Think Forward.

Leïla Slimani: when words spoken to please betray the reality of an entire country civilisation... 7766

The recent statements by the writer Leïla Slimani, Moroccan to us, Franco-Moroccan on television programs, have not gone unnoticed at all. Leïla Slimani made a particularly pointed remark regarding Moroccan women and mothers that sparked a strong controversy going beyond simple differences of opinion. Leïla was among the guests on the show "Tout le monde en parle". A show that survived its creator Thiery Ardisson, in Quebec but not in France. The statements in question, perceived as condescending and disconnected from the social and cultural realities of Morocco, deeply offended many Moroccan women. Especially those who, like her, write in French and consume cultural programs in French. They did not let her remarks pass, far from it. Many responded to her. Some more harshly than others. She received backlash like never before in her life. The reactions were measured, reasoned, and blunt even if politely delivered. Some were real lessons addressed to someone who truly deserved a strong reminder. All reminded her that many mothers, constrained by difficult conditions, have raised their children with courage, dignity, and a keen sense of values, and today refuse that their commitment be reduced to simplistic clichés or one-sided judgments whose only purpose is to create buzz on television sets. On social networks and in public spaces, the reaction was unanimous and passionate. Moroccan women, at least those who spoke, firmly rejected the stereotypical vision inflicted on them, denouncing a sometimes moralistic and westernized posture that ignores the complexity and richness of their experience. Their role can neither be reduced nor caricatured, as it is fundamental in the construction of Moroccan society, itself evolving but deeply rooted in its traditions, resilience, and unique identity. The sentence where Leïla Slimani speaks of revenge as a value that mothers would teach their children, girls in particular, does not pass and will not pass. She cited her own grandmother as an example, absent to contradict her... This expression is truly inappropriate as well as misleading. The opposite is true: one of the fundamental values of Moroccan society is precisely forgiveness. Forgiveness is taught and lived daily in social relations here. Life revolves around forgiveness. The word forgiveness in darija is uttered dozens of times a day by everyone here. *Lalla Leila, do we really need to remind you that Moroccan culture is not nourished by resentment, and even less by revenge, but by a demand: a demand for respect and nuance.* Today, Moroccan society is progressing, but it firmly rejects external judgments imposed without a deep understanding of the local context, whether religious or cultural. As a public figure representing Morocco on the international stage, if you please, you should show greater prudence and empathy in your remarks. Speaking a truth is one thing, inventing it is another, especially since the context was not fiction but a widely viewed program. This controversy highlights a persistent symbolic fracture between a certain elite living abroad and the real Morocco, the one that lives, struggles, and moves forward at its own pace, certainly, but makes true progress. Criticism is legitimate, questioning is salutary, but it must always be done with rigor, responsibility, and above all respect. Public speech must never humiliate nor infantilize Moroccan women, and even less in their essential and vital role: raising new generations. Morocco is not frozen in stereotypes. Moroccan women, whether lawyers, entrepreneurs, teachers, artists, workers, artisans, or stay-at-home mothers, lead every day, in the shadows of essential battles, based on a quiet strength worthy of admiration. Their modernity is an inner, patient, and authentic process that has nothing to envy from imported discourse. Their future lies in their hands and will not be shaped by words uttered here or there just to impress an audience eager for primitive orientalism. Beyond that, this affair broadly reveals the difficulty some Moroccans of the diaspora face to reconcile distance and sensitivity towards their country of origin. This is the bridge needed for dialogue, based on sincere listening and respectful sharing of experiences. Through this misstep, Leïla Slimani showed how a disconnected word can deeply hurt, especially when it comes from one of our own. And if the phrase pronounced by Leïla Slimani only reflected her personal feeling and perhaps a repressed desire for revenge linked to her family past. Her father, the late Othmane Slimani, a prominent economist who was once minister and bank boss, went through a real downfall, accused of malfeasance. He succumbed to lung cancer before the end of the judicial process, having appealed a first ruling condemning him in first instance. It must nevertheless be recognized that it was under his presidency of the Fédération Royale Marocaine de Football that the Moroccan National Football Team won the only African title it holds to this day. That was in 1976. Moroccans have never forgotten this epic and still thank Si Slimani, the selector Mehdi Belmejdoub, coach Mardarescu, and the players of the time led by Ahmed Faras. Madam Slimani, who deserves respect for who she is, must simply understand that Morocco does not ask for lessons, but for genuine understanding and respectful dialogue to support its transformation and the great progress made. Spreading nonsense and ideas that don’t match its history, the values of its citizens, and even less those of its women, does not honor a writer who aspires to make history. Many before her have tried the same path in their quest to be more royalist than the king; none succeeded. Morocco can be left, but it never leaves us, and that is why it must be respected. **Morocco is certainly about good food, good drink, but not about revenge.** This is my response to Leïla Slimani, on behalf of my mother, my grandmother, and all the mothers and grandmothers, if they would allow me...
Aziz Daouda Aziz Daouda

Aziz Daouda

Directeur Technique et du Développement de la Confédération Africaine d'Athlétisme. Passionné du Maroc, passionné d'Afrique. Concerné par ce qui se passe, formulant mon point de vue quand j'en ai un. Humaniste, j'essaye de l'être, humain je veux l'être. Mon histoire est intimement liée à l'athlétisme marocain et mondial. J'ai eu le privilège de participer à la gloire de mon pays .


