nasser Bourita, the Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs, has refused to call this an act of “naturalization” of relations. For him, normalization is a Middle Eastern term that does not apply to Morocco which is not a neighboring country to Israel. Indeed, Morocco’s North African location and its large indigenous Amazigh population make it hard to proclaim the country as purely Arab.

Bourita has preferred using the term “resumption” of relations instead. As mentioned earlier, Morocco and Israel had Liaison offices in Tel Aviv and Rabat before Morocco had to close their office in response to Israeli repression of the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000. Not to mention, there is a number of almost 800.000 Jews of Moroccan decent living in Israel right now.

Obviously, Israel remains the biggest benefactor from these naturalization agreements. However, the US did not take part in them without purpose. The existence of Israel in the Middle East protects American interests in the region. That is why Zionist lobbies in the US always do their best to empower this regime. And this is what AIPAC is doing and what Christians United for Israel and other Zionist lobbies are doing. As a result, this support for the apartheid regime enables the US to retain its firm grip on Middle East’s political and economic affairs. These are all facts now. But the case of Morocco is still a uniquely dubious one. Pressing Morocco – a country so far away from The Middle East’s frenzy and even terminology to sign these deals seems confusing to say the least; especially that Morocco is not a rich country like the Gulf States.

However, ever since Morocco’s rejoining the African Union in 2017, many countries and the US particularly have started to look for ways to intensify their relations with this African country more than before. To illustrate, Morocco’s main weapon supplies come from the US. Granted, the influence of the US embassy in Rabat has surpassed diplomatic lines to influencing Moroccan cultural context and even influencing Moroccan academia via its grants and many programs and English learning courses. This soft pressure changes the structure of Moroccan society with time. As of now, although French is the official second language in Morocco, the majority of Moroccan youth, many of whom have benefited from US grants and programs, speak English. This is not bad at all, but again, politics is the game of interests and not altruisms. Implemented in these courses and grants are soft ideologies that create sympathy and acceptance of US values and democracy in the Moroccan community. In the long run, acceptance of the US image rises even if its intentions in the region are not necessarily benevolent.

To connect this to the question at hand, Morocco remains the US’ key holder to the African Union and African countries. This strategic move to invest in Morocco politically and economically and then support its sovereignty over its full territorial land comes as the price for infiltrating a fertile network of rising African economies. Hence, these countries become perfect investment destinations for the US. And although China is the biggest player in Africa as economy is involved, not counting the previous colonial powers of Africa, the US is doing the best it can to take this role in the near future. After its degrading failure to do so under pretexts of humanitarian aid and war on terror, the UShas finally chosen this diplomatic direction to overtake Russian and Chinese influences in Africa. It is hence a perfectly played chess game over geopolitical expansion and power. Peace and human rights preached in these agreements however, are turned into industries that are used to further their dominance and hegemony.

Additionally, what makes Morocco exceptional is its officials’ diplomatic maturity and its political stability in comparison to the Middle East and other African countries. Also, Morocco’s ability to repay its debts boosts foreign investors’ confidence to embark on the Moroccan market. Not to mention, Morocco itself needs this kind of political and economic partnership and support as it seeks to take the lead as an African power. However, this pursuit remains far-fetched without having full sovereignty over its lands or without having strong allies.

Meanwhile, Moroccan King Mohamed VI has confirmed that Morocco’s position on Palestine remains unchanged. He has also affirmed that he places his country’s territorial issue and the Palestinian cause at the same level, and that the kingdom will use its new position to push for a conflict resolution in the region. Thus, Morocco is playing it as safe as it could as it is placing itself neither with the current, nor against it.

All in all, Morocco and the Arab regimes’ decision to normalize relations with Israel is not promising of any lasting peace between Palestine and Israel simply because Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories will gain significant legitimacy from the establishment of these diplomatic ties. Especially that these Arab States are not democratic themselves so they can account it for its infringement of international law and human rights. Granted, since the Palestinian question, the right of self-determination and the right of return are not included in the official discourse of these peace agreements, a resolution for the Palestinian- Israeli conflict remains just a myth that appears to be tangible with propaganda and exclusionary media narratives.

– Mohamed El Metmari is an independent writer and researcher affiliated with the faculty of Letters and Humanities of Abdelmalek Essaadi University, Martil, Morocco. He is an Open Hands Initiative’s Conflict Resolution alumnus. Currently, he is conducting a Master’s thesis centered on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. His articles have appeared on Aljazeera Arabic, SasaPost, and Countercurrents. He contributed this essay to The Palestine Chronicle.

The second coming of Ben-Gurion

Source

April 5, 2021 – 17:44

The reasons behind capsizing the Taiwanese cargo ship “Ever Given”, on the 24th of March, have become clear.

The cargo ship capsized in the Suez Canal for more than 6 days. Failing to float the ship is not the news, or that the reasons behind the accident were a human failure. But the real news behind it is the reviving of the old-new plans that were and are still alive in the dreams of the Zionist entity which is enlivening the “Ben-Gurion Canal” project. Yes, Ben-Gurion Canal has surfaced once more.

The project aims to connect the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea through the Gulf of Aqaba to the Mediterranean through the Negev desert. The idea of digging a canal opposite the Suez Canal began in 1963. It is recommended in a memo submitted by Lawrence Livermore Patriot Laps in the United States of America. The memorandum was proposed as a response to the decision taken by President Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal in 1956. 

The memorandum suggested: In order to ensure the flow of navigation in the Red Sea, an alternative canal should be opened in the Gulf of Aqaba. It will be drilled through the Negev desert, which was described as an empty area that can be dug using nuclear bombs: Firstly, the project was halted due to the radiation that nuclear bombs could cause; and secondly due to the opposition that the project would face by the Arab countries, led by Nasser.

Today, political alliances have changed the face of the region, particularly after the implementation of the Abraham Accords by several Arab countries. Therefore, a political atmosphere is compatible. Hence, serious deliberations of the project, after the Ever-Given capsizing, provide the idea that the accident was contrived. It was intended as a new window for the return of the talks over finding an alternative to the Suez Canal. 

In principle, that the accident was premeditated is a fair assumption. In an article I previously published on the Al-Ahed website, I talked about Israel’s attempt to control and expand access to the gates of the water routes to the Mediterranean through the Abraham Accords. It was not a peace agreement. Rather, it was actually an economic treaty with Morocco, the Emirates, and Sudan. Once Oman signs it, Israel will be able to control the water routes from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Persian Gulf, and finally control the Red Sea through the upcoming Ben-Gurion Canal, which will provide enormous income for Israel.

Firstly, Israel and the United States are in dire need of the project to compensate for the severe economic contraction due to the Coronavirus pandemic and unstable conditions. The treaties were signed between Israel and the Arab countries so as to guarantee Israel’s political and economic stability, and to maintain its presence in the region.  

And secondly, the project is driven by the need to restrain the rise of the economic power of China, and to hold back its ongoing project known as “One Road, One Belt”. The Chinese project aims to build a train line that starts from the provinces of China in the west towards West Asia and secure water routes around the world. It is a multi-billion-dollar investment project. For example, before the Corona pandemic, several parties in Lebanon hosted the Chinese ambassador, who explained the benefits of the project, which will employ tens of thousands of workers, employees, and specialists along the train line, which will be used mainly to transport goods between China and Europe. Therefore, the U.S. is trying to hamper the Chinese trade route by creating an alternative route to compete with. So, the new stage of struggle will witness an economic war aiming to control seaports and global trade routes.

This American-Israeli project has overlapped with joining several agreements and draft agreements. For example, the United States and the United Arab Emirates have joined the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum as observers. And starting Monday, March 29th, the Military Cooperation Agreement between Jordan and the United States will take effect, which probably aims to find an alternative place for the American forces outside Iraq and Syria.

Thirdly, preparations are underway for the implementation of the New Levant Project, which extends from Iraq to Jordan to Palestine across the Arabian Peninsula to the Sinai Desert. The project aims to create a new trade route that does not pass through Syria and Lebanon, but rather through the New Levant lands extending from the Persian Gulf in the south to the Mediterranean in the north, and through it will pass new oil and gas pipelines from Iraq to Jordan, which will replace the Tab line.

The New Levant project might forfeit Syria’s geostrategic importance for the Americans as one of the most important global and historical trade lines between the north and the south throughout history. However, the project lost its momentum at this stage because of Israel’s drive to be part of it, which forced the Iraqi government to cease working on it.

