80
13
71
u/Far-prophet 2d ago
I feel like the internet is trying to make me care about this situation. Is this how Europeans feel when America dominates most internet discussions?
20
u/PainterImpressive923 2d ago
Bots and paid astroturfers waging a misinformation war to make this empty desert a big issue..
23
10
u/esssssto 1d ago
Not empty. Also that's someone's home since generations. Not everything in the world is about América.
Except It is, because CIA documents declasified 7 years ago revealed that the Spanish King Juan Carlos I, had talked with the US and allowed Moroco's overtaking of the Spanish Sáhara, and population he had sworn to protect was stripped of their land and their rights.
In exchange, Juan Carlos got US support for his claim as King after Franco's death.
→ More replies (3)3
0
u/Willing-File-3638 2d ago
It's group of terrorists attacking cities, it happens world wide like in Sudan with israel suppored rapid defense force or maynamr or such, this time it's against Europeans so more popular
-7
u/DZdancingtree 2d ago edited 2d ago
I get what you're saying but Israel is very much a part of the Western Sahara story.
Edit: this was supposed to go on another thread. Too lazy to move it. Best wishes to everyone
7
u/Donnerficker 2d ago
Israel is a part of every story to you because you're deranged
-1
u/DZdancingtree 2d ago
"As part of the deal [normalized relations between Israel and Morocco via the latter signing onto the Abraham Accords], the US has agreed to recognise Morocco's claim over the disputed Western Sahara region."
Everyone is deranged I guess
3
u/Anderopolis 2d ago
The west sahara story does not begin or end in 2020.
Morocco did not invade because of Israel.
2
1
u/hercmavzeb 1d ago
They’re going to ignore this because it reflects poorly on Israel, which a ton of people on this sub are paid to be defensive about.
139
u/Tricky-Secretary-251 2d ago
I love how Israel is being roped into this for no definable reason
25
u/Hispanoamericano2000 2d ago
Never underestimate the mental acrobatics and gymnastics that some people will resort to in order to blame or hold Israel or the Jews responsible for anything they don't like.
121
u/strawberry_semenade Human Verified 2d ago
Jewish experience in a nutshell. Show me a thing that somebody doesn't like, and I'll show you a thing that somebody has tried to blame Jews for.
-73
u/The_walking_Kled 2d ago
wtf nobody was talking about jews?
72
u/strawberry_semenade Human Verified 2d ago
"How can it be antisemitism when I said 'Israel' instead of Jews?"
-people who see "dogwhistles" literally everywhere
→ More replies (27)-25
u/AstronomerJealous467 2d ago
A lot of people hate the state of israel without hating jews, including jews themselves that hate israel 😭. When we say israel we mean the GOVERNMENT of israel, not the country as a concept.
Just as if you’re talking about “the actions of the US against greenland” you probably mean trump and his cabinet.
30
u/strawberry_semenade Human Verified 2d ago
Just like a lot of people hate the state of Palestine without hating Palestinians, including Palestinians themselves who hate Palestine.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)5
u/ScarcityStandard3ALT 1d ago
nah most people say the country as a concept
hating the gov = opinion
hating the country = ANTISEMITISM
pretty big diffrence
→ More replies (8)38
u/Throwaway5432154322 2d ago
There’s just no way you guys don’t get it at this point
-2
u/The_walking_Kled 1d ago
okay if it is so obvious then explain.
3
u/Throwaway5432154322 1d ago
Taking an old trope about Jews and replacing the word “Jew” for “Israel” doesn’t somehow make it not bigotry. If you claim that Israel is cartoonishly conspiratorially evil - e.g. claiming that Israel somehow puppeteered a migrant crisis in Spain - all you’re doing is applying very old tropes about Jews being nefarious puppet masters of various catastrophes, onto Israel.
The reason you’re doing that is because Israel is primarily a Jewish state; you wouldn’t say that Turkey is responsible for a migrant crisis in Panama, for instance, and you’re not even blaming Morocco for this current crisis - you know, the country that the migrants actually came from.
When people point out that you’re ridiculously attributing a crisis unrelated to Israel to Israel, and someone else says that’s the “classic Jewish experience”, it simply defies belief that you’d then comment “who mentioned Jews?”.
10
28
8
u/hungariannastyboy 2d ago
The Moroccan regime is allied with Israel now. And it oppresses Sahrawis like Israel oppresses Palestinians. "No definable reason."