9300

33.0

Football: When Passion Kills the Game in Impunity and Tolerance.. 448

Football (Soccer for Americans) is first and foremost a matter of emotions. By its very essence, it is an open-air theater where human passions play out in their rawest, most primal form. It generates joy, anger, pride, humiliation, and a sense of belonging. From the stands of Camp Nou to those of the Diego Armando Maradona Stadium, through the fervor of the Mohamed V sport Complex in Casablanca, the vibrant enclosures of Stade Léopold Sédar Senghor in Dakar, or even the Parc des Princes in Paris, the Vélodrome In Marseille, and the Bernabeu In Madrid, football transcends the mere framework of the game to become a total social phenomenon. But this emotional intensity, which makes football's beauty, also constitutes its danger. For without rigorous regulation, it quickly tips into excess, then into violence. Today, it must be acknowledged that the rules exist, but they are too often circumvented, stripped of their substance, or applied with disconcerting leniency. On the pitches as in the stands, excesses are multiplying: insults toward referees, provocations between players, systematic challenges, physical violence, projectile throwing, pitch invasions, xenophobic remarks, racist offenses. What was once the exception is tending to become a tolerated norm. Astonishingly, we are starting to get used to it. Recent examples are telling. In Spain, in stadiums renowned for their football culture, racist chants continue to be belted out without shame, targeting players like Vinícius Júnior. Most recently, it was the Muslim community that was insulted. And yet, Spain's current football prodigy is Muslim. An overheated crowd that has doubtless forgotten it wasn't so long ago that it was Muslim itself. Among those chanting these remarks, and without a doubt, some still carry the genes of that recent past... In Dakar, just a few days ago, clashes escalated, turning a sports celebration into a scene of chaos. In Italy, incidents involving supporters who invaded the pitch, during a friendly match, no less, endangered players and officials, recalling the dark hours of European hooliganism in the 1980s. These episodes are not isolated; they reflect a worrying normalization of violence in and around stadiums. Even at the highest level of African football, behavioral excesses are becoming problematic. The 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final left a bitter taste. What should have been a moment of celebration for continental football was marred by behaviors contrary to sporting ethics. Pressures on refereeing, excessive challenges, and game interruptions have become commonplace. When a coach manipulates a match's rhythm to influence a refereeing decision, it is no longer strategy but a challenge to the very foundations of the sport. Despite international outrage, the sanctions imposed on teams, clubs, or players involved remain often symbolic, insufficient to eradicate these behaviors. A very surprising phenomenon: rarely have clubs or federations clearly distanced themselves from such crowds. They accommodate them, and when they condemn them, it is half-heartedly, in a muffled, timid tone with no effect. The problem is twofold. On one hand, disciplinary regulations exist but lack firmness. On the other, their application suffers from a lack of consistency and political courage. Bodies like FIFA, continental confederations, and national federations hesitate to impose truly dissuasive sanctions such as point deductions, prolonged closed-door matches, competition exclusions, or even administrative relegations. Yet without fear of sanction, the rule loses all effectiveness. It suffices to compare with other sports to measure the gap. In rugby, for example, respect for the referee is a cardinal value. The slightest challenge is immediately sanctioned. In athletics, a false start leads to immediate disqualification, no discussion. Football, meanwhile, still tolerates too many behaviors that should be unacceptable. This permissiveness has a cost. It undermines football's image, discourages some families from attending stadiums, and endangers the safety of the game's actors. More gravely, it paves the way for future tragedies. History has already taught us, through catastrophes like the Heysel Stadium disaster, that violence in stadiums can have tragic consequences. It is therefore urgent to react. Regulating football does not mean killing its soul, but rather preserving it. It is not about extinguishing passions, but channeling them. This requires strong measures, exemplary sanctions against offending clubs and players, accountability for national federations, increased use of technology to identify troublemakers, and above all, a clear political will from national and international governing bodies. Football cannot continue to be this "market of emotion" left to its own devices. For by tolerating the intolerable, it risks losing what makes its greatness and its ability to unite rather than divide. If FIFA does not decide to act firmly, the danger is real: that of seeing football sink into a spiral where violence triumphs over the game, and where, one day, tragedies exceed the mere framework of sport. The long-awaited decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in the 2025 AFCON final case should confirm rigor and integrity in the application of rules, at least at this level, thereby strengthening the credibility of the pan-African competition and football in general.

