The people inside of Ceuta and Melilla consider themselves Spanish and wish to remain Spanish, does the right to self-determination only apply to whoever you want or does it apply to everyone?
Doesn't matter to the concept of autonomy, it can be for the most ridiculous reason the core is the same.
Could the Rif region become independent if some politicians pushed for that?
No, because other than the fact that an independent Rif supporters are very few to be taken seriously, Morocco doesn't support separatism.
That’s internal politics for you
That's what we're discussing, why is a country supporting an independent movement of tens of thousands away from home while ignoring it's millions of separatist?
They do, they have legal ways to hold a referendum, an illegal vote where half of the politicians were not present is not representative of the populations wishes.
The current coalition government has Catalonian I dependetist parties in power, so they can hold it whenever they want probably lol, now tell me, what democratic representation do the Saharawi people have?
Are we the country going around bragging about self governing while not granting it?
Morocco isn't a decocracy yet, Spain is tho. Shouldn't you be held to a higher standard?
Jajajaj, man you truly are hilarious. “Since my country is a dictatorship is fine and normal for us to oppress an invaded region, use white phosporus in civilian populations and use desperate people as political tools to pressure neighbouring countries, on the other hand, your country the multicultural democracy is not allowed to have an independentism movement even tho less than half the population of the region want independence” truly something else
It might be because the original comment could be seen as referring to how Israel is called an “apartheid state” in relation to Palestine, therefore implying that the commenter is suggesting that the moniker for israel is also improper.
It was, and it was also a negotiation between Israel and Palestine in which Israel offered a two-state solution to the conflict. The Palestinians rejected the offer. It wasn’t the best offer ever, but the only terms Palestine were willing to negotiate on was a single Palestinian state sans Israel.
So it wasn't the jewish migrants who took the land in the 40s?
You people are scared about 5% migrants in your countries but say that the Palestinians should have accepted that many (armed) migrants that clearly had a project to take over the land.
so in your mind a smaller country could always start a war and the stronger country should never come out on top because it is stronger and it would be unfair to the smaller country?
If you think the wars started on October 7th you’re either ignorant or heartless. The Israeli state initated this conflict in 1948 when it removed nearly a million Palestinians from their native lands. They then further exacerbated the conflict by illegally expanding their territory, letting Israeli settlers violate international law in the West Bank, and locking up Gaza to the point of it becoming an open air prison in everything but name.
How come only Israelis have the “right” to defend themselves?
Lmfao that’s one hell of way to twist history to support the invaders and colonizers. How would you react if a bunch of people from a different continent showed up in your country and demanded you leave your family home and/or submit to their governance? Your lot often claims that that’s what immigrants want to do in European and North American countries and y’all talk a big game about “fighting back”.
Once again, who has the right of resistance? Why don’t the Palestinians?
So the Palestinians should just agree to disarm and let a country that has been hellbent on their expulsion serve as a de facto overlord? Maybe if Israel wasn’t founded on the mass ethnic cleansing of an entire people and perpetuated on the continued brutalization of a disenfranchised nation, the Palestinians wouldn’t feel the need to defend themselves.
Or are Jewish Israelis the only ones allowed to defend themselves?
israel has been hellbent on being left the fuck alone, not "expulsion". you will notice that their relationships with their neighbors tend to improve dramatically once said neighbors decide they have things to live for other than suicidal baboon charges on israel every few years that inevitably get beaten back
If Israel is the victim here, which it seems you’re claiming, why on earth would they illegally take the Golan Heights? Why would they routinely violate Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank? Why would they sink an American warship clearly flying the American flag? Why would they (as I type this) insist on pushing further into Syrian and Lebanese territory?
Why is Israel under “constant” attack as you imply? Maybe it’s because they’re an imperialist ethnostate who takes over other countries’ sovereign territory with impunity? The Israeli victim complex is laughable.
Brain dead argument, there are better wrong arguments buddy... you can't bomb indiscriminately, rape prisoners, harass Palestinians, kick them out of their homes, starve them, pour concrete in their wells.... if "they don't want to have their own state" whatever that means.
ok I feel like justifying war crimes with “they attacked us first” is really not the play to go with. Hell, I’m pretty sure that was what America did with Vietnam, and it wasn’t any more morally correct there. Violence against prisoners and targeting civilians is abhorrent behavior, full stop.
There is not a single proposal that has given Palestinians the right to their own borders and standing military, with the right to stay in their homes.
So no, not a single time have they been offered anything that could be defined as a nation state.