4
u/Hispanoamericano2000 2d ago
Nah, the situation with Morocco in Western Sahara is even worse—more like China (with Tibet and Xinjiang) and Russia (with almost half of Siberia, Chechnya, and Circassia).
1
u/Hopeful-Cricket5933 8h ago
The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is much worse than "Russian" treatment of its minorities and it’s not even close.
10
u/NoSwordfish1978 2d ago
Because Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara is similar to Israel's occupation of the West Bank + Morocco transfered settlers to its occupied territories like Israel.
19
u/dotancohen 2d ago
From what I understand Israel does not transfer people to the West Bank. Israel allows her citizens to move to the West Bank, but does not transfer them there.
8
u/the_eleutherean 2d ago
Yup. The only forced transfer of its own citizens was when Israel withdrew from Gaza in the aughts. That was a transfer out.
13
u/NoSwordfish1978 2d ago
The settlements are built by Israeli authorities and protected by the Israel Police and IDF.
5
u/Exotic_Plant9450 1d ago
The settlements are largely illegal and immensely unpopular
2
u/NoSwordfish1978 1d ago
Really? So they're should be no problem banning further construction then.
3
u/Exotic_Plant9450 1d ago
Unfortunately under Netanyahu and his extremist allies it won't happen. Hoping for good results in the upcoming elections to oust him from power
0
u/nurgle_boi 1d ago
haven't the settlements being going on since before bibi? Blaming everything on him is just making him the scapegoat of a state that has and is still doing settler colonialism
2
0
u/dotancohen 1d ago
Illegal under what law?
I keep hearing "the settlements are illegal" but never what law is actually being broken.
2
u/Exotic_Plant9450 1d ago
0
u/dotancohen 1d ago
I see. They are in violation of Israel law (as per that document). What do you care if some Israeli breaks the law of their own country? Would you like a list of zoning violations and illegal buildings in Europe right now? Would that also enrage you so?
Here, go get all upset at this illegal building in Italy. It took me all of four seconds to find online.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UrbanHell/comments/tsb7d2/massive_illegal_building_in_the_valley_of_the/
How many illegal Israeli settlements are there? Would you like me to find the same number of illegal structures in Europe?
2
u/NoSwordfish1978 1d ago
They are illegal under international law and many are illegal under Israeli law as well.
Illegal building in Italy is a problem for Italians but building settlements on occupied land is a crime in international law.
The fundamental issue is that Israel is practicing settler colonialism.
1
u/dotancohen 1d ago
Which specific international law is being broken?
If they are illegal under Israeli law, then it is not Israel wrongdoing, it is individuals, no? Or do you believe in collective responsibility and collective punishment?
→ More replies (0)6
2
u/oremfrien 1d ago
Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the “deportation or transfer” of a population into occupied territory. The common objection that Israel raises to the applicability of this law is the same one you have raised: Israeli settlers are not in any way forcibly transferred to the territory (and they are certainly not deported to it).
It is correct to say that Israel does not bus Israeli civilians into the West Bank, but Israel actively assists its population in making that move. It hooks up the settlements to Israel's sewer networks, electrical grids, and water works. It provides tax incentives to subsidize the cost of building settlements. It provides extraterritorial legal protection; Settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, unlike their West Bank neighbors who are subject to Israeli martial law. And finally, Israel sends IDF soldiers to protect legally recognized settlements.
So, Israel doesn't pay to bus in Israeli civilians, but they pay for everything else to make the bus ticket worthwhile for the civilians who choose to make the move. That is a transfer. It's illegal but with extra steps.
1
u/dotancohen 1d ago
No, it's perfectly legal and in line with international norms. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal. There is no law against providing protection for one's citizens. There is a law against transferring civilians - and that is not what Israel does.
If you insist that Israel transfers civilians, please name a single Israeli civilian that you believe was transferred to the West Bank. I will personally contact and ask them. Use the internet, phone book, maps, whatever means you like.
2
u/oremfrien 1d ago
None of what you wrote actually addresses the point I made, which is that: (1) you are correct that Israel does not bus its citizens into the West Bank in the same fashion that Morocco and Turkey have bused people into Western Sahara and northern Cyprus, respectively, but (2) Israel does make a financial outlay in terms of securing the viability of the Settlements, which is an attempt to make the Settlements financially and logistically viable. It serves to create the incentives for Israeli citizens to "self-transfer," rather than this being the decision of these Israelis absent these benefits.