The secrecy of the canal project’s memorandum was revealed in 1994. It was waiting in the drawers for new conditions to revive it. It seems that the capsizing of the ship was the perfect plan. The capsizing oddly coincided with the signing of the 25-year comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and China. The current events are evidence that the need to change alliances has become inevitable in the region. This explains the economic pressure on Syria and Lebanon and the continued decline in the price of lira in the sister countries. The Americans hoped that through sanctions they would impose conditions for reconciliations with “Israel”, impose the demarcation of borders between the Palestinian and Lebanese borders to the best interest of Israel, and prevent Hezbollah and its allies from participating in the coming government. Eventually, the U.S. would have the upper hand to prevent the Chinese route from reaching its ultimate destination to the Mediterranean Sea. However, the reasons behind Biden’s escalating tone towards China and Syria were revealed once Iran and China signed the document for cooperation. The protocol also revealed the hidden options Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah spoke of in his speech on the 18th of March.

The developments in the region may change the course of the Syrian crisis.  The “One Belt and One Road” project will not achieve its real success until it reaches the port of Latakia, or/and the port of Tripoli, if the Lebanese desire, in exchange for the ports of Haifa and Ashkelon in Palestine. However, this cannot be achieved as long as Syria is still fighting its new independence war against America and Turkey. Yet, the coming of the Chinese dragon to Iran may mark a new era. Syria constitutes one of the main disputes between China and the United States. It seems that the withdrawal of the latter to Jordan under the new military cooperation agreement has become imposed by the new coming reality. The Americans can manage from there any new conflicts in the region or prolong the life of the crisis and thus obstruct the Chinese project without any direct clashes.

The construction of the Ben-Gurion Canal may take several years. However, the project is now put into action. Thanks to “Ever Given” capsizing, the canal building is now scheduled around May 2021. It is clear now who is the main beneficiary of this calamity, which hit one of the most important global navigation points, namely the Suez Canal.

Normalization agreements were primarily aimed to expand Israeli influence over waterways. The disastrous consequences on the region are starting to be unwrapped.  The major target is going to be Egypt. Egypt’s revenue from the Suez Canal is estimated to be 8 billion dollars. Once Ben-Gurion is activated it will drop into 4 billion dollars. Egypt cannot economically tolerate the marginalization of the role of the Suez Canal as one of the most important sources of its national income, especially after the completion of the construction of the Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia. Confinement of the Nile water behind the water scarcity will cause the Egyptians to starve. It will have disastrous consequences on Egypt and Europe. Since the latter will receive most of the Egyptian immigrants; however, this is another story to be told.
 

RELATED NEWS

Will the Deal of Century include Indonesia?

Source

January 9, 2021 – 12:59

Over the past half a century, presidents of the United States have regularly assured American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) at annual meetings of Washington’s commitment to the Zionist regime’s values. To that effect, efforts to help the Zionist regime reach sustainable security constitute a principled policy of Washington.

Nonetheless, under President Donald Trump, these efforts were significantly different. By signing the “Deal of the Century” before cameras, Trump pretended to be a pragmatic president with regard to the security of Israel through mediating peace between Israel and Muslim nations. He had from the very beginning focused specifically on a handful of Muslim nations. 

Shortly after signing the Deal of the Century, Trump delivered on his pledge. He officially gave the go-ahead to the process of normalizing ties between Muslim nations and the Zionist regime. 

From the day the Deal of the Century was signed until normalization agreements between the Zionist regime and several Muslim nations, an opportunity might have been provided to assess the public opinion in these countries and of course the firm determination of their governments for normalizing ties in view of the materialization of the “Deal of the Century” project initiated by the U.S.

Currently, despite sporadic oppositions across the Muslim world, the Deal of the Century project has taken some steps forward. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Morocco are the three Muslim nations that have normalized relations with the Quds occupying regime. However, we have to look into the future of the Deal of the Century.

The Republic of Indonesia is the largest Muslim world and the third biggest democracy in the world. After living for centuries under occupation, colocalization, and exploitation by the Dutch, the Japanese, and the Americans, Indonesia is close to marking the 75th anniversary of its independence.

Living under colonialism, the Indonesian youth sacrificed their lives to achieve independence in 1945. That taught Indonesian Muslims helpful lessons which are symbolized in the country’s Constitution and more importantly in Indonesia’s five major principles. 
Now we intend to test the waters for Indonesia to see if it can join the Deal of the Century and sign normalization or peace deals with the Zionist regime.

Colonialism yoke

A flashback to the black period of colonialism in Indonesia can serve as the first clue to this enigma. The history of the Kingdom of Srivijaya in Indonesia was millennia-old. Alas, it was seized in the 15th century by the Portuguese. Two centuries later, Britain and the Netherlands dominated Indonesia, leaving tragic disasters behind. That was when Indonesia was renamed the East Indian Company. 

History witnesses that the Dutch spilled too much blood in Indonesia to establish their own regime there. Badung, Bali, and Java still remember the horrible Dutch massacre of Indonesians with no mercy for women and children. After the Netherlands, Japan occupied Indonesia while World War II was underway. Then, it was the Americans’ turn to run Indonesian affairs following their victory in the war.  

Although the U.S. dominance of Indonesia was short-lived and the country braced for independence, the U.S. maintained its secret clout with Indonesia’s policy, which resulted in the mass deaths of three million Indonesians under the pretext of a Communist coup. 
Recently declassified CIA documents show that the intelligence agency was, directly and indirectly, involved in the coup and the subsequent carnage of Indonesians. 

It may be said that Indonesia is a large country in the world to have felt the life under occupation and suffered massive deaths committed by colonialist powers.

That is exactly why from the very outset of the Indonesian National Revolution, independence leaders pursued the five basic principles of Indonesia’s independence as the most significant independence document and future strategy for the country, calling for just life for all human communities.   

Pancasila, political philosophy of Indonesia 

As soon as Indonesia declared independence, the country faced serious political tumults. In 1998 Indonesians had to adopt fundamental reforms, known as reformasi. The reformasi brought once more Pancasila to the fore and resulted in a more forceful implementation of Indonesia’s Constitution. 

In fact, reformasi laid emphasis on major and principled policy lines of Indonesia and their implementation by people, a policy line whose main focal point was administration of justice in all human communities and clear dismissal of colonialism and exploitation all across the globe. 

Indonesian governments have since remained faithful to Pancasila and the Constitution. Wherever people have seen any non-compliance with laws they have taken action against their governments. 

Independent foreign policy  

“Independence is the right of every nation. Occupation must be abolished in the world because it does not comply with humanity and justice.” That is how Indonesia’s Constitution begins. Therefore, Indonesia has always pursued an independent line vis-à-vis colonial issues in the world because it is a founding nation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and has always adopted a principled and anti-occupation position vis-à-vis the Zionists’ occupation of Palestine. 

This political line is symbolized in the Indonesian governments’ treatment of the Quds occupying regime. Prior to adoption of reformasi and several years after, the Indonesian government maintained low-level political ties with the Zionist regime without recognizing it. The Indonesian government’s stance against the Zionist regime’s inhumane behaviors came to the limelight after it organized its domestic policy and embraced action on the global scale. 

The administration of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) from 2004 to 2014 adopted very tough stance against the Zionists. That is while Indonesia has always faced harsh criticism from the U.S. because of its anti-Zionist stance. On the other hand, Indonesia’s anti-colonialist policy has not been limited to condemnations and political statements. Indonesia has largely helped residents of Gaza and the West Bank. Construction of several hospitals in Palestine, funded by Indonesian government and charities, is a case in point. 
Under President Joko Widodo, Indonesia has pushed ahead with its anti-colonialist policy – as stipulated in the Constitution – since 2014.

Countering Israeli aggression in return for strained ties  

Indonesia has hitherto paid a heavy price because of its faithfulness to the Palestinian cause and its efforts to resolve the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. At political forums and the UN General Assembly, it openly opposed the U.S.’s declaration of al-Quds as the capital of the Zionist regime.

Indonesia’s adoption of an independent policy and support for Palestinian people has not pleased some nations, particularly Australia, leading to a verbal row between the two nations. Indonesia even threatened to sever ties with Australia, saying supporting the Palestinian cause was a principled policy of Indonesia and objecting to Indonesia’s pro-Palestine policy amounted to interference with its domestic affairs. 

Will the Deal of Century reach Indonesia?

In light of the Indonesian Muslims’ support for the Palestinian cause and objection to the Zionist regime’s occupation as well as crimes committed by the regime in Gaza and the West Bank, the issue of normalization of ties between Indonesia and the Zionist regime seems to have no real standing and is just mere speculation. Economically known as the Tiger of Southeast Asia, Indonesia does not depend on the so-called American-Zionist aid. Furthermore, the Indonesian government has shown that it would not shy away from paying any price to support Palestine in line with its Constitution. To that effect, Indonesia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman recently dismissed any plan for resumption of ties with the Zionist regime or any proposal for the recognition of Israel.

