El Independiente/ The Makhzen and the Zionist Entity: The Complicity of Two Occupying Regimes in Violating International Law
BY: Hana Saada
ALGIERS- In a shocking display of brazen disregard for international law and human rights, Morocco and the Zionist Entity have solidified their unholy alliance by mutually recognizing each other’s sovereignty over occupied territories. This disturbing development highlights the complicity of two occupying regimes in perpetuating oppression and violating the rights of indigenous peoples.
The controversial recognition was initially set in motion by former U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020, when he announced the United States’ recognition of Morocco’ alleged sovereignty over Western Sahara. However, the recognition came with a condition that Morocco must establish full diplomatic relations with the Zionist entity. In a striking show of compliance, the Zionist entity reciprocated the gesture by recognizing Moroccan alleged sovereignty over the Saharan lands in 2023.
The Zionist Foreign Minister praised the decision, claiming that it would strengthen bilateral relations and regional stability. However, the reality behind this so-called “peace” is far from harmonious. Both Morocco and the Zionist entity are known for their daily violations of international law, with ongoing military occupations in Palestinian territories and Western Sahara, respectively. Indigenous populations in these occupied regions continue to suffer gross human rights abuses, with their struggle for self-determination consistently undermined.
What is truly disheartening is the shift in Morocco’ stance, as it had long been seen as a defender of Palestinian rights before the international community. However, with this recent move, it appears that the country is now siding with those who oppress and violate the rights of the very people they once supported.
The longstanding cooperation between these parties traces its roots to the 1980s, an era marked by a fierce war of national liberation in Western Sahara spearheaded by the Polisario Front, in its unyielding quest to reclaim their homeland from the clutches of an invading force. During the same period, Morocco, bolstered by support from American, French, and Zionist allies, constructed an imposing 2,800-kilometer wall that ruthlessly cleaved the once unified desert territories into two starkly divided parts.
While the Biden administration largely influenced by the powerful American Jewish lobby, has not withdrawn the recognition of Moroccan alleged sovereignty, it has taken steps to counteract the decision through the “Biden Doctrine.” The doctrine implies that the U.S. will not act in line with the recognition, highlighting the tension between the recognition and the implementation of international law.
International law firmly establishes the responsibility of every nation to refrain from acknowledging situations resulting from grave breaches of binding rules, such as when a state imposes an occupying regime upon a people under colonial domination. Equally significant is the obligation of all states not to contribute to the perpetuation of such situations. Hence, the recognition of a state’ sovereignty over a territory it occupies through military means, in clear defiance of Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, constitutes a severe violation of international law. Whether it pertains to Moroccan sovereignty over occupied desert territories, or Zionist sovereignty over occupied Palestinian territories, all such situations represent flagrant disregard for established international norms. The act of recognition carries substantial international responsibility for those endorsing it.
The 2004 ruling of the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the Zionist wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territories holds significant relevance to the current analysis. The court’ statements, which can be aptly applied to our situation, emphasize crucial obligations for all states involved. First, it underscores that all states must refrain from recognizing the unlawful circumstances arising from the construction of the wall and must refrain from providing any aid or support to sustain the situation created by such construction. Secondly, the ruling emphasizes that all states that are parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, have a clear responsibility to ensure that the Zionist entity adheres to the principles of international humanitarian law delineated within the convention. These principles, which safeguard the protection of civilians in times of war, hold crucial significance in the context of the ongoing situation and call for the respect of international humanitarian norms and obligations by all parties involved.
The undeniable reality remains that both the United States and the Zionist entity stand accused of violating fundamental norms of mandatory law, transcending geographical boundaries and applying universally to all states: the sacrosanct right to self-determination of peoples and the vital principles of international humanitarian law. Among its core tenets, international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits any transfer of population by an occupying force into the territories they seize. Strikingly akin to the Zionist entity’s actions in Palestine, the significant influx of Moroccan settlers into the arid lands of occupied territories presents an alarming and unyielding shift in their demographic makeup. Nevertheless, the passage of time or orchestrated changes in population demographics do not and cannot legitimize military occupation, for it remains an indelible affront to international law.
The judgments delivered by the General Court of the European Union on September 21, 2021, unequivocally clarify the status of Moroccan settlers in relation to the right to self-determination, confirming that they are distinct from the Sahrawi people. The court’s ruling solidifies the notion that only the Polisario Front holds the authority to represent and grant consent on behalf of the Sahrawi people. Moreover, the European Union is under a solemn obligation not to acknowledge Morocco’ sovereignty over Western Sahara. In an ideal world governed by the rule of law, such as the European Union, both its institutions and member states are bound to uphold and respect international law, as the decisions of their courts are legally binding. However, in the complex and decentralized realm of the international community, certain states, including Morocco and the Zionist entity flout the international legal order without facing immediate consequences. This defiance grants them the freedom to pursue their expansionist agendas without being accountable to international courts that might otherwise restrain their actions.
The legal consequences of Morocco’s admission to recognize the Zionist sovereignty over Palestine are worth considering with utmost scrutiny. However, it is improbable for such an acknowledgment to materialize given the inevitable uproar it would provoke within Moroccan civil society. In reality, the impact would be negligible. History has shown that those who repeatedly flout international law will persist in their transgressions, undeterred by official recognition. Regardless of the proclamations by figures like Trump, Netanyahu, or Mohamed VI, their authority cannot legitimize what remains fundamentally illegal.
In the context of Morocco’s policy of establishing consular offices for third countries in Western Sahara as a means to bolster the international acceptance of their de-facto occupation, it is evident that this approach is unlikely to yield substantial consequences beyond diplomatic disagreements. This strategy, which was initially proposed by Trump but avoided by Biden, relies on pressuring and coercing countries through various means, such as immigration issues, territorial disputes in Ceuta and Melilla, cooperation in counterterrorism efforts, and combating drug trafficking. Furthermore, facts of corruption, as seen in the Morocco Gate scandal, have been employed to further these aims. However, the ultimate impact of these consular offices remains questionable since the absence of subjects in the Sahara region renders the typical duties of such delegations largely redundant, relegating them to mere vacation destinations for diplomats. Thus, despite Morocco’s efforts, the international community’ stance on the Western Sahara issue is unlikely to see any significant shifts due to the limited practical implications of these consular offices.
Translated with adaptation from: El Independiente
Link:
Marruecos e Israel, la complicidad de dos estados que violan el derecho internacional
