Jews are ethnoreligous and these are Mizrachi Jews.
They were Jews whom intermarried with the Arabs/Persians.
The Samaritans might be though
I'm strictly talking based on the genetic datas we have and btw why do you have a picture of Polisario ?
Jews are ethnoreligous and these are Mizrachi Jews.
They were Jews whom intermarried with the Arabs/Persians.
The Samaritans might be though
Show me the data.I'm strictly talking based on the genetic datas we have and btw why do you have a picture of Polisario ?
Show me the data.
I support the occupied peoples
You can't let another people rule your own.
Arab-Berbers ruling Sahwari land is wrong.
So the people living on that land has no right to control it and have to live under oppression.
and why do you say "occupied" while the border between morocco and western sahara was made by europeans to separate the spanish possessions from the french one.
here a map of Morocco before the french protectorate :
View attachment 125216
Western sahara never existed before so there is no occupation here
So the people living on that land has no right to control it and have to live under oppression.
Colonialism cut the natives in half because they were Bedouins and eventually became city dwellers.
The Moroccans are claiming lands which was controlled by a dead kingdom
The people who are Sahwari are not like the Arab-Berberswait whut ?
The people living on that land are similar to other moroccans so yes moroccans have the right to decide about Moroccan lands. And They are not claiming lands of a dead kingdom simply because this kingdom is still "alive" (same dynasty and that's why moroccan monarchy is one of the oldest in the world : https://www.oldest.org/politics/monarchy/ )
It was a french protectorate which means they still recognized the moroccan monarchy and didn't erase it.
The people who are Sahwari are not like the Arab-Berbers
The Sahwari speak Hassaniya Arabic and have different admixtures compared to the Northerners.
So basically you're using the straw-man argument to win this debate in your favour
For e.g. If an Afar came to your house and said he used to own it and he had the right to live there and took it over
The people only want it to exploit resources for their own benefit.
Almohad (dead kingdom)
Marinid (dead kingdom)
Wattasid
The light pink is vassal state so not technically part of Morocco (dead kingdom)
Saadi (dead kingdom)
How are the people there Moroccans if the native people are Sahwari and suffer oppresion from the Secret Police and the Berber settlers.
Furthermore, @Dawalhabaad you saying that the people of Morocco have the right to take over the land is saying they have the right to annex Mali,Mauritania,Tunisia,Algeria and Libya even though their own people don't originate there.
Funny how that's colonial if they're taking over people's lands and exploiting them.
Would the same people be happy though.They have the right to claim mauritania, northern mali and a good part of western algeria simply because it belonged to the alawite dynasty. The same dynasty that rules Morocco today.
You know that the green is the Ottoman Empire thoughthat's like saying atlas people are not moroccans because they speak chleuh
and genetically they are similar to other moroccans.
also you posted only "dead" dynasties but the current one is the alawite dynasty and that was their territory before the french protectorate :
View attachment 125243
and this dynasty still rules morocco today.
Would the same people be happy though.
Why are you backing an oppressive regime.
Would an Algerian support it?
Morocco abuse the indigenous people of Western Sahara if they speak up.
You know that the green is the Ottoman Empire though
So you agree with the concept of colonialism though.What you don't understand is that those conflicts are the direct consequences of european colonialism and you're supporting the way they divided Africa.
Algeria wasn't part of the Alawites.what does this have to do with Morocco ?
So you agree with the concept of colonialism though.
Exploitation and Invasion.