Morocco in the Midst of Western Sahara Storms After Normalization,المغرب في مهب عواصف صحراوية بعد التطبيع

**Please scroll down for the English version**

المغرب في مهب عواصف صحراوية بعد التطبيع

عمرو علان - Amro 🇵🇸 (@amrobilal77) | Twitter

عمرو علان جريدة الأخبار  الأربعاء 30 كانون الأول 2020

لا يستطيع المرء إلّا أن يتعجّب من مدى قصر نظر الحكم المغربي في إقدامه على خطوته المشينة الأخيرة في التطبيع مع الكيان الصهيوني، التي يصحّ فيها وفي نظيراتها بحق وصف اتفاقيات التتبيع بالكيان الصهيوني، بحسب تعبير أحدهم. فربط الحكم المغربي هذه الفعلة بالاعتراف الأميركي بسيادة المغرب على الصحراء الغربية يضيف إلى هذه الخطوة محاذير من الناحية الاستراتيجية، تضاف إلى المحاذير التقليدية لأي تعامل مع الكيان الغاصب كما سنجادل.

في البدء، إنّ كلّ اعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني يعدّ خيانة بالمطلق لمبادئ العقيدة والثوابت القومية، بغضّ النظر عن أيّ مبرّرات واهمة أو أيّ مكاسب تكتيكية قصيرة الأمد يفرح بها المطبّعون أو بالأحرى المُستتبَعون، ولا سيما في هذه المرحلة التي يعلن فيها الكيان الغاصب ضمّ القدس وأراضي الضفة الغربية. فكل اعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني في هذه المرحلة ينطوي على تنازل عن القدس والمقدسات الإسلامية والمسيحية في فلسطين، ولا تنفع معه تبريرات من قبيل كون الاعتراف بالكيان الصهيوني جاء في سياق ما يسمّى حلّ الدولتين المرفوض أصلاً، حيث من القصور توصيف الصراع العربي الصهيوني على أنه صراع على بقعة جغرافية، بل هو صراع مع كيان استيطاني واحتلالي وظيفي. ويشكّل هذا الكيان قاعدة متقدّمة زرعها الاستعمار القديم كامتداد له في قلب الأمة العربية والإسلامية يجب اجتثاثها، فلا وظيفة لهذا الكيان سوى إطالة زمن الهيمنة الإمبريالية على شعوب منطقتنا. وأما في حالة المغرب، فنجد أنّ هذا الاعتراف قد أضاف إلى كلّ هذه المحاذير العقدية والقومية والوطنية احتمالات دخوله في مرحلة اضطرابات عبر تجدد النزاع العسكري مع سكان الصحراء الغربية وجبهة البوليساريو.
نشأت قضية الصحراء الغربية مع انتهاء الاستعمار الإسباني لتلك المنطقة في عام 1975، الذي ترك منطقة الصحراء الغربية مقسّمة بين دولتي المغرب وموريتانيا. وبعد انسحاب موريتانيا من المناطق التي كانت تسيطر عليها في الصحراء الغربية، وبعد الإعلان عن الجمهورية العربية الصحراوية الديموقراطية في عام 1976، استمر النزاع المسلّح حول منطقة الصحراء بين جبهة البوليساريو المطالبة بالاستقلال والمغرب على تلك المنطقة إلى عام 1991، حين قرّرت جبهة البوليساريو وقف العمليات العسكرية ضد الجيش المغربي، وصدر القرار الأممي الرقم 690 بشأن قضية الصحراء الغربية الذي نص في مضمونه على إجراء استفتاء لحسم هذه القضية، إما باستقلال الصحراء أو بانضمامها إلى المغرب. ولقد تباينت مواقف الأحزاب والقوى العربية بشأن قضية الصحراء، منذ نشأتها، بين مؤيّد لحق سكّان المنطقة الصحراوية في الاستقلال وتقرير مصيرهم، ولا سيما في ظِلّ حكم المغرب الملكي الذي يعدّ رجعياً ومتخاذلاً من الناحية الوطنية، وبين معارض للمزيد من التقسيم في الأقطار العربية بغض النظر عن طبيعة حكم هذه الأقطار. أما اليوم، وبعد مقايضة المغرب لتطبيعها مع الكيان الصهيوني بفرض سيادتها على الصحراء الغربية، فيُعتقَد أن يكون لهذا انعكاس على مواقف بعض القوى العربية من قضية الصحراء لجهة تأييدها لاستقلال منطقة الصحراء عن النظام المطبّع، وإعطاء جبهة البوليساريو المزيد من المشروعية الشعبية في قتالها من أجل الاستقلال، إضافة إلى أن الاعتراف الأميركي المسموم بسيادة المغرب على منطقة الصحراء الغربية، وتجاهله للقرار الأممي الرقم 690 والوصول لحل لهذه القضية الشائكة عبر الاستفتاء يفتح الباب أمام احتمالية انهيار وقف إطلاق النار الهش بين جبهة البوليساريو والمغرب. فهذا الاعتراف الخبيث وغير المسؤول يحشر جبهة البوليساريو في الزاوية من جهة تعويلها على قرارات الأمم المتحدة من أجل التوصل لحلّ عادل لقضية سكان منطقة الصحراء، ويضع منطقة المغرب العربي بعمومها أمام احتمالات تجدد دوامة العنف والصدام العسكري، سيما أن الاعتراف الأميركي لم يأخذ في الحسبان مواقف الدول المعنية بالأمر، من الجزائر وموريتانيا. وبهذا تكون أميركا كعادتها قد صبّت الزيت على النار في بؤر التوتر في وطننا العربي، ويجد المرء نفسه مضطراً إلى موافقة مستشار الأمن القومي الأميركي السابق جون بولتون في ما ذهب إليه في مقاله الأخير في مجلة «فورن بوليسي» الأميركية بهذا الشأن، حيث وصف قرار إدارة الرئيس دونالد ترامب، الذي ستنتهي ولايته قريباً، بالاعتراف بسيادة المغرب على منطقة الصحراء الغربية بالقرار الأهوج الذي يهدّد الاستقرار في منطقة المغرب العربي بعمومه. لا نودّ تحديد موقف من قضية استقلال الصحراء الغربية في هذا المقال، لكن إذا تبنّينا جدلاً الموقف المغربي من هذه القضية الذي يعد منطقة الصحراء الغربية جزءاً من الأرض المغربية، فيمكن وصف ما فعله الحكم المغربي بأنه قد اعترف بما لا يملك لمن لا يستحق، مقابل اعتراف من لا يملك له بما يستحق.

بهذا، نجد أنّ قرار الحكم المغربي بإخراج علاقاته السرية المشبوهة مع الكيان الصهيوني إلى العلن وبشكل رسمي، وانضمامه إلى قافلة الانبطاح أمام العدو الصهيوني، لن يعود عليه إلا بخسائر استراتيجية، سواء أكان في الداخل المغربي حيث يضع الحكم في مواجهة شعبه المغربي الأصيل الذي يرفض كلّ أشكال التعامل مع عدو الأمة الأول كسائر شعوب وطننا العربي والإسلامي، أم من ناحية كونه يرفع من احتمالات تفاقم التوترات ذات الطبيعة المزمنة على الحدود الجنوبية للمملكة المغربية، وهذا بالطبيعة ستكون له انعكاسات سيئة على سائر دول المغرب العربي.
ولا ننسى ختاماً الإشارة إلى أنّ كلّ ما قدّمته الإدارة الأميركية الحالية في هذه المرحلة كمقابل لتطبيع الحكم المغربي مع كيان الاحتلال، لا يعدو كونه إعلان اعتراف بسيادة المغرب على أراضي منطقة الصحراء الغربية. وهذا الإعلان لا يُلزِم الإدارة الأميركية المقبلة ويمكنها التنصّل منه. فبأيّ أثمان بخسة ومسمومة يتقاطر جزء من النظام العربي المتهالك على بيع الثوابت الإسلامية والقومية والوطنية في أسواق نخاسة الأعداء؟ وبالتأكيد لا نستثني السلطة الفلسطينية من هذا، فهي باتت أسوأ من تلك الأنظمة العربية المتهالكة في الشكل والمضمون.

