Historical context of the tensions between Morocco and Algeria

[Knowledgeseeker]

Hey. Here we will discuss the historical events taken place from the founding of the 2 states untill now.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

@Chakib.Y
You can express your opinon here on this thread.

 

[Chakib.Y]

you can write a 10000 lines whining essay on how its purely evil of algerians refused to giveup land they fought and died for (while affirming your kingdoms expansionist agenda), in the end of the day the truth that holds is that every time morocco had an edge over its neighbors it attempted to annex their land so at this point every percieved injustice that comes them from those neighbors, they have it coming

if you want land you fight and die for it, you dont whine about it to everyone begging for empathy

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

you can write a 10000 lines whining essay on how its purely evil of algerians refused to giveup land they fought and died for (while affirming your kingdoms expansionist agenda), in the end of the day the truth that holds is that every time morocco had an edge over its neighbors it attempted to annex their land so at this point every percieved injustice that comes them from those neighbors, they have it coming

if you want land you fight and die for it, you dont whine about it to everyone begging for empathy

Yes its corecct that morocco have some claims in Algeria, aswell as other places. This is based on the preborder in the late 1800s before the french colonisation of North Africa. You have to understand that when it especially comes to the south east part of algeria mainly the city of tindouf/Bechar, this where moroccan territories before france invaded morocco so its pretty natural that morocco would want it land back.

 

[Bmx98]

Whatever the historical context is, or who is to blame for the dispute. All i have to say is I hope these depraved heads of states don't push the beautiful muslim people of their land into killing each other. This is a sincere advice from a fellow muslim that does not have any bias towards any if the two countries, you are brothers you are the same people have the same religion speak the same languages, do not go to war over material interests, hope the scholars from both countries stay upright and boycott supporting this war and their governments.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

Whatever the historical context is, or who is to blame for the dispute. All i have to say is I hope these depraved heads of states don't push the beautiful muslim people of their land into killing each other. This is a sincere advice from a fellow muslim that does not have any bias towards any if the two countries, you are brothers you are the same people have the same religion speak the same languages, do not go to war over material interests, hope the scholars from both countries stay upright and boycott supporting this war and their governments.

To be honest i have not studied the muslim opinion on when muslim states expand their borders. If that was the case then the muslim empires like umayaad, ottoman empire would be refured by scholars but in fact they are praised for the honour they brought. And btw if war would happen it has nothing to do about «material» interest. We ask for welness for our people

 

[Chakib.Y]

Yes its corecct that morocco have some claims in Algeria, aswell as other places. This is based on the preborder in the late 1800s before the french colonisation of North Africa. You have to understand that when it especially comes to the south east part of algeria mainly the city of tindouf/Bechar, this where moroccan territories before france invaded morocco so its pretty natural that morocco would want it land back.

1-the borders between countries changed a thousands times in the past and will change a thousand in the future, there's no standard map that was sent from heaven that defined the borders of each political entity along with those who inhabited them. That Being said your argument is an appeal to time, that is set arbitrarily, the logical conclusion of your argument is giving the right to the land via seniority, by that the Romans, vandals and Arabs would have a stronger claim to north Africa without the locals having any say in it.

2-today's dominant theory of state is the nation state, being that the land and the right to it and it's history is tied to the people inhabiting it, meaning as long as there's a continuous connection between the people and their land, their professed identity is the objectively correct and incontestable position, this means the only way a political entity (state) can come into being or annex land is through the people's will, that's where the right of self determination comes from. Something the Moroccan monarchy is so scared of.


3-Provided that your stance is correct and that the land had always been under Moroccan authority (and the borders between the two countries never changed pre colonialism or as you like to claim, your country and the sovereign over modern day Algeria), Morocco had 132 years long opportunity not to only annex the parts it claims to theirs, but all of Algeria and west Africa if so they wished , and fight for the land and reclaim it from foreign occupation like it's natives did, instead it chose to wait until the price was paid in other people's blood and attempted then to annex it when it had the clear edge. This is a pattern of behaviour exhibited towards all of the kingdom's neighbors.



If you don't see something clearly being off with the Moroccan throne's behaviour that is unjustifiable both morally and legally unjustifiable I don't know what to add

 

[Chakib.Y]

Whatever the historical context is, or who is to blame for the dispute. All i have to say is I hope these depraved heads of states don't push the beautiful muslim people of their land into killing each other. This is a sincere advice from a fellow muslim that does not have any bias towards any if the two countries, you are brothers you are the same people have the same religion speak the same languages, do not go to war over material interests, hope the scholars from both countries stay upright and boycott supporting this war and their governments.