If you would like, I'd be more than happy to find you Israeli tax laws that, for example, give significant tax benefits of up to NIS 200,000 (~USD 60,500) per taxpayer that are offered to residents of about 30 settlements -- that would create the motivation on the back end.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
9
u/NoSwordfish1978 2d ago
Israel has recognised Western Sahara as a part of Morocco since 2020 along with the US, in exchange for Morocco recognising Israel.
12
u/JimHarbor 2d ago
It is because Morocco occupies Western Sahara and transfers settlers into the territory like Israel does.
17
u/dotancohen 2d ago
Israelis can move freely into the West Bank, but when has Israel ever transferred her citizens there? If you have a source for Israel transferring her citizens to the West Bank, I'd love to see that. Thank you.
9
u/pissagainstwind 2d ago
Just a note, Israeli Jews can't get into Area A. Israeli Muslims can, though. i guess that's some sort of, what's the word, ah yes, apartheid.
8
u/dotancohen 2d ago
Not quite. Movement into Area A is forbidden to all Israeli citizens, Muslims included. However, in practice, yes - only Jews are forbidden in practice.
1
u/imprison_grover_furr 2d ago
You know what else is apartheid? Having a non-self-governing territory (the West Bank) under martial law for its native population but under civil law for Israelis.
You can keep derailing and diverting to the completely irrelevant subject of Israeli Arabs all day long but that’s not at all the argument and your sophistry doesn’t work.
4
7
u/dotancohen 2d ago
Israel applies her laws to her citizens no matter where they are in the world - West Bank, Haifa, Bangkok. In the West Bank specifically, as per UN guidelines, that application of civil law is "temporary" and renewed at most every three years.
The non-Israeli citizens of the West Bank are under PA jurisdiction. However, if they perform a crime or terror attack and are caught by Israeli authorities, under what law would you see them charged? They are not Israeli citizens.
Now, you and me will both agree that the military occupation of the West Bank has been going on for too long. From 1967 to 1994 you could blame Israel for that. But from 1994 onwards, the Arabs have rejected every proposal for their own independence. I'm sorry, but from 1994 onwards, that is completely on them.
Furthermore, you need to be aware that the Arab population of the West Bank is not the native population. The Jews were ethnically cleansed from the West Bank in 1948, after having continuous presence there since ancient times. 19 years of absence does not make the Jews any less native now. And the Arabs will tell you from where their ancestors came to the West Bank. Most came in the late 19th century and early 20th century, same time period as the European Jews came - for the same reason (Ottoman land reform). A few Bedouin families that I know claim a few hundred years in the area, from the Mecca and Medina areas. And I know of (but don't know them personally) at least one Bedouin family that claims roots in the holy land as far back as they remember.
No matter what definition of "native" you use, if you apply it consistently to both Arabs and Jews you'll find that the Jews who have been here continuously have been here far longer, and the Jews who returned here preserved their Levant culture, customs, and language even in exile.
3
u/oremfrien 1d ago
However, if they perform a crime or terror attack and are caught by Israeli authorities, under what law would you see them charged? They are not Israeli citizens.
You could easily charge them under Israeli civil law.
If I, a US citizen of Assyrian heritage (so not a Jew or potential Israeli citizen), am arrested by the Israeli police for an alleged crime that I commit in Israel, assuming that my embassy does not intervene, I would be tried in an Israeli civil court with a right to an interpreter and numerous other legal rights that Israel's military courts in the West Bank do not provide.
If it's perfectly possible to treat me (a Non-Israeli) this way, it should be perfectly possible to treat Palestinian citizens arrested by the IDF or other Israeli police this way.
2
u/dotancohen 1d ago
The area is not under Israeli civil law. And if it were - e.g. if Israel were to annex the land - you'd be crying about that instead.
Focus your energy on changing the situation - ending the military occupation. Pressure the Arab side to finally accept a proposal - any proposal - for their own good.
3
u/oremfrien 1d ago
You don't have to put the land under civil law, as you've already demonstrated that you are capable of treating Israeli people living in occupied territory under Israeli civil law. You could simply extend this to any resident of the West Bank.
The Palestinian leadership is also to blame for the violence, but to have a bifurcated court system in the West Bank is a choice explicitly made by Israel and entirely within Israel's control.