** كاتب فلسطيني وباحث سياسي

Morocco in the Midst of Western Sahara Storms After Normalization

By Amro Allan 

First published in Arabic on Al-Akhbar newspaper Wed. 30 December 2020

The short-sightedness of the Moroccan government in its recent shameful agreement to normalize and establish diplomatic relations with the Zionist Entity called ‘Israel’ is truly puzzling. The Moroccan government stated that this agreement was the result of a deal with the current U.S. administration, where the U.S. recognizes Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. But this exchange adds additional strategic dangers to the usual perils presented by all normalization agreements with the Zionist Entity, as this article will argue. 

First and foremost, any recognition of the Zionist Entity is an absolute betrayal of Arab rights and national principles, regardless of any flawed justifications or any short-term tactical gains that the normalizers rejoice in. This is more so after recent developments, where the occupation declared the annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank. It is apparent that normalizing relations with ‘Israel’ at this stage means acceptance of this annexation and abandoning the Christian and Islamic Holy places in Palestine. Any attempt to justify such steps towards normalization with ‘Israel’ must be firmly rejected – justifications such as that those normalization agreements are in the context of the two-state solution, which is a non-solution in the first place. 

The issue of Western Sahara is a remnant of the Spanish colonization of that region. After the end of Spanish colonization with the death of Francisco Franco in 1975, the Western Sahara region was divided between Morocco and Mauritania. Then, after Mauritania withdrew from the areas it controlled of Western Sahara, and the declaration of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in 1976, the armed conflict over the Sahara region between the Polisario Front for Independence and Morocco in that region continued. In 1991, the Polisario Front suspended military operations against Morocco, in return for a referendum on the future of Western Sahara status under the observation of the UN in accordance with UNSC resolution 690.

Since the inception of the Western Sahara issue, the positions of Arab political parties and Arab people in general has fallen into two main camps: those who support the right of the Sahrawi people to independence and self-determination, and who in their majority regard the Moroccan monarchy as autocratic and regressive; and those who are opposed to further partition of Arab countries regardless of the nature of the rule of these countries. However, after Morocco traded recognition of ‘Israel’ for the U.S. proclamation to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, it is believed that this may cast a further shadow over the legitimacy of Moroccan claims in Western Sahara in the eyes of many Arabs, while simultaneously giving more credence to the Polisario Front’s war of independence. Moreover, the poisoned U.S. proclamation in violation of international law and UNSC Resolution 690, will diminish the Sahrawi people’s hope of ever having the referendum on the future status of Western Sahara which they were promised by the UNSC. This will likely force the Polisario Front into a corner; and will lead them to question the international community’s commitment to reach a just solution to their cause. All this opens the door wide to the possibility of the collapse of the tenuous Polisario-Morocco ceasefire. The ramifications of this déjà vu situation are dire, as this will most likely spiral the whole region into instability, especially when the US proclamation on the thorny Western Sahara issue ignored the other regional countries positions on this matter, namely Algeria and Mauritania. And one finds himself here begrudgingly agreeing with the former U.S. national security advisor John Bolton, when he argued in his article published in the Foreign Policy Magazine ‘Biden Must Reverse Course on Western Sahara’, that the U.S. proclamation may negatively affect that fragile region. Thus, one finds that the US did what it does best, namely fueling unrest in the Arab region to appease the Zionist Entity.

The aim of this article is not to take a stance on the Western Sahara conflict, but one way of viewing what Morocco did by recognizing the Zionist’s sovereignty over historical Palestine in exchange for U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, is tantamount to Morocco giving what is not theirs to give, in exchange for the U.S. giving them what is not for the U.S. to give. 

Arabs will continue to regard ‘Israel’ as illegitimate, the liberation of Palestine as one of their cornerstone principles, and in that the Moroccan people are no exception. Hence, the Moroccan government’s treacherous decision to normalize relations with the Zionist Entity will only cause Morocco to suffer strategic losses in the long run, be it driving a wedge between the government and its people on the internal front, or by stirring up a dormant conflict on Morocco’s southern borders with the Polisario Front and the Sahrawi people.

** Palestinian writer and political researcher

Israel is an advanced garrison for U.S. in the region: Moroccan analyst

By Mohammad Mazhari

December 28, 2020 – 18:15

TEHRAN – A Moroccan journalist describes Israel as an “unnatural entity” which is “planted” in the region to represent U.S. interests and cause escalations.

“Israel is an unnatural entity based on expansion, and it does not have standards of a state,” Driss Addar tells the Tehran Times. “It is an advanced military garrison for America, which is the hidden state of the Jews of Khazaria.”
The Moroccan journalist calls Israel an arrogant regime that is established based on expansionism.
Following is the text of the interview: 

Q: How do you see the decision of some Arab states like the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan to normalize ties with Israel? 

A: There are multiple reasons for each government, although the context that paved the way for Arab states to normalize their relationship with Israel was apparently the same.

But before answering your question, I would like to point out that regarding Morocco the step of normalization of ties was taken within the framework of joint Arab action and settlements based on the two-state solution. 

The Moroccan step differs in terms of context and historical motives and also even the content of the statement issued in this context.

That is why the Palestinian Authority treated the Moroccan decision differently, in contrast to its position on the Abraham Accords, which was rejected by Morocco too. 

The Arabs today are pushed into a corner, and their interaction with their geopolitics is limited to be a spectator or the functional tool for other powers.

So the Emirates’ normalization of ties with Israel is based on promised goals within the framework of building an Israeli-(Persian) Gulf coalition to confront Iran after America portrayed Tehran as an enemy.

In this concept, the previous friend becomes the enemy and the enemy becomes a close friend who is welcomed.

Israel and the United States are aware that geography in the East is senseless after the creation of chaos, breakup plans, and proxy wars, and today they are investing in this reality, with the certainty that the idea of a new Middle East has become impossible after Syria’s victory over a terrorist war that was imposed on it.

 With the emergence of Russia as a new international power and Iran as a large regional power, the current U.S. administration wants to cripple the next administration by forming an Israeli-(Persian) Gulf alliance to prevent a U.S. return to the nuclear deal or laying landmines for Biden.

Q: Why did Morocco accept to normalize relations with Israel? It seems that there were informal relations with Israel before the announcement of normalization.

A: Morocco provides an explanation and justification for this normalization step and this agreement is limited to the transfer of the Moroccan community and a set of exchanges between the two sides.

 Not to mention America’s recognition of the Moroccan Sahara, it contributed to this step while other countries do not have these incentives, which makes the Moroccan situation different.

Morocco has been playing a mediatory role in the past and wants to continue it now. In the context of the change in the regional system and the escalations over the Palestinian issue, Morocco adopted a different viewpoint that sees itself as more capable for mediation than Egypt or Jordan.

Here Morocco has determined an agenda, including finding a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Here we are not talking about the best way to achieve consensus within the framework of an official Palestinian demand; the point here is related to Morocco, as it started from the beginning and after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on a political solution and in the same framework that was agreed upon in the Arab world and in the (Organization of) Islamic Cooperation, that is the two-state solution.

So, Morocco has set an agenda realizing that the people reject the normalization of ties with Israel. So it did not call it normalization, but a statement that all wait for the implementation of the demands mentioned in it.

Morocco does not want to exclude the Palestinian cause but rather stated that this issue is equal to its national causes.

The issue is explained clearly in detail. So it is a conditional agreement that pledges a just solution to the Palestinian issue.

Moroccans are monitoring the progress of the agreement. Hence, unlike other forms of normalization, there is no signal of disregard or humiliation for the Palestinian cause in Morocco. 

The agreements between the Arabs and the Israeli regime were raised under initiatives and joint actions, while this is a conditional initiative and not a blank check.

Morocco hopes that all parties in the conflict succeed in finding an opportunity for a fair settlement approvable by international, Arab, and Islamic communities, otherwise it will not be applicable. Any initiative needs to take into account the Palestinians’ rights to succeed. 

I guess what is expected from this agreement is something greater than what is carried out by states that have fully normalized ties with Israel.

Over the years of conflict, the Israeli regime neither abides by UN resolutions nor Arab initiatives, and the siege on the Palestinian people is continuing. 

This is something that cannot be overlooked. Morocco had officially closed the contact office during the second Palestinian uprising (Intifada) in 2000.

The issue here is not who will join the normalization process or not. We must seek the possible conditions to facilitate a comprehensive and complete peace in the Middle East (West Asia).

What distinguishes Morocco is that it has a large community within Israel and also officials in the Israeli government are still associated with their Moroccan origins. 

Therefore, Rabat considers it an opportunity to resolve the conflict in a context that is under regional and international pressure.

Arabs are living in a difficult situation and Morocco is part of the Arab world and is concerned with resolving the Palestinian issue and considers it as a red line.