April 2026 or the Certain Confirmation of the Moroccan Victory... 645

We are entering a decisive month of April. The international dynamic is shifting even further in Morocco's favor on the Sahara issue. April once again promises to be a pivotal moment in the international handling of the Moroccan Sahara question. This structuring diplomatic ritual corresponds to the presentation of the annual report by the UN Secretary-General's Personal Envoy to the Security Council. But this year, the context is profoundly different. The lines have shifted, balances have been redrawn, and a new dynamic is taking hold, clearly favorable to Morocco, a logical follow-up to the adoption of Resolution 2797, with strong structuring potential. The adoption of this resolution marks an essential milestone. It goes beyond simply renewing the existing framework. It consolidates a political direction initiated over several years, by enshrining the preeminence of a realistic, pragmatic, and sustainable political solution, centered exclusively on the Moroccan autonomy initiative. This resolution fits into a strategic continuity that progressively marginalizes unrealistic options, those that long relied on outdated or inapplicable references in the current geopolitical context. It also increases pressure on the parties to engage in a credible political process under the exclusive auspices of the United Nations, but in reality under strong American pressure. The United States has directly engaged in favor of the Kingdom, with the return of roundtables in Madrid and then Washington as key pivots. These meetings have confirmed a diplomatic reality that is now hard to contest. The format of the gatherings, including Morocco, Mauritania, the Polisario Front, and Algeria despite itself, is the only relevant framework for progress. It implicitly enshrines Algeria's central role, long eager to present itself as a mere observer. Its active participation, even forced, places it at the heart of the dispute, profoundly altering the reading of the conflict and redistributing political responsibilities. Madrid and Washington are not insignificant venues. They reflect the growing involvement of Western powers in seeking a resolution, with increasing convergence around the Moroccan proposal. One of the expected developments this month concerns the future of MINURSO. The time has come to redefine the mission. From its inception, it has never fulfilled the role for which it was established. A major evolution is likely emerging in support of implementing autonomy in the southern provinces within the framework of the Kingdom's sovereignty. Long confined to monitoring the ceasefire, the mission will see its name change and its mandate evolve to adapt to on-the-ground realities and the demands of a renewed political process. Such a change would be highly significant. It would mark the end of UN inertia and reflect the international community's will to move from managing the status quo to an active and definitive resolution logic. Much to the dismay of those who, for 50 years, have done everything to perpetuate the conflict through their proxy; the latter is increasingly suffering from the shifting landscape. Washington has toughened its tone and put the Polisario in its sights. Algeria is evidently feeling the effects. The introduction in the US Congress of a proposal to designate the Polisario as a terrorist organization represents a potentially major turning point. If successful, such a designation would have considerable political, financial, and diplomatic consequences. It would further isolate the movement, weaken its supporters, and reshape the balance of power. Above all, it would reinforce the security reading of the dossier, in a Sahel-Saharan context marked by rising transnational threats. This adds to a Security Council increasingly aligned with the Moroccan position. The Council's current composition clearly leans in favor of Moroccan positions. Several influential members explicitly or implicitly support the autonomy initiative, seen as the most serious and credible basis for settlement. This shift is no accident. It results from active, coherent, and consistent Moroccan diplomacy, which has successfully embedded the Sahara issue within logics of regional stability, counter-terrorism, and economic development. Algeria, for its part, faces its contradictions. In this context, the Algerian regime appears increasingly beleaguered. Its positioning, long structured around ideological rhetoric and systematic opposition to Morocco, now seems out of step with international system evolutions. Algiers' relative diplomatic isolation, including in its Sahelian environment, contrasts with its regional ambitions. Internally, economic and social challenges exacerbate tensions in a country with considerable resources but unevenly distributed benefits. Algerian populations suffer from much injustice and lack the essentials. The Sahara issue, instrumentalized for decades as a lever for foreign policy and internal cohesion, thus reveals the limits of a politically exhausted model. The trend thus confirms a historic turning point depriving the Algerian regime of its artificial political rent. All elements converge toward one conclusion: April 2026 could mark a decisive step in the evolution of the Moroccan Sahara dossier. Without prejudging an immediate outcome, current dynamics are progressively narrowing the space for blocking positions. More than ever, resolving this conflict seems to hinge on recognizing geopolitical realities and adhering to a pragmatic political solution. In this perspective, Morocco appears in a position of strength, bolstered by growing legitimacy and increasingly assertive international support. The question remains whether other actors, particularly Algeria, will adapt to this new reality or choose to oppose it at the risk of greater isolation in a world where balances of power evolve rapidly. There will undoubtedly be a before and after April 2026, and above all, the consolidation of a Moroccan position oriented toward further development of the southern provinces. The Security Council's output is awaited in this direction.