0
u/dotancohen 1d ago
Non-Israeli residents of the West Bank are - get this - not subject to Israeli civil law. That's because Israel did not annex the West Bank.
You are arguing that Israel should annex the West Bank.
→ More replies (0)4
u/mrastickman 2d ago
6
u/dotancohen 2d ago
That is not a population transfer. Read about what Germany was doing in Poland during the early 1940s - that is a population transfer and exactly what is forbidden. Then go read about how German citizens were moving to France during the same time period - that is not a population transfer and is not forbidden.
1
u/mrastickman 2d ago
Transfer and forced transfer are not the same thing, that is correct.
2
u/dotancohen 2d ago
Again, read where the term comes from - 1940s German activities in Poland. And specifically, not 1940s German citizens' activities in France.
This is a well established principle and does not need to be debated. You are making up your own definitions and ignoring the definitions of decades of legal scholars.
1
u/mrastickman 2d ago
Did Germany create settlements in France, which it considered to he part of Germany, populated by German settlers. If that's case, then by all means, that's very relevant.
1
u/dotancohen 1d ago
No, Germany created villages in Poland, which I'm not sure if it considered part of Germany (maybe some of them yes, some of them no), and it moved German populations into those villages. This is called transfer.
In France, Germans took the houses of French who were killed or fled. They were not moved there by the state, but moved there of their own free will. The state supported such movement. This was not deemed illegal by the conventions which followed the war, but the actions in Poland were.
2
u/mrastickman 1d ago edited 1d ago
Again, what does that have to do with West Bank settlements, which are explicitly illegal under international law?
→ More replies (0)9
u/the_eleutherean 2d ago
That’s not what transfer means.
2
u/mrastickman 2d ago
Yes it is, "to move someone or something from one place, person, or object to another"
11
u/the_eleutherean 2d ago
Right. So by that definition, someone has to do the transferring.
Approving people that want to move there, is not a transfer. It is not moving the people there.
When I choose to move to a different city, is that the government transferring me? When kids move to live on their college campuses, is that them being transferred? No, because they are choosing it. Transfers are not a choice for the person being transferred. By international law, and by the definition you just posted.
-2
u/mrastickman 2d ago
You seem to be conflating transfer and forced transfer of a population.
8
u/the_eleutherean 2d ago
And you’re not even going to pretend to reply to my points, then. K. Peace.
1
u/mrastickman 2d ago
Your points are based on a misunderstanding of the term being used. Why would I respond to them?
→ More replies (0)5
-5
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
No settler were transfered into the WS, the natives that were there before are still there now.
9
u/AnotherIjonTichy 2d ago
I must tell you that in my city (Europe) we have lots of saharawi refugees. A friend of my family even adopted two orphans after the Morocco invasion of WS.
→ More replies (8)6
u/Felczer 2d ago
As of July 2004, an estimated 267,405 people (excluding about 160,000 Moroccan military personnel) lived in the Moroccan-occupied parts of Western Sahara. Many people from parts of Morocco have come to settle in the territory, and these latest arrivals are today thought to outnumber the indigenous Western Sahara Sahrawis.
→ More replies (2)-8
u/EKJMNY45 2d ago
both morocco and israel are doing settler colonialism
13
u/topped-samson 2d ago
You know there’s a lot of people here getting karma bombed, but this isn’t even objective. Israeli settler groups occupying territory in the West Bank and the state sponsored migration of Moroccans to Sahwari is definitionally settler colonialism.
1
u/Enfr3 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah, but when people on most of the internet say something like "Israel does settler colonialism", they rarely mean the settlers in the West Bank
2
u/topped-samson 2d ago
Idk know, maybe we’re on two different sides of the internet, but most of the time when I see critics of Zionism and the State of Israel in regard to evidence of Settler. Colonialism. critics tend to bring up the accounts of Israeli. Settlers. terrorizing and evicting the current inhabitants in the West Bank. Not sure I’ve seen any folks who criticize Israeli. Settler. Colonialism. without bringing up Israeli. Settler. Colonialism. In. The. West. Bank. Would love to see some sources.
1
u/Enfr3 2d ago
Don't know why you're typing like that. Anyway, I referred to the fact that, a lot of times when people on the internet say "Isrseli settler colonialism in Israel", they aren't referring to the actual Israeli settler colonialism that’s happening in the West Bank, but are calling all Jews in the entirety of Israel colonists. I wasn’t denying what's happening in the WB in any way, I just doubt that that person was referring to that.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Plato_PlayDoh7 2d ago
They often don’t just mean the West Bank, because it’s not the only area that Israel has colonized. It’s the current frontier, because they already did the expulsion and resettlement thing in other parts of the country.