Do you think I want to see Muslim blood let alone our own people's blood being spilled over this ? No one wants that, Algerians and Moroccans are almost identical on every level, same Berber tribes (znata and sanhaja clans), same Arab tribes (banu Hilal and Salim) and the Moresque and Turkish elements. We all wish for a united umma from the ocean to the ocean but reality isn't that simple, if not everyone is willing to go by that spirit than no one is going to make the first step.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

1-the borders between countries changed a thousands times in the past and will change a thousand in the future, there's no standard map that was sent from heaven that defined the borders of each political entity along with those who inhabited them. That Being said your argument is an appeal to time, that is set arbitrarily, the logical conclusion of your argument is giving the right to the land via seniority, by that the Romans, vandals and Arabs would have a stronger claim to north Africa without the locals having any say in it.

2-today's dominant theory of state is the nation state, being that the land and the right to it and it's history is tied to the people inhabiting it, meaning as long as there's a continuous connection between the people and their land, their professed identity is the objectively correct and incontestable position, this means the only way a political entity (state) can come into being or annex land is through the people's will, that's where the right of self determination comes from. Something the Moroccan monarchy is so scared of.


3-Provided that your stance is correct and that the land had always been under Moroccan authority (and the borders between the two countries never changed pre colonialism or as you like to claim, your country and the sovereign over modern day Algeria), Morocco had 132 years long opportunity not to only annex the parts it claims to theirs, but all of Algeria and west Africa if so they wished , and fight for the land and reclaim it from foreign occupation like it's natives did, This is a pattern of behaviour exhibited towards all of the kingdom's neighbors.



If you don't see something clearly being off with the Moroccan throne's behaviour that is unjustifiable both morally and legally unjustifiable I don't know what to add

I understand the first point you made, but you need to remember that the romans or other groups would not have more right to north africa then us. First of all we are the inhabitants of north africa! You need to understand that the claim morocco have made when it comes to east algeria and sahara is based on the same state in late 1800s! It was the alawi dyansty that where ruling, and the same state are ruling now! Morocco never claimed the area of greater morocco ruling from morocco to libya like the other greater dynasties as almohad, and almoravid, or wattasid. Moroccan claim is based on the same state that are ruling now, before the establishment of Algeria! Algeria was not even a state when morocco had this disputes with france. Thats why you will find the inhabitans around figuig, and tindouf having documents that they got born in the kingdom of morocco. So yes this land is surely Moroccan 100%.

you claim that the only way a country can annex a land is through the peoples will. Thats why you see russia annexing east ukraina without no support from the people? However let me tell you that the sahrawis under moroccan rule have through the past always pledging alliance to the sultan of morocco! In the ifni war the sahrawis fought bravely against the french and the spaniard, while being part of the kingdom of Morocco!

Its funny how you are trying to say « instead it chose to wait until the price was paid in other people's blood and attempted then to annex it when it had the clear edge».

you will get a strong answer to this tommorow.

 

[Chakib.Y]

I understand the first point you made, but you need to remember that the romans or other groups would not have more right to north africa then us. First of all we are the inhabitants of north africa! You need to understand that the claim morocco have made when it comes to east algeria and sahara is based on the same state in late 1800s! It was the alawi dyansty that where ruling, and the same state are ruling now! Morocco never claimed the area of greater morocco ruling from morocco to libya like the other greater dynasties as almohad, and almoravid, or wattasid. Moroccan claim is based on the same state that are ruling now, before the establishment of Algeria! Algeria was not even a state when morocco had this disputes with france. Thats why you will find the inhabitans around figuig, and tindouf having documents that they got born in the kingdom of morocco. So yes this land is surely Moroccan 100%.

you claim that the only way a country can annex a land is through the peoples will. Thats why you see russia annexing east ukraina without no support from the people? However let me tell you that the sahrawis under moroccan rule have through the past always pledging alliance to the sultan of morocco! In the ifni war the sahrawis fought bravely against the french and the spaniard, while being part of the kingdom of Morocco!

Its funny how you are trying to say « instead it chose to wait until the price was paid in other people's blood and attempted then to annex it when it had the clear edge».

you will get a strong answer to this tommorow.

1-Ah so the claim on the land isn't based upon historical seniority but is determined by the indigenous populations a la nation state model. Which is what my argument is based upon. The fact that you agree to this notion negates the argument you use for Morocco being deriving the right for land through the historical borders of the sovereign. That being said I don't think the aliwites are indigenous to north Africa, afaik they migrated from the Arab peninsula. Your arguments are all over the place my guy.


