2 ms·
The reason people condemn it, is because those two nations are both occupying forces of a different nation. It is not explicit, but people suspect that both are
by runarberg 6y ago
The reason people condemn it, is because those two nations are both occupying forces of a different nation. It is not explicit, but people suspect that both are in fact silently supporting each others occupation.
If say the Polisario front starts an armed insurgence for a Sahrawi liberation in Western Sahara and it is met with brutal forces from the Moroccan military, a peaceful resolution seems less likely because now Israel has stakes in allowing Moroccan military to advance as brutally as they wish—knowing that similar brutality might be preferably against an armed Palestinian insurgence.
- nradov 6y agoIf you don't like Israel then just come out and say so. It's ridiculous to single them out for occupying another nation. You could criticize Spain, China, Iraq, Russia, the USA, India, Mexico, Denmark, and half the other countries in the world on the same basis. Quit using a double standard to complain about normal diplomacy.
- runarberg 6y agoBut I just did... I gave Morocco the same weight for occupying Western Sahara as Israel for occupying Palestine. But, I mean, sure... The same thing can be said about Mexico having military relations with the USA and Canada if each of them is going to acknowledge the rights of the other to fail to uphold treaties for the indigenous population. Elsewhere in this thread I’m giving the UK a similar “singling out”, but that is unfair, since France is just as guilty of the things I say there. Alas the UK and France are both NATO members (and both control nuclear weapons), I wonder if their colonies would be liberated by now, or if we had finally enacted an international nuclear weapons ban if it weren’t for the countries most guilty of doing precisely that banding together with a huge and deadly military to back it up.