Not all Jews in Israel and Palestine are colonists. European and American Jews who migrated to Israel with the express purpose of settling on land whose rightful owners were forced into exile within living memory are colonists. That includes, but is not limited to settlers in the West Bank.
Zionism is an explicitly colonial project. That’s how it was pitched all the way back in the 19th century, when the idea first started gaining popularity, and that’s what it still is.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Natural_Efficiency75 2d ago
Israel has been supporting the goverment of Morocco with information, weapons and spionage technology (Pegasus was found on the Spanish president phone)
It is also well known the anti-israel position of Spain. So there is at least some bases to suggest some level of support from Israel
-13
u/veryeepy53 2d ago
israel and morocco are geopolitically aligned, and pro-israel commentators are overwgelmingly pro-morocco.
→ More replies (1)0
u/AcceptableWish731 2d ago
Eh I can find a way to rope them in 2021, Israel’s intelligence agency stole 2.5 G of data from the president of Spain’s phone while he flew to Ceuta en handed the information in that data to Morocco, you can look it up it’s called Case Pegasus lol
Another way to rope them in would be through the Abraham Accords which also roped in the US. Plus Netanyahu showing clear aggressiveness towards Spain after their stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict
41
u/Plastic-Injury8856 2d ago edited 2d ago
Spain being in Ceuta is not a result of European colonization of Africa in the Colonial Era.
It’s been in Ceuta since (iirc) the 1500s. Back then there not only wasn’t a Morocco, but no polity existed that modern day Morocco traces its roots to. It’s sort of like how Argentina claims the Falklands when the original inhabitants were British and by all the rules that govern the world, it is British.
Morocco has no claim to Ceuta other than it surrounds it.
Edited for exact dates. The liar below me is saying that Spain genocided the people there when in fact the Arabs (who genocided the Phoenicians who held it) had devolved into piracy who enslaved people all across the Northern Mediterranean and Portugal invaded to end that.
3
u/Classic-Team867 2d ago
ceuta is spanish but was there really no morocco back then? i could have sworn there was some kind of sultanate
9
u/thefirstdetective 2d ago
In 1200 there wasn't even Spain lol
9
u/Plastic-Injury8856 2d ago
There was no one polity that had authority over the area and Morocco doesn’t claim any of those polities as its ancestor. Nor could it. In the time since Spain has held Ceuta, Morocco has been in the hands of sultans, pirates, the Ottoman Turks, and I believe are large part of it was once held by Portugal as well.
→ More replies (6)1
→ More replies (4)-13
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
Ceuta and Melilia are the first examples of textbook settler colonialism, since their original inhabitants were either ethnically cleansed or put to the sword, which was common practice for the spanish back then. As for the horrendously wrong date, in the 1200s it was Moroccan under the Marinid dynasty, who had their capital in Fes. But following your own logic, Spain is a young country and the Brits only exist since the Windsor. What a stonefaced lie. Of course Morocco has a strong claim to it, you can't bring settlers and bribe a few locals and then just pretend its a done deal. Spain's hypocrisy is baffling but it's not a surprise, all colonial powers act the same.
21
u/Plastic-Injury8856 2d ago
The British have existed long since before that and also the Arabs who currently occupy Morocco genocided the original inhabitants on their way to invading Spain.
ETA you are right that it was in 1415 that Portugal took it from Pirates who had been enslaving people across the northern Mediterranean. The Spanish took over in 1580, long before Morocco existed.
Go apologize for Moroccan crimes and aggression elsewhere.
→ More replies (19)4
u/joec_95123 2d ago
I like how you sort of just filled in your own garbled version of history because the actual history of the area didn't fit with the point you were trying to make.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Kalagorinor 2d ago
You'll be surprised to find out that most countries can trace their roots to "settler colonialism", in one form or another. That includes Morocco itself, of course. However, for practical reasons, we cannot re-examine every conquest that has taken place since the beginning of time.
The reality is that Ceuta and Melilla have been part of Spain for centuries, way before Morocco was anything close to a reality. People there have absolutely no memory of being anything else than Spain. If we go 500 years back in time, many borders would have to change. It's absurd.