2-If what Russia have done was done without the consent of the local population and against their will then it is against the standards of the nation state model, and is and will remain illegal, and the only way for Russia and the international community to legalize the annexation will be through a resolution that implies the population's consent and support. What you're saying is basically: if a criminal conducted a crime and got away with it (Russia didn't as they're sanctioned and the annexed territories aren't recognised as part of Russia afaik) then it must be okay and valid. That's an absurd way to look at the world.

3-inshallah.

 

[Knowledgeseeker]

1-Ah so the claim on the land isn't based upon historical seniority but is determined by the indigenous populations a la nation state model. Which is what my argument is based upon. The fact that you agree to this notion negates the argument you use for Morocco being deriving the right for land through the historical borders of the sovereign. That being said I don't think the aliwites are indigenous to north Africa, afaik they migrated from the Arab peninsula. Your arguments are all over the place my guy.


2-If what Russia have done was done without the consent of the local population and against their will then it is against the standards of the nation state model, and is and will remain illegal, and the only way for Russia and the international community to legalize the annexation will be through a resolution that implies the population's consent and support. What you're saying is basically: if a criminal conducted a crime and got away with it (Russia didn't as they're sanctioned and the annexed territories aren't recognised as part of Russia afaik) then it must be okay and valid. That's an absurd way to look at the world.

3-inshallah.

I never claimed that the russian way is the right way. I was mentioning it so you could take it into the consideration. My argument that morocco is the owner of the land, is through the «bayaah» allegiance that the sahrawis swore, and even in part of east algeria people are calling for morocco to come. But anyway which criteria do you use when stating that its alright for a state to annex if the population's consent and support it. So if russia moves alot of russians to ukrainan donbas, then by majority of peoples consent then its russian??

as i told you the same state in morocco that demand the return of this places, is the same state that aspire to grab its border before the french colonisation of North africa. However lets talk a little about the stort about this issues, because you mentioned that morocco wanted to annex west algeria easily after algerians sacrificed their blood. Go ahead, and give me your view, and what yoy have learned in algeria regarding the conflict. After i will tell you the historial context, and the reason behind tensions between the 2 states.

 

[Chakib.Y]

I never claimed that the russian way is the right way. I was mentioning it so you could take it into the consideration. My argument that morocco is the owner of the land, is through the «bayaah» allegiance that the sahrawis swore, and even in part of east algeria people are calling for morocco to come. But anyway which criteria do you use when stating that its alright for a state to annex if the population's consent and support it. So if russia moves alot of russians to ukrainan donbas, then by majority of peoples consent then its russian??

as i told you the same state in morocco that demand the return of this places, is the same state that aspire to grab its border before the french colonisation of North africa. However lets talk a little about the stort about this issues, because you mentioned that morocco wanted to annex west algeria easily after algerians sacrificed their blood. Go ahead, and give me your view, and what yoy have learned in algeria regarding the conflict. After i will tell you the historial context, and the reason behind tensions between the 2 states.

1-If the saharawi people are so pro Moroccans then why are they being denied the right for self determination (which Morocco agreed to under a UN mandate in the early 90s) and being offered autonomy as an alternative ? I mean if they choose to be a part of Morocco it'll be far better than autonomy. As for the part of western Algeria's, I'll consider it a comic relief from your part that's not deserving of a reply.

2-the bay'ah isn't sworn to the state smartass it's sworn to the ruler and it gets renovated at least every time a new ruler assumes the throne and is pledged to him personally, not his throne. That being said you just went full circle affirming the concept of nation state being that the people's choice is what determines the political entity or state they belong to. Fix your argument.


3-what you just described thats called colonialism, I'll repeat myself again as I said above, as long as there's a continuous and persistent connection between the land and it's people, the status of their land is determined by them.


3-Morocco has no right into these lands be it legal or moral,it remained put as a protectorate as people fought and died for their independence then tried to annex the land once the colonial power left it destroyed. The criterion you put is arbitrary at best, an argument from seniority and self contradictions.


4-Story is simple, Moroccan monarch wanted parts of South Western Algeria and promised to help as long as the Algerian temporary govt (which was desperate). Post independence the Algerian govt refused to give land,
this culminated in the 1963 border war (sands war). The borders issue was later on used by Morocco as a bargain chip when Hassan II requested a military base in tindouf to assault then annex Mauritania and in return he would recognise the Algerian borders (something which boumedian refused).