Contributions and opinions welcomed but not necessarily endorsed.
By Michel Bernard (Loire-Atlantique)
In Dominique Moïsi’s “Point of View” (O.-F. of December 23), several elements shock me.
First, he titles his article “Morocco Israel, a decisive step” without ever specifying that the agreement between the two occupying powers is a denial of international law. For Trump, the origin of this deal is indeed “give and take”. It unilaterally recognizes Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara (by what right?) In return for the kingdom’s commitment to normalize its relations with Israel.
This is a total interference which favors the two occupying powers to the detriment of the two colonized peoples.
Mr. Moïsi also indicates that the two-state solution (Israel and Palestine) seems abandoned by all, including the Palestinians themselves. He adds: “Don’t they begin to resign themselves, with a mixture of despair, fatigue, etc. He assumes that they might be able to accept just one state, provided they have the same rights as the Israelis.
How can it be imagined that Palestinians can enjoy the same rights in a single state, when nowadays everyone can see on the spot that they are treated with hyperlimited rights.
The two-state solution that could have worked together in peace has been sabotaged on all sides because Israel never wanted it, although it was the one that appeared in the UN resolutions. Westerners, led by the United States, have always spared Israel. They have done nothing to push this country to apply international law.
Second, the Palestinian leadership has its share of faults. Hamas in blockaded Gaza, and Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah in the occupied and colonized West Bank, mostly thought of their immediate interests and could not agree on a common strategy.
[…] For its part, Morocco unilaterally assigned itself Western Sahara following Spanish colonization and refuses self-determination to the Sahrawis, again in violation of international law. No, Mr. Moisi, this is not “a decisive step” or at least not in a good way. And your conclusion that “for once, Trump’s action is not exclusively negative” really doesn’t strike me as appropriate if you’re on the side of international law that Trump is blithely sitting on.