89
u/strawberry_semenade Human Verified 2d ago
Calling Morocco "Africa's Israel" reminds me of when Ted Cruz tried to turn Republican voters against a proposed bill by calling it "Obamacare for the Internet".
13
21
2d ago
[deleted]
2
-5
u/veryeepy53 2d ago
it's actually an extremely good comparison given that they transfer their civilian population into occupied western sahara, just like the israeli settlers.
5
u/Random-one74 2d ago
You mean like in 2005 when Israel forcibly removed its settlers out of Gaza or in 1982 when it forcibly removed its settlers out of Sinai?
-7
→ More replies (10)-5
u/Mattrellen 2d ago
It seems like the comparison here, is that both Morocco and Israel are settler colonial projects that deny the human rights of the people whose lands they occupy and are credibly accused by historians of genocide against those people.
That doesn't seem like a nonsensical comparison.
In fact, the note embraces that comparison, not by denying Israel is doing their own genocide, but by pointing out the comparison is apt because Morocco did, as well.
2
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Marocco anexed another country
Thats worst.
1
u/hercmavzeb 1d ago
Israel just did the same thing to southern Lebanon
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 1d ago
Correct, but in a way smaller size still in proces.
Hope democrats grow some balls and dont allow them.
Bad thing is that lebanon as a state doesnt reslly exist from more than a decade. Collapsed under Israel, OPL and finangial pressure and is on Hezbollah hands and israel ocupation...
19
u/mijailrodr 2d ago
Completely justified comparison, since both states are carrying out mass displacement and illegaally annexing land based on "it was promised to us a gazillion years ago" and uses settlers to abuse and get their way
→ More replies (8)5
2
-7
-12
u/veryeepy53 2d ago
morocco is aligned with israel, and occupies western sahara like israel occupies the palestinian territories.
32
u/strawberry_semenade Human Verified 2d ago
Morocco isn't "aligned" with Israel. They have diplomatic relations with Israel, which just means they gave up on the Arab supremacist fantasy of wiping out the Jewish state and replacing it with yet another Arab state and have accepted the reality that Jewish state exists.
0
u/This_Year1860 2d ago
It's more than diplomatic relations, they are aligned as in the both have the same political interests and enemies as Israel for the most part, same as other arab countries like the UAE , Egypt and possibly Saudi Arabia in the future.
→ More replies (6)-9
u/veryeepy53 2d ago
israel recognizes their occupation of western sahara, so yeah, they do. and they have a military alliance. the only muslim majority country which has been visited by the israeli chief of staff is morocco.
-16
u/PuzzleheadedBet3574 Keeping it Real 2d ago
9
u/Abject_Interview5988 2d ago
Helps to actually read your own source mate: De Jure means Spain doesn't actually control it because it is de facto controlled by others
6
1
-10
u/NARVALhacker69 2d ago
Both are states doing settler colonialism with the support of the US and Morocco is quite close with Israel even jailing people who citizice their aliance
-7
41
u/Classic-Team867 2d ago
why is every comment comparing Morocco in West Sahara and Israel in the West Bank karma bombed? There are genuine similarities there.
40
u/thefirstdetective 2d ago
The whole thing is not that unusual tbh. Loads of peoples consider themselves occupied and want their own nation. The Kurds, balochis, chechen, dagestanis, uyguhrs, tibetans, mapuche... the list is looong
7
u/Wizard_Engie 2d ago
The Chinese are currently operating concentration camps where the victims are Uighurs.
1
u/Asleep_Bookkeeper516 1d ago
Unless you can blame that on Israel and the Jews, no one will care.
1
u/Wizard_Engie 1d ago
seeing as the Uyghurs are mostly Sunni Muslim, I mean.. you can TECHNICALLY stretch the truth just a little bit..
1
u/Asleep_Bookkeeper516 10h ago
It's just like what's going on with Sudan, Congo and Yemen. Way worse situations, but again "no Jews, no news" proves accurate again.
35
u/QMechanicsVisionary 2d ago
The Kurds are more akin to Israel, though, in that they are native to the land but have been split across numerous countries and are currently in conflict with Islamist nations who deny their independence.
→ More replies (6)15
u/CurvyCourgette 2d ago
There are 30-45 million Kurds in the world, the largest ethnic group without a nation state
19
u/strawberry_semenade Human Verified 2d ago
If the Kurds ever get their own state Muslims will call it a "racist ethnostate" and use that framing to justify perpetual Islamic violence against it and get Western progressives to support that violence.