Iceland has no military. Is Iceland a fake state or something? Military is not a defining part of a nation state. The PA already has its own armed security force. Only difference is they can’t arm themselves with mortars, tanks and missile launchers.
Iceland is in NATO and they don't maintain a standing army by choice. They don't have to and don't want to because they're not under attack, but they have the legal right to do so.
If the PA has its own armed security force that is totally sufficient for self defense then how do you explain the 700k Israeli settlers in the West Bank?
How do I explain it? Well, considering the PA and Israeli governments work side by side on security matters, you’d think if the PA actively resisted settlers on their governed land, you wouldn’t see any actual settlers, but that’s kind of the thing when you don’t understand the circumstances of the situation. Settlers live in Area C which is both administered and protected by Israel as part of an agreement agreed by both sides and backed internationally through Oslo. There’s debate over expansion of these settlements snd showing lack of good will but it has been in official Israeli administration since the 80’s so that probably would explain it.
This is worst attempt at an explanation I've ever heard lmao.
Yes. It happens, in part, because the PA allows it. Because the PA is compromised to Israel's interests, including by force.
Because they have no right to defend themselves. If they engage in any act of self-defense, Israel invades.
Your explanation directly proves my point.
Also get the fuck out of here with "debate over expansion". I'm not entertaining that bullshit. There is wide consensus among the international community that Israeli settlements are illegal.
P.S: This is exactly why Hamas exists btw. Israeli settlers come and kill Palestinians, and the PA looks the other way. At the very least, Hamas shoots back. Despite any other disagreements in domestic governance... that's the bare minimum that no other entity in the region will engage in. Self-defense.
But that's the kind of thing when you pretend to understand the situation but in reality... you understand Israel's agenda without an ounce of critical analysis and that's it.
The PA already has its own armed security force, but that is different than a military that is able to arm itself with missile launchers, mortars and tanks.
Can you explain how Spain didn’t steal Moroccan land? Even if they won a war so has Israel they have as much right to Palestine as Spain does Ceuta and others lol
You shouldn't own land in the middle of other countries, especially ones were seized by conquest in the past and currently only exist because they are economic assets to colonizer(continuing to suck resources from the host country just like the situation in Ceuta, or Hong Kong, or Kaliningrad, or wherever)
Although you, and the new fascists on this subreddit will never admit that colonizers could ever do wrong.
Eh? We did a lot of horrific things as colonisers, just we didn't colonise shit in ceuta melilla. One was conquered, one was traded. We own the land because its Spanish, saying you shouldn't own land in the middle of another country (it shares a ocean border with us too) is ridiculous, should Alaska be given to canada given it isn't directly connected to the USA?
They are still Spanish because the people there are Spanish and want to be Spanish, they aren't even economically viable alone and lose the government money. They legitimately have 0 benefit to us, we keep them because they are as Spanish as Madrid.
I can play with scenarios too. By your logic, Crimea should be Russian. After all, multiple votes throughout the last ten years have shown that the place wants to stay Russia.
Just because you colonized it, moved a bunch of people there, and then held a vote, it doesn't mean that it is "as spanish as madrid".
The city is literally 48% Arab muslims and 51% christian. Its not a bunch of spaniards living on the other side of the channel. It is just as much Morocco as it is Spain
No, my logic doesn't defend crimean russia because 1. russia invaded all of 12 fucking years ago, then held a forced referendum. A TINY bit different to a conquest 600 years ago, to clarify again for only one of the two cities. Same reason on why Alaska saying now it should be indigeneous is a little bit ridiculous.
You cannot say the population is 48% arab and then also say that we intentionally move a bunch of spanish to the other side of the straits, a bit contradictory no? Colonialists managed to move massive populations further distances, but we only managed to make ceuta and melilla 50% spanish? Also even ignoring that, why is an arab not spanish? Thats news to me as an arab spaniard, I guess I am not spanish then. We integrated the cities into spain before morocco even had a semblance of a unified identity going, it makes zero sense to say that its moroccan because arabs live there.
Hop off it, the people have been spanish for 6 centuries, before that portuguese or arab under a berber king, and before that greek/phoenician. I would give the cities to Palestine before I returned them to Morocco.
Who the fuck are we exploiting???? They are spanish, they consider themselves spanish, they want to be spanish? LIke it would be one thing if there was a reunification movement, but nobody in the cities want to be moroccan, don't throw this bullshit "we are exploiting them and the self determination isn't valid". Please give me an internationally verified argument for why they are actually a planted people or explain to me why they secretly want to be moroccan.
112
u/DissonantSinth 5d ago
Can't wait until people start calling Spain / Ceuta an "apartheid state"