What happened is a conditional connection to mediate between Israel and Palestine. It is not a full normalization, because it would not be possible before settling the Palestinian issue. 

Here we had to pause at the difference between contact mechanism, which is a pre-condition for any mediation, and full normalization that cannot be achieved in the absence of a solution. 

Rabat says that the agreement does not compromise on the Palestinians’ legitimate rights.

Official Moroccan position has not changed as it sticks to a two-state solution. However, Morocco accepted conditional contact, clearly and within an agenda that approves the Palestinian cause in the context of its first national priority, which is contrary to the content of the Abraham Accords.

Q: Do you think that the normalization will benefit the Islamic and Arab worlds? Do you expect Israel to give up its expansion plans after the normalization of relations?

A: What I said is an explanation and not a justification, and therefore it falls within the framework of understanding the political possibilities.

But strategically it will not change the situation at all, because the problem is very deep, as we face a blockage in the proposed solutions.

Even the two-state solution is a long story presented a long time ago, but it is not practically possible. Given the Israeli rejection and the impossibility of the two states’ existence in this small geography, in which this Israeli regime was planted, this small area cannot host two states in terms of history and religion.

Therefore, it is not possible to expect significant results from normalization unless we go beyond the limits of the current static situation.

Israel is an unnatural entity based on expansion, and it does not have standards of a state. It can even be said that it is an advanced military garrison for America, which is the hidden state of the Jews of Khazaria, according to Tatiana Grachova, the Russian writer and author of the book “Hidden Khazaria”.

Consequently, this regime is established on expansionism, and this is the main reason for escalations in the region. 

Despite Israeli arrogance, in the political process, one can only talk about an attempt to besiege and embarrass this regime.

Q: Don’t you think that Saudi Arabia would join others to normalize ties with Israel sooner or later? What will be its impact on the rest of the Arab countries?

A: The recent signals hint that Saudi Arabia will join the normalization process.

I don’t think that the Saudi normalization will create a different atmosphere or will have more serious repercussions rather than the previous steps in normalization. The main goal of these countries is forming an alliance with Israeli to surround Iran. The rest of the Arab countries, especially those close to the conflict zone, are in a different position. With the exception of Syria, whose position is clear on Israel as an enemy, the rest of neighboring Arab countries not only prefer to support normalization of ties with Israel but also support aggression against the resistance axis and occupied Palestine.

Q: Now how would you describe the position of Arab countries, governments, and people toward the Palestinian cause?

A: It is no longer possible to address the path and options of Arab policies.

But no one is against the right of the Palestinian people to resist the occupation, especially in its difficult circumstances.

Now the question here is how can the demands of the Palestinian people be fulfilled to confront Israeli malicious policies?

If you focus only on the dark reality of our region, you will see that the Palestinian cause is in its worst condition, but a strategic vision will say that the facts suggest important changes in favor of the Palestinian cause.

Rather, the victory of Syria, and the achievements of the resistance axis, is the most important cards that can hinder the deal of the century.

This deal cannot be passed without eliminating the Lebanese resistance and overthrowing the Syrian state, the two goals that were not achieved by the resistance of the nations of the region.
 

RELATED NEWS

«التطبيع» حرب ضدّ الجزائر بعد إيران و المغرب «المستوطنة»الثانية بعد الإمارات…!

محمد صادق الحسيني

كان حلم الساسة والقادة العسكريون الفرنسيون، بعد احتلالهم للجزائر سنة 1830، ورغم تحدي الثورة الكبرى التي قادها المجاهد الكبير، الأمير عبد القادر الجزائري، ضدّ هذا الاحتلال… وكذلك أنظارهم تتجه غرباً، نحو المغرب الأقصى، الذي يعرف بالمملكة المغربية حالياً.

وقد تحقّق هذا الحلم الفرنسي فعلياً، بعد انعقاد مؤتمر برلين ، الذي عقد في الفترة ما بين 26/2/1885 حتى 15/11/1884 والذي جرى خلاله تقاسم أفريقيا، بين القوى الاستعمارية الأوروبية آنذاك. اذ اتفقت الدول المشاركة على ان تكون المغرب والصحراء الغربية من حصة فرنسا واسبانيا. وهو ما دفع مواطني المغرب الى رفض هذه القرارات والبدء بثورة مسلحةٍ ضد الوجود الاسباني، في شمال المغرب، وذلك سنة 1839، وهي الثورة التي اطلق عليها اسم: حرب الريف، خاصة أنّ اسبانيا كانت تحتلّ مدينة مليلة المغربية والواقعة على ساحل المتوسط منذ عام 1497، والتي تبعتها حرب الريف الثانية 1909 بعد ان بدأت القوات الاسبانية تتمدد خارج مدينة مليلة وتسيطر على محيطها، تمهيداً للسيطرة على كامل الساحل المغربي على المتوسط.

وفي ظل تصاعد المقاومة المغربية للاحتلالين الاسباني والفرنسي عقد اتفاق اسباني فرنسي، سنة 1912، لتقاسم الاراضي المغربية بشكل نهائي ومتفق عليه، بهدف توحيد جهود الدولتين الاستعماريتين، ضد قوات الثورة المغربية في الريف (شمال البلاد بشكل خاصة).

لكن هذه الثورة تواصلت وتصاعدت، خاصة بعد انتهاء الحرب العالمية الأولى، وزيادة النشاط الاستعماري في المغرب من قبل دولتي الاحتلال، فرنسا واسبانيا، الى ان وصلت تلك المقاومة ذروتها في ثورة 1921، التي يطلق عليها اسم: حرب الريف الثالثة، بقيادة الأمير محمد عبد الكريم الخطابي واستمرت هذه الثورة حتى سنة 1926. ولَم تتمكن جيوش الاحتلال الاسبانية (في شمال المغرب) من قمع هذه الثورة الا بعد أن شنت حرب إبادةٍ جماعية، ضد الشعب المغربي في الشمال، مستخدمة الاسلحة الكيماوية وغاز الخردل بالتحديد، حيث قصفت بمدفعية الميدان ومدفعية البوارج الحربية، والطائرات الحربية أيضاً، كل شمال المغرب، قصفاً عنيفاً استخدمت خلاله ما مجموعه عشرة آلاف قذيفة من غاز الخردل، وذلك انطلاقاً من استراتيجية الأرض المحروقة، بحيث تصبح الأرض غير صالحة للحياة عليها لسنوات طويلة، الأمر الذي سيؤدي، حسب خطط المجرمين الاسبان وشركائهم الفرنسيين، الى فقدان الثوار للإسناد الشعبيّ وبالتالي للرفد بالمقاتلين.

وهو ما أدى الى أن ما يقرب من 80% من مرضى السرطان، الذين يعالجون في مركز السرطان الوطني في الرباط حالياً، هم من أهالي الأقاليم الشمالية، التي تعرّضت لهذا الكمّ الهائل من السلاح الكيماوي، قبل مئة عام. وهذا ما تثبته ليس فقط الجهات المغربية المعنية، وإنما هو مثبت رسمياً في أرشيف وزارة الدفاع الاسبانية، ولدى العديد من المنظمات الدولية المختصة (في الوقت الحالي وليس قبل مئة عام). وهذا ما يجعل من الضروري قيام حكومة المغرب بمطالبة اسبانيا بتعويضات مالية عن كل الخسائر المادية والبشرية، التي نجمت عن جرائم الحرب هذه.

وبالعودة الى الأحلام الفرنسية، في ثلاثينيات القرن التاسع عشر، بمتابعة الزحف من الجزائر غرباً، باتجاه المغرب، فإنّ هناك حالياً أحلاماً أميركية شبيهة بتلك الفرنسية، ولكن بالاتجاه المعاكس. أيّ الزحف من المغرب شرقاً باتجاه الجزائر، وذلك لأجل تحقيق أهداف المشروع الصهيوأميركي في المغرب العربي، او ما يسمّى حالياً عملية “التطبيع” الجارية بين المغرب و”إسرائيل”.

وهي في الحقيقة ليست عمليّة معزولةً، عن بقية المسار الاستراتيجي للخطط الأميركية، التي تهدف الى حصار الدول التي تعارض الهيمنة الأميركية في “الشرق الاوسط”، كـ إيران في الشرق والجزائر في الغرب، خاصة أنّ الولايات المتحدة قد أصبحت عاجزةً عن الدخول في مواجهة عسكريةٍ مباشرةً مع هذه القوى، لأسباب عديدة لا مجال للغوص فيها حالياً.