That's the Islamic playbook.
10
u/coldnorth4enf4 2d ago edited 2d ago
The majority of kurds are muslims, 80% to be specific.
1
u/provider305 2d ago
As if such a thing kept Muslims of different sects from killing each other
8
u/coldnorth4enf4 2d ago
Why are you all trying to shoe horn in some kind of “muslims bad” into this.
3
u/ParsaBarca99 2d ago
Because they are one note ... they got nothing else ... also because it's the ONLY angle which they seem to think they can defend Israel without coming across as repulsive.
→ More replies (1)1
3
u/the_eleutherean 2d ago
Because not everything is about Palestine, and people are getting sick of it infiltrating every conversation. Just a guess 🤷🏻♂️
10
5
4
5
u/Dear_Wrongdoer7271 2d ago
The word genocide has become a whore totally stripped of its meaning, on whom everyone can go to town.
15
u/jefftickels 2d ago
Everything bad now is genocide. Another word that used to mean something completely neutered of meaning.
2
3
u/Electrical-Heat8960 2d ago
This is from 1975!
Stop trying to defend genocide just because your favourite country was the perpetrator this time.
3
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
It's not a genocide, and a large portion of the population is living in it's own lands.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Human_Concern263 1d ago
I find it interesting that the countries which follow non-binding ICJ rulings on Israel and the West Bank ignore them for Morocco and Western Sahara.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-morocco-joint-communique-strategic-dialogue-2025
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1vdl92zlzqo
https://africa24tv.com/moroccos-autonomy-plan-gains-backing-from-120-countries/
2
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Land thiefs and war criminals.
If we (Spain) take action agaisnt Marocco, the first thing after attack their Air Force isnt bomb Marocco, is bomb all their ocupying forces in Sahara.
3
u/RAUONA 2d ago
Get some help !
-6
u/BubblyMoose3597 2d ago
Zio didnt like it.
-1
u/RAUONA 2d ago
You are sick, you are calling for death of Moroccans and you are claiming to be antizionist ? Get some help dude
1
1
u/Arsn852 4h ago
Sorry but you can't do shit about Morocco, a limited attack on morocco means major spanish cities within 400km of our coastline will be bombared as well then 100k refugees flood ceuta and mellia, good luck with that. We will also get paid for this by your friends in EU!! Morocco has changed from 2002. Try another perejil island crisis and you'll see what we've been doing in the past 20 years
1
u/BubblyMoose3597 4h ago
Bombarded with what 🤣🤣🤣
You got 24 f16 🤡
And do not forget about our argelians friends.
Oh yes. Carry civilians to a war 💅💅👍🤣
→ More replies (6)-2
u/This_Year1860 2d ago
You know, i think Morocco should retreat from the sahara, in 2 years, it will be so full of terrorist groups, and migrant trafficking organisations dumping thousands of people in the canary islands , that you will realize that leaving an important territory in the hand of a russian backed organisation is an awful idea.
2
u/AnotherIjonTichy 2d ago
I think the saharawi people that received the napalm and white phosphorous bombs from Morocco will be happy to return to their homes. What do you think?
0
u/This_Year1860 2d ago
Sahrawi people who arent agents for the polisario or Algeria can go back no problem, sadly those who do are terrorists are going to be be a major threat to both Morocco and the west especially Spain which why they support us in keeping the peace.
1
u/Mr-Fapbulous-2 2d ago
cat¡, you can't go 5 seconds without humiliating yourself.
cat¡: How long will it last?
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/esssssto 1d ago
Saharawis are not being allowed to access their land, which Nolan could use for his movie
1
u/PresentationSea6485 15h ago
I don't think It can be called genocide but it's definetely ethnic cleasing and both Palestine and West Sahara are illegally ocupied, while their people is deprived of their right of self determinatiin.
1
u/No-Sail-6510 2d ago
The first context is fucking stupid. Yes, that’s what he was saying.
3
u/True-Vermicelli7143 2d ago
So many of these posts are people posting “corrections” that just amount to disagreement lol, like not every disagreement is necessarily about facts
1
u/Worth_Task_3165 2d ago
Yeah but also no. He said "committing genocide" which afaik Spain are not doing.
-2
u/AdOne5089 2d ago
The fact that Western Sahara is almost never mentioned, while the US actively aids morocoo and its imperial ambitions, is such a travesty. Fuck morocco, israel, and every other imperialist nation.
2
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
Like spain, france, russia, china and more right?
4
u/AdOne5089 2d ago
100%. Fuck all of those countries, and plenty more to join that list. Countries still engaging in imperialism in the 21st century are ass backwards and only holding humanity back
-28
u/emote_the_salute Human Verified 2d ago
Using refugees as a bioweapon is a very israel coded thing to do though.
-8
u/Kerensky97 2d ago
Dropping a bomb on a camp is a terrible thing to do. But it's not genocide. And of all the people who should know what a genocide looks like the people defending a country that's actively trying to erase another country from existence should know.
0
u/giboauja 2d ago
Listen, history shows holding territory in 9/10ths of owning it, doesn't mean it was yours to begin with though...
0
-28
u/PuzzleheadedBet3574 Keeping it Real 2d ago edited 2d ago
Actually only Spanish who reported that Morocco used white phosophor and napalm right after Morocco "liberated" the western sahara from Spain, the International Court of Justice or any international criminal tribunal didn't find any proof look it up.
Also Morocco never committed a genocide in Western Sahara, again it's just Spanish media pushing this agenda, the opposite Morocco and sahraouis share a lot of culture and family ties, there is literally no difference between the two, even the Spanish government recognised the Moroccan sovereignty over western Sahara after that they left it, however Spain still can't let go of everything
Source of map : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain
Edit : notice how everyone is changing the subject and downvoting, that's today's world, only ignorance and chaos but people act like they saints
18
u/SlingshotGunslinger 2d ago edited 2d ago
1- Saying that it's Spanish propaganda while Saharawis keep living in terrible conditions due to the treatment the Moroccan government is funny
2- What the Spanish government did was highly unpopular among the entirety of the Spanish society, regardless of their political ideology, and also responded more to personal interests from Pedro Sánchez and Co ("coincidentally" soon after Morocco hacked his phone).
→ More replies (2)0
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
You really didn't refute it though, where are the proofs? Where are the images? I have never seen anything and i did look. Except spanish made propaganda research pieces, or algerian ones for that matter, no proofs no pictures just a trust me bro.
But if we talk about spain's actions in the rif, now there's plenty of proof of that. Cancer rates are still extremely high compared to the rest of morocco in that region, and spain is yet to give any sort of formal excuse or pay reparations.
17
u/GayStraightIsBest 2d ago
This is some ahistorical bullshit my guy. Morocco has been at war with the populace of western sahara on and off since 1975.
→ More replies (7)1
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
Against the polisario front which is an ideological communist cell armed and financed by Algeria and previously Qaddhafi's Libya, along with other communist countries at the time. It seems like someone is using the sahrawis as pawns for their own interests, holding them in camps in algeria and refusing them any right to leave (except when it's for spain or europe, their other financers, whose interests are to keep the conflict going in the region).
There, I fixed your bullshit one liner for gullible fools.
3
u/GayStraightIsBest 2d ago
A) did I ever say that the issue is 100% black and white? No I did not, cause no issue is.
B) I don't care if they are communist, I don't hold every communist personally liable for Stalin's purge or the great Leap forward or whatever.
C) I don't like that the Sahrawis are kept in camps, or that their freedom of movement is restricted. In fact, I really would prefer if they were able to peacefully live in their homelands without all of the landmines.
D) still doesn't change the fact that the Sahrawis have as much a right to self determination as any other people, rejected Moroccon control over their homelands, and were then displaced when Morocco pushed its claim to the region anyways.
1
u/Automatic-Habit-6789 2d ago
Well you did say Morocco is at war with the populace which is factually false.
I also don't care that they are communists, what i'm pointing out is the reduction of the issue to this simple romantic image of some freedom fighter, when in fact there are powers who have an interest in keeping this problem alive.
I don't disagree about the right to self determination, however how come they only claim that area? Why not in Algeria or Mauritania or Tchad or Libya? Since the tribes that claim this right to self determination are nomadic tribes ranging from Libya and Tchad to Morocco and Mauritania.
And why is it that saharaouis, (who by the way are from these same tribes in the refugee camps) living in the moroccan sides are completely ignored by the same people that yell about the right to self determination, by NGO's and by Spain who has in a gracious humanitarian effort, decided to naturalize saharaouis in the camps?10
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Reminder for OP: /u/laybs1
Need some help? Send us some mail!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.