فما هي أهداف المشروع الأميركي الحالي، وأدواته الأعرابية والصهيونيّة والعثمانية، في منطقة “الشرق الأوسط” بكاملها؟

1

ـ محاولة خلق موجة جديدة من الفوضى الداخلية المسلحة، في عموم المنطقة، وذلك من خلال إشعال المزيد من الحروب والفتن الطائفية، يكون هدفها العاجل والمباشر إيران في الشرق والجزائر في الغرب، بحيث توكل إدارة وتسعير هذه الحروب الى “إسرائيل”، التي لن تزجّ جيشها ليقاتل على الجبهات، وإنما هي ستقوم بقيادة جيوش من المرتزقه المحليين، التي يطلق عليها اسم جيوش وخاصة في الخليج الفارسي، بحجة مواجهة الخطر الإيراني والتصدّي له!

وهذا يعني إشعال حربٍ “عربية” ضدّ إيران، خدمة للمشروع الأميركي، ولكن دون تدخل أميركي مباشر في هذه الحرب، مما يعني خوض حربٍ أميركيةٍ بالوكالة، ضدّ إيران ومحور المقاومة.

وما موجة التطبيع الخليجية الإسرائيلية، وما تبعها من توقيع اتفاقيات تعاون بين الطرفين وفِي مختلف المجالات، إلا جزء من التحضيرات لنشر الفوضى، خاصة أنّ “إسرائيل” قد بدأت فعلاً ببناء قواعد تجسس وأخرى عسكرية لها، في الإمارات العربية والبحرين والأجزاء التي تحتلها السعودية والإمارات في اليمن وخاصة جزيرة سوقطرى ذات الموقع الاستراتيجي.

2

ـ وكما اخترعت القوى الصهيوأميركية عدواً وهمياً، لدول الخليج الفارسي في المشرق العربي، أسمته إيران، ها هي قد اخترعت بؤرة صراع جديدة في المغرب العربي، ترتكز الى الوضع الراهن في الصحراء الغربية، التي تطالب جبهة البوليساريو باستقلالها الكامل عن المغرب.

وما اعتراف الرئيس الأميركي، دونالد ترامب، باعتبار هذه المنطقة جزءاً من المملكة المغربية، وخضوعها للسيادة المغربية الكاملة، إلا الخطوة الأولى على طريق تصعيد عمليات التطويق الاستراتيجي لجمهورية الجزائر الديمقراطية الشعبية، التي ترفض الخضوع للمشروع الصهيوأميركي الهادف لتصفية القضية الفلسطينية. وهي قد أعلنت موقفها هذا عبر أكثر الناصرين للقضية الفلسطينية من كبار المسؤولين الجزائريين.

وبنظرة سريعة، لخريطة الجزائر، يلاحظ المراقب انّ فلول داعش في دول الساحل الأفريقي، والتي تناور بهم واشنطن، عبر ما يسمّى أفريكوم / قيادة أفريقيا في الجيش الأميركي / وذلك على حدود الجزائر الجنوبية، في كلّ من مالي والنيجر وتشاد، حيث توجد غرفة عمليات أميركية/ إسرائيلية مشتركة في نجامينا، عاصمة تشاد لتنسيق تحركات عناصر داعش وتقديم الدعم والإسناد اللازم لها، لتنفيذ عمليات إرهابية، كتلك التي نفذتها هذه المجموعات، ضدّ أهداف نفطية ومحطات غاز طبيعي في جنوب الجزائر أكثر من مرة سابقاً.

ومن نافل القول التذكير بالخطر الإرهابي الذي يهدّد الحدود الجزائرية من ناحية الشرق، ايّ عبر الحدود الليبية الشرقية وعبر الحدود التونسية شمال شرق الجزائر. علماً انّ هذه الحدود تشهد اشتباكات شبه يومية بين الجيش التونسي ومجموعات من داعش وغيرها، تحاول بشكل دائم اختراق الحدود الجزائرية، التي بقيت مؤمّنة بالكامل نظراً ليقظة الجيش الشعبي الجزائري وقدراته القتالية العالية…

3

ـ وانطلاقاً من معرفة القوى الصهيوأميركيّة بالقدرة العسكرية الكبيرة للجيش الجزائري، وبالنظر الى انه يملك أكبر سلاح للجو والبحر في أفريقيا وبالنظر للتصريحات المتكرّرة لقادة حلف شمال الأطلسي، والمتعلقة بالمخاطر التي يشكلها سلاح الجو الجزائري وسلاح البحرية الجزائرية، على الحركة الجوية والبحرية لقوات الحلف، في البحر المتوسط، فإنّ قوى العدوان الأميركي الصهيوني قد لجأت الى اختراع صيغة الصراع الجديدة، المشار اليها في البند السابق، والتي تتضمّن تطويق الجزائر من الغرب أيضاً.

وهو ما بدأته هذه الدوائر قبل مسرحية التطبيع، بين المغرب و”إسرائيل”، وبالتحديد منذ أن اتخذ المغرب، بالتنسيق مع واشنطن وتل أبيب، من خلال مستشار ملك المغرب الخاص، اندريه أَزولاي، نقول منذ ان اتخذ المغرب قرار إنشاء القاعدة العسكرية العملاقة في منطقة لاوينات، التابعة لبلدية مدينة جراده، التي تبعد 38 كيلومتراً عن الحدود الجزائرية، وذلك حسب ما جاء في المرسوم الصادر عن رئيس الوزراء المغربي، والمنشور في عدد الجريدة الرسمية المغربية رقم 6884، بتاريخ 21/5/2020، والذي أعلن فيه استملاك الحكومة المغربية مساحة 23 هكتاراً (الهكتار يساوي عشرة آلاف متر مربع) من الأراضي الخاصه لإقامة هذه القاعدة عليها.

4

ـ ولا بد هنا من التأكيد على درجة الخطورة العالية، لهذه القاعدة على الأمن الوطني الجزائري، وذلك لسببين هما:

أ) انها ستدار من قبل عدد كبير من الضباط الإسرائيليين، من أصل مغربي، وعلى رأسهم رئيس أركان الجيش الإسرائيلي السابق، الجنرال غادي آيزينكوت، وهو ابن يهودية مغربيّة من مدينة الدار البيضاء وأبٌ يهودي مغربي من مدينة مراكش، هاجرا الى فلسطين بداية خمسينيات القرن الماضي، وذلك الى جانب ضباط الجيش المغربي.

علماً انّ العدد الإجمالي لليهود المغاربة وأبنائهم في فلسطين المحتلة يربو على مليون شخص. وقد تبوّأ العديد منهم مراكز عليا في إدارة دويلة الاحتلال، مثل وزير الخارجية الأسبق ديفيد ليفي، ووزير الحرب الأسبق عامير بيريتس، ورئيس الأركان السابق الجنرال آيزينكوت، ومستشار الأمن القومي الحالي مائير بن شابات، الذي ترأس الوفد الإسرائيلي إلى المغرب يوم أمس (الأول)، وهو مولود لأبوين مغربيّين هاجرا إلى فلسطين المحتلة، في خمسينيات القرن الماضي.

وبالنظر الى أنّ القانون المغربي يعتبر جميع هؤلاء اليهود، المقيمين حالياً في فلسطين المحتلة، مواطنين مغاربة أيضاً، ويحق لهم حمل الجنسية المغربية، فإنّ دمج عدد منهم، او خدمة عدد منهم، في الجيش المغربي سيكون “قانونياً” أيضاً. وهذا ما يضاعف الخطر الكارثي على الأمن الوطني الجزائري. وهو الأمر الذي كرّره العديد من المسؤولين الجزائريين، عندما أشاروا في تصريحات لهم، خلال الشهرين الماضي والحالي، بأنّ ما يقوم به المغرب، من عملية تطبيع، ليس إلا نقلاً للجيش “الإسرائيلي” الى حدود الجزائر.

ولا بدّ في هذا السياق من التذكير بأنّ سلاح الجو الإسرائيلي قد حاول، بتاريخ 10/8/1988، بالاعتداء على الأجواء الجزائرية، لقصف اجتماع للمجلس الوطني الفلسطيني، الذي كان منعقداً في العاصمة الجزائر، حيث صدرت التعليمات لتشكيل جوّي جزائري، مكوّن من مقاتلات اعتراض طراز ميغ 25، بالتصدّي للطائرات الإسرائيلية، من طراز ف 16، والتي اكتشفتها وسائل الدفاع الجوي الجزائرية يومها وهي على بعد 400 كم من الأجواء الجزائرية. وكذلك الأمر فانّ بطاريات الدفاع الجوي، من طراز ، التي كانت قد وضعت في حالة تأهّب قصوى قبيل انعقاد المؤتمر، قد ضبطت الأهداف المعادية، ما أجبرها عملياً على أن تقفل راجعة الى قواعدها في فلسطين المحتلة، بعد اكتشافها انها في مرمى صواريخ الدفاع الجوي وطائرات ميغ 25 الجزائرية.

كما لا بدّ من التذكير أنّ سلاح البحرية الإسرائيلي كان قد نفذَ محاولة اقتراب، من الموانئ الجزائرية شرق العاصمة، وذلك بتاريخ 7/4/1984، بحجة أنّ مجموعة كوماندوز بحري تابعة لقوات العاصفة / فتح / قد انطلقت من تلك الموانئ الجزائرية. وقد تصدّت السفن الحربية الجزائرية ايضاً يومها لزوارق الصواريخ الإسرائيلية الأربعة، التي شاركت في محاولة العدوان الفاشلة، وردّتها على أعقابها من دون تحقيق أي هدف.

اذن فما نقوله ليس “هلوسات” متحمّس وإنما وقائع ميدان تاريخية، تثبت نيات العدوان الإسرائيلي المدعوم أميركياً، ضدّ الجزائر، منذ زمن بعيد. وهو ما يجعلنا ننظر ببالغ الخطورة، الى موضوع إعلان التحالف المغربي الإسرائيلي العسكري، الذي يهدّد الاستقرار في كلّ منطقة المغرب العربي.

ب) اما مصدر الخطر الثاني، على الأمن الوطني الجزائري، والمنبثق من هذه القاعدة، فهو انها ستضمّ قاعدة جوية، تخدم الطائرات المسيّرة في المرحلة الأولى. ولعلّ المتابعين يتذكرون ما صرّحت به مصادر في البنتاغون الأميركية، يوم 19/12/2020، من أنّ الولايات المتحدة ستبيع المغرب أربع طائرات بدون طيار من أحدث طائرات التجسّس الأميركية، التي لا يحتاجها المغرب للتجسس على الصحراء الغربيّة، وإنما للتجسّس على الجزائر، التي ترفض الانخراط في مشروع تصفية القضية الفلسطينية. أي المشروع الذي يُطلق عليه اسم “صفقة القرن”.

وغني عن القول طبعاً بأنّ “إسرائيل” سوف تلعب دوراً اساسياً، في تشغيل هذه الطائرات وغيرها من طائرات التجسس الإسرائيلية الصنع، والتي سيتمّ نشرها في هذه القاعدة، استكمالاً لدور طائرات التجسّس الأميركية، التي تعمل انطلاقاً من القاعدة الجوية التونسية الأكبر في البلاد، في سيدي أحمد، شمال غرب ميناء بنزرت التونسي، على البحر المتوسط، والتي تنكر وجودها (الطائرات الأميركية في جزء من القاعدة) كلّ الحكومات التونسية منذ عام 2011 وحتى الآن، والتي تسمّيها البنتاغون: القاعدة رقم 722، حسب ما نشرته مجلة “ذي ناشيونال انتريست” الأميركية في وقت سابق.

5

ـ وقد يقود العرض السابق، للمخطط الصهيوأميركي والدور الإسرائيلي في تنفيذه، الى طرح سؤال محقّ حول ما اذا كانت “إسرائيل” تملك جيشاً يوازي الجيش الأميركي في عدده وعدّته، كي تتمكن من الاضطلاع بهذا الدور الإقليمي الكبير، والجواب بالتأكيد هو: كلا كبيرة. إنّ “إسرائيل” لا تملك القدرات العسكرية، لبسط سيطرتها على كلّ هذا الإقليم او العالم العربي. كما انّ المخطط المشار إليه أعلاه لا يعطي الكيان الصهيوني دور نشر جيشه، وإنما مستشاريه العسكريين والأمنيين، في كلّ بلدان العرب التي دخلت نفق التطبيع معها.

كما أنّ من الضروري ان يفهم المرء انّ عملية التطبيع ليست هدفاً أميركياً إسرائيلياً بحدّ ذاته، وإنما هي وسيلة لدمج “إسرائيل” في المحيط العربي وجعلها كياناً مقبولاً، لا بل حليفاً، “يساعد” الحكام المطبّعين عسكرياً وامنياً، في التصدي للأخطار التي تواجههم سواء من شعوبهم او تلك الآتية من إيران وحلف المقاومة، كما يتصوّرون!

وهو الأمر الذي دفع بالقوى الخفيّة الداعمة لهذا المشروع، حتى قبل الانتخابات الأميركية، بالبدء بالتفكير في صيغة تسمح بضمّ الكيان الإسرائيلي الى منطقة صلاحيات او عمليات القيادة المركزية الأميركية . وهو الموضوع الذي يسمّى بلغة البنتاغون: او منطقة العمليات. الأمر الذي يجعل “إسرائيل” وجيشها في مقام جزء من القوات المسلحة الأميركية، وهو ما قد يُعتبر بديلاً لوجود عسكري أميركي مباشر في “الشرق الاوسط”، من قبل بعض المخططين الاستراتيجيين الأميركيين، خاصةً اذا ما اخذنا بعين الاعتبار انّ تل ابيب سوف تبرم اتفاقيات تعاون عسكري وأمني، مع كلّ الدول العربية التي تعلن تطبيع علاقاتها معها. ما يعني عملياً، وضع القوات المسلحة لتلك البلدان تحت قيادة “إسرائيل” وبتصرفها، وبالتالي تحويلها الى قوات احتياط (بما في ذلك الجيش الإسرائيلي) بإمرة القياده المركزية الأميركية، التي مركزها الدوحة.

علماً انّ “إسرائيل” حالياً تعتبر جزءاً من القيادة الأوروبية في الجيش الأميركي) ولا علاقة لها بالقيادة المركزية، المسؤولة عن “الشرق الاوسط”.

وهذا ما دفع الضابط السابق في البنتاغون، وهو المدير الحالي للمعهد اليهودي للأمن القومي الأميركي ، ميخائيل ماكوڤسكي لكتابة مقال يطالب فيه بضمّ “إسرائيل” الى منطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية في الجيش الأميركي. وهو يقول إنّ هذا الموضوع قد بحث مرات عدة في السابق، لكن الظروف المحيطة به قد تغيّرت في “الشرق الاوسط”، خاصة بعد توقيع ما يسمّى اتفاقيات أبراهام!

وفِي إطار الاستعدادات لتنفيذ هذه الخطوة عملياً فإنّ القيادة المركزية قد نفذت ثلاثة تدريبات جوية مشتركة، مع سلاح الجو الإسرائيلي، هذا العام، مستخدمةً طائرات أميركية، من طراز F 35، مرابطةً في قاعدة الظفرة الإماراتية.

6

ـ لكن الأمر لا يقتصر على ما حدث حتى الآن، بشأن ضمّ “إسرائيل” الى منطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية في الجيش الأميركي، وانما يجب على الكونغرس الأميركي تضمين هذا البند، في برنامج المساعدات العسكرية الأميركية للكيان، بالاضافة الى ضرورة ان تقوم الولايات المتحدة بزيادة كميات الأسلحة الدقيقة الموجهة، التي تزوّد “إسرائيل” بها وتختصر باسم ، يقول ميخائيل ماكوڤسكي، في هذا الصدد.

لكنه يضيف ان ضمّ “إسرائيل” لمنطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية، في الجيش الأميركي، سيسمح لها، في أوقات الحرب، باستخدام مخازن احتياط الذخيرة الأميركية، المخزنة في قواعد عسكرية متقدمة في “إسرائيل” لأوقات الحرب (بالنظر اليها من الولايات المتحدة)،: .

وهذا يعني، حسب ماكوڤسكي انّ هذه الأسلحة الأميركية تبقى تحت قيادةٍ أميركية في ظروف يسمح فيها لاستخدام هذه الذخائر، اذا ما وقعت حرب مع إيران او حزب الله.

7

ـ ويتابع قائلاً إنّ جعل “إسرائيل” جزءاً من منطقة عمليات القيادة المركزية الأميركية، التي تشمل العراق وافغانستان أيضاً، وهما دولتان لا تقيمان علاقات مع “إسرائيل”، إنما سيثير جدلًا، او بعض الإشكاليات، حول الدور الأميركي في هاتين الدولتين، خاصةً أنّ الولايات المتحدة الأميركيّة تواجه تهديدات إيرانيّة، عبر “الميليشيات” المدعومة من إيران، حسب زعمه. وربما تستخدم إيران هذه المسألة (ضمّ “إسرائيل” للقيادة المركزية) كحجة للقيام بتصعيد عسكري ضدّ القوات الأميركية في العراق.

ولكن الأمور ربما تتغيّر، نحو الأفضل، بعد تسلم الجنرال لويد اوستين وزارة الحرب الأميركية في ادارة الرئيس المنتخب بايدن، وهو الذي كان قائداً للقيادة المركزية الأميركية، في الدوحة، من سنة 2013 وحتى 2016، وتربطه علاقات وثيقة بـ “إسرائيل” ويعرف جيداً الأهمية التي تتمتع بها دويلة الكيان الصهيوني في المنطقة.

8

ـ وبناءً على كلّ ما تقدّم فإننا نكاد نجزم انّ جميع الزيارات، التي قام بها كبار العسكريين الأميركيين، خلال الشهرين الماضيين لكيان الاحتلال، قد تمحورت حول هذا الموضوع، وذلك لتحويله الى أمر واقع، قبل رحيل إدارة ترامب من البيت الأبيض، ايّ لوضع هذا المخزون الاستراتيجي الأميركي، من الذخائر (صواريخ) الموجهة الدقيقة تحت تصرّف “إسرائيل”، كي تقوم باستخدامه كما يحلو لها ويخدم مصالحها وليس لخدمة المصالح الأميركية. خاصة أنّ اهتمامات بايدن الاستراتيجية ستختلف تماماً عن اهتمامات ترامب، التي اقتصرت على عقد الصفقات المالية والاستعراضات الدبلوماسية، التي اطلق عليها اسم اتفاقيات التطبيع بين الدول العربية و”إسرائيل”. تلك الاتفاقيات التي لن تقود الى اية حلول لمشاكل المنطقة، وفِي المقدمة منها القضية الفلسطينية ولا تحدي محور المقاومة، الذي يُصرّ على مواصلة استراتيجيته، الرامية الى تحرير فلسطين وإنهاء الوجود الاستيطاني الاحتلالي الإسرائيلي فيها.

وفِي هذا الصدد، يكفي ان نستمع الى التصريحات النارية التي أطلقها بايدن في هذه الأثناء، ضدّ روسيا، والمتعلقة بالهجمات السيبرانية المتواصلة في كلّ أنحاء الولايات المتحدة ومؤسساتها المدنية والأمنية والعسكرية والصناعية بشكل فعّال!

ما يعني أنّ الرياح الآتية من واشنطن لا تأتي على هوى أشرعة سفن نتن ياهو، التي بدأت في هذه الأثناء بالغرق، وذلك بعد حلّ الكنيست وقرار إجراء انتخابات تشريعية جديدة، لن تأتي بنتن ياهو رئيساً للوزراء قطعاً. لا بل إنها ستمهّد الطريق لدخوله السجن لقضاء ما تبقى من حياته هناك.

وهذا يعني أنّ كلّ المؤامرات والألاعيب، التي مارسها ويمارسها نتن ياهو، مع جاريد كوشنر وأعراب النفط، مضافاً اليهم ملك المغرب، الذي يريد “تحرير” الصحراء الغربية، من سكانها العرب والأمازيغ الأصليين، بينما لا يحرك ساكناً لتحرير سبته ومليلة، المحتلتين من قبل اسبانيا منذ قرون، نقول إنّ كلّ تلك المسرحيات ليست لها علاقة بالواقع الميداني، المتعلق بالصراع الاستراتيجي الشامل، الدائر حالياً بين الدول الرافضة لاستمرار الهيمنة الأميركية في العالم، وفِي مقدمة هذه الدول، مع الصين الشعبية وروسيا، إيران وسورية وحلفاؤهما في المنطقة، وفي العالم مثل فنزويلا وكوبا وبوليفيا، في أميركا اللاتينية.

خلاصة نقول إنّ التطبيع حرب استنزاف فتنوية خاسرة بالتأكيد رغم كلّ مظاهر نجاحها الإعلانية البراقة…!

ذلك لأنّ العالم تغيّر كثيراً واهمّ متغيّراته تحوّل محور المقاومة الى لاعب دولي رئيسي بمقام دولة كبرى في المعادلات الدولية بعد أن ظلت منطقتنا مجرد تابع يتلقى الأوامر من سفراء وقناصل الدول الكبرى!

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

Western Sahara Is Extremely Important For The Anti-Imperialist Cause

By Andrew Korybko

Source

Western Sahara Is Extremely Important For The Anti-Imperialist Cause
Most folks never heard about Western Sahara until Trump unilaterally recognized Morocco’s claims to this disputed region of the Maghreb last week in exchange for it agreeing to a peace deal with “Israel”, but it’s actually extremely important for the anti-imperialist cause since its standing is similar to Palestine and Kashmir’s in the eyes of international law.

Trump’s unilateral recognition of Morocco’s claims to the disputed Maghreb region of Western Sahara in exchange for Rabat formalizing its long-held and not-so-secret ties with Tel Aviv caught many observers by surprise who previously weren’t familiar with this unresolved conflict. Palestine and Kashmir are much more globally prominent because of the involvement of nuclear powers and the efforts of some to focus more on the inter-religious optics of these conflicts than their international legal origins. Western Sahara satisfies neither of those two “exciting” criteria, hence why it’s largely been forgotten about by most of the world since the issue first came to the fore of international politics in the mid-1970s.

Francoist Spain’s “decolonization” process saw the totalitarian country refuse to grant independence to the Western Sahara, instead dividing it between neighboring Morocco and Mauritania against the wishes of the indigenous Sahrawi people as represented by the Polisario Front. This group in turn proclaimed the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic with the support of neighboring Algeria, which has an historic rivalry with Morocco and was also sympathetic to socialist causes such as this one during the Old Cold War. Mauritania eventually abandoned its claims to the disputed region, and after over a decades’ worth of fighting, Morocco and the Western Sahara reached a UN-backed agreement in 1991 to hold a referendum on the region’s political status.

The vote never took place since the two warring sides couldn’t agree on who’s eligible to vote, with the primary problem being Morocco’s insistence on letting settlers participate. Western Sahara is also de-facto divided by a sand wall that the occupying army built to solidify its control over approximately 80% of the territory. With Trump’s unilateral recognition of Rabat’s claim to the entire region (which might eventually be followed by others such as “Israel”), as well as his government’s subsequent decision to move forward with a $1 billion arms deal, it’s extremely unlikely that last month’s end of the 29-year ceasefire will result in any serious gains being made by the Polisario Front.

Russia denounced the US’ political decision as illegal under international law, which is an entirely accurate assessment, but this isn’t expected to have any tangible effect on altering the conflict’s dynamics. Only Algeria could potentially have an impact, but its ongoing domestic political problems over nearly the past two years have forced it to suddenly look inward instead of continue with its traditional policy of presenting itself as a regional leader. Moreover, the US’ planned arms deal might ultimately shift the regional balance of power in a decisive way, especially if “Israel” gets involved too, or at the very least spark a new arms race between Morocco and Algeria as the latter looks to Russia and China for more military support in response.

Amidst all of this, anti-imperialists shouldn’t ever forget the international legal importance of the Western Saharan cause. However one feels about the legitimacy of either side’s claims in the conflict, it’s nevertheless a UNSC-recognized dispute that’s supposed to be resolved by a referendum. The precedent of the US unilaterally abandoning its international legal obligations is disturbing and arguably also destabilizing, though it’s obviously doing this in pursuit of its own national interests as it subjectively understands them. The problem, however, is that this might embolden other claimants over different UNSC-recognized disputed territories across the world to double down on their maximalist positions, thus making it much more difficult to resolve those issues.

Another important point is that international law exists not solely for “moral” reasons like its most passionate supporters claim (since it’s obviously imperfect), but for practical ones related to the necessity of having predictable means to resolve international disputes in order to avoid unintentional escalations that could quickly evolve into larger and more uncontrollable conflicts. Unilateral maximalist claims by one party are troublesome, but they become even worse when they’re supported by self-interested external actors who might also have an ulterior motive to divide and rule the region in question like the US clearly does in the Maghreb, Mideast, and South Asia regarding Western Sahara, Palestine, and Kashmir.

The Western Saharan cause is therefore inextricable from the Palestinian and Kashmiri ones in the eyes of international law, which is why supporters of those two should stand in solidarity with their Sahrawi counterparts. The issue can only legally be settled by a referendum according to the UNSC regardless of one’s personal views towards the conflict, but since that has yet to happen and might very well never occur after Trump’s combined diplomatic-military support for Morocco’s claims gives Rabat no incentive to comply, observers can’t help but be concerned. The only way to remain consistent with supporting Palestine and Kashmir is to support Western Sahara’s UNSC-recognized right to a referendum.

%d bloggers like this: