Think Forward.

Ghaza: un génocide en direct - partie 2 3291

La haine raciale dont fait montre Israël à l’encontre des Palestiniens en les déshumanisant et en les identifiant à des animaux dangereux ou répugnants, procède du registre du bestial et a précisément pur objectif de banaliser la colonisation et de la rendre plus acceptable aux yeux de l’opinion publique. L’identification d’êtres humains à des animaux ou à des objets fournit la base concrète de la négation d’existence d’un peuple. Par contre, le discours où Israël, se parant des atours de la morale et se posant en victime éternelle a pour effet de légitimer ses politiques et ses actions meurtrières, de justifier ses massacres planifiés et de lobotomiser les esprits : « légitime défense », « droit de se défendre », « droit d’assurer sa sécurité » contre les hordes de terroristes. Ce discours relayé en boucle par les médias de masse inféodés à la machine de propagande de guerre sioniste s’ancre dans les structures mentales et permet à Israël d’engranger un maximum de sympathie. Il lui permet de se donner le « juste » droit de commettre un génocide contre un peuple sans défense avec l’approbation de la communauté internationale. L’offensive du Hamas le 7 octobre 2023 est la résultante prévisible de décennies d’exaspération provoquée par une situation d’asphyxie dans laquelle vit une population de 2,2 millions d’habitants, maintenue en état de siège dans une enclave de 360 km2 et ce, depuis 17 années. Elle est aussi la conséquence des fréquentes provocations et des frappes aériennes des plus destructrices lancées par Israël qui, grace à un formidable arsenal de communication qui lui est acquis, tourne toujours la situation d’agression à son avantage en faisant croire à des attaques commises par Hamas et auxquelles il ne ferait que riposter. Ce samedi 7 octobre 2023 Hamas a effectivement attaqué Israël en causant la mort de 1 300 personnes civiles, et que nous condamnons fermement. Toutefois, vu la situation tragique dans laquelle est maintenue cette population, la résistance contre son occupation est, selon le droit international, tout à fait légitime. Depuis le 7 octobre 2023, sous prétexte de combattre le Hamas, Israël a transformé ce blocus en blocus total et soumis la population à un état de siège complet la privant de tout : nourriture, eau, électricité, matériel médical, médicaments, carburant et la mettant dans une situation pire qu’elle n’était déjà. Les drones armés et les tirs d’artillerie se poursuivent nuit et jour sans arrêt. Les bombes pleuvent dans un continuel déluge faisant des morts et des blessés par milliers. Même les hôpitaux sont délibérément visés et s’écroulent comme un château de sable sous les raids aériens en enfouissant sous leurs gravats des centaines de personnes. Des médecins, des infirmiers, des ambulanciers et des secouristes sont tués à tour de bras. Les corps inertes des enfants tapissent les rues. Les journalistes sont particulièrement la cible de tirs meurtriers, 114 d’entre eux ont été assassinés à ce jour. La troisième plus ancienne église de l’histoire de l’humanité, une église grecque-othodoxe, Saint-Porphyre a été lourdement endommagée par Tsahal par une frappe aérienne le 19 octobre alors que s’y trouvaient réfugiées des familles chrétiennes et musulmanes. Partout un spectacle de grande désolation dans ce cimetière à ciel ouvert devenu depuis une tombe à ciel ouvert. Une folie meurtrière que rien n’arrête. A cela, s’ajoute la contamination de nombreux quartiers par les eaux usées et l’impossibilité de préserver dans des conditions adéquates les corps des victimes qui s’empilent dans les morgues quand ils ne restent pas prisonniers sous les amas de pierres. Situation qui a entraîné une épidémie de maladies infectieuses et la famine chez cette population livrée à elle-même. Pourtant, en vertu de la Quatrième convention de Genève, une puissance coloniale a le devoir dans un contexte de guerre « d’assurer l’approvisionnement de la population en vivres et en médicaments ». Mais Israël ignore cette convention tout comme elle a méprisé les multiples conventions de Genève et résolutions de l’ONU. Depuis 1947, Israël a fait l’objet de plus de 50 résolutions et condamnations qu’il n’a jamais respectées. Jamais aucun autre Etat n’a joui d’une telle d’impunité. Une impunité absolue. Nous assistons impuissants depuis plus de trois mois en direct au génocide d’un peuple parce que c’est ainsi qu’il faut l’appeler. Un génocide des plus terribles de l’histoire moderne de par son intensité, soit quelques 355 personnes civiles par jour. Selon le ministère de la Santé de Ghaza, 23 968 personnes ont été tuées et 60 582, blessées (bilan du 14 janvier 2024). Mais forte de sa puissance et de l’appui de ses alliés, Israël œuvre en toute impunité à l’éradication du peuple de Palestine. Et en toute conscience. Ce génocide est « commis dans l’intention de détruire, en tout ou en partie, un groupe national, ethnique, racial ou religieux ». C’est la définition qu’en donne la Convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide de 1948. Et c’est exactement ce qui est en train de se produire sous nos yeux dans la bande de Ghaza. Les multiples agressions contre les pays du Moyen-Orient et ailleurs dans le monde et en l’occurence, celle qui est en train de se perpétrer actuellement à Ghaza, jettent une lumière crue sur l’inefficacité du système du maintien de la paix et de la sécurité des populations en contexte de guerre de même que sur son impuissance face à la toute puissance des Etats membres de l’OTAN. Il est clair, qu’en l’absence de toute instance internatioale pourvue d’un pouvoir autonome, le droit international et notamment le droit international humanitaire ne seront jamais respectés et les populations civiles continueront d’être privées de leurs droits et de subir des massacres voire des génocides. La perpétuation d’une injustice fondamentale commise à l’encontre du peuple de Palestine et l’acharnement sanguinaire d’Israël à faire éterniser le conflit ne feront qu’enliser la situation dans cette région déjà fort sensible et qui évolue au gré d’un rapport de force favorable à Israël. Le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, la Cour Pénale Internationale sont une parodie de protection, un aveu de leur impuissance. Nous attendons avec impatience les résultats de la plainte déposée par l’Afrique du Sud contre Israël pour génocide devant la CPI. Toutefois, si Israël est assuré du soutien indéfectible de ses alliés occidentaux et si les institutions internationales sont dépassées par la toute puissance de ceux-ci, la Palestine elle jouit d’un large mouvement de sympathie et d’un énorme soutien exprimés par les peuples du monde entier et qui au fil du temps, et tout particulièrement présentement avec le génocide qui est commis en direct, prennent de plus en plus conscience de l’injustice auquel face face le peuple de celle-ci depuis presque un siècle. Une nouvelle donne qui ne peut que permettre un espoir.
Bendrisn Bendrisn

Bendrisn


0

0

Football: When Passion Kills the Game in Impunity and Tolerance.. 336

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... 559

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.

Eternal Morocco, Unbreakable Morocco: The Identity That Triumphs Over Exile... 836

There are affiliations that geography dissolves over time, and others that it strengthens as distance sets in. The Moroccan experience undoubtedly falls into the second category. Across generations, sometimes up to the third or fourth, a phenomenon intrigues. Women and men born far from Morocco continue to recognize themselves in it, to feel attached to it, to project themselves into it. They have left the country or never lived there long-term; they were born far away, but Morocco has never left them. How to explain such persistence? Why does this loyalty cut across social classes, faiths, degrees of religiosity, and even nationalities acquired elsewhere? How is a memory so indelible? How does it withstand the test of time, distance, and new cultural acquisitions, if not through the profound weight of national consciousness? Morocco is not merely a modern state born from 20th-century recompositions. It is an ancient historical construct, shaped by centuries, even millennia, of political and civilizational continuity. Dynasties like the Almoravids, Almohads, Merinids, Saadians, or Alaouites forged a stable political and symbolic space whose permanence transcends apparent ruptures. This historical depth irrigates the collective imagination. It gives Moroccans, including those in the diaspora, the sense of belonging to a history that precedes and surpasses them. Being Moroccan is not just a nationality. It is an inscription in a continuity, a composite identity forged by inclusion. Moroccan identity has been built through sedimentation. It is Amazigh, African, Arab, Andalusian, Hebraic. These are layers that coexist in a singular balance, complementing and interweaving without exclusion. This ancient plurality explains Moroccans' ability to embrace diversity without identity rupture. Thus, a Jewish Moroccan in Europe or a naturalized Muslim elsewhere often shares a common affective reference to Morocco, not out of ignorance of differences, but because they fit into a shared historical and geographical framework. This inclusive identity enables a rarity: remaining deeply Moroccan without renouncing other affiliations, with the monarchy serving as a symbolic thread. In this complex architecture, the monarchy plays a structuring role. Under Mohammed VI, it embodies historical continuity and contemporary stability. For Moroccans abroad, the link to the Throne goes beyond politics. It touches the symbolic and the affective, a dimension fully grasped only by Moroccans. It acts as a fixed point in a shifting world, offering permanence amid changes in language, environment, or citizenship. This transmission occurs invisibly in the family, in rituals. It is not a memory but living, sensitive memories. The diffusion and transfer also manifest in cuisines with ancestral recipes, in music and sounds, in living rooms echoing with Darija, through summers "back home," gestures, intonations, moussems, or hiloulas. Moroccan identity is transmitted less through discourse than through sensory experiences: tastes, smells, rhythms, hospitality. Thus, generations born abroad feel a belonging not formally learned, an active loyalty blending affection and claimed will. The diaspora does not settle for abstract attachment. It acts. Financial transfers, investments, public commitments, and defense of Moroccan positions internationally bear witness. This operational patriotism extends affection into action, a duty to the nation, a Moroccan loyalty. Moroccans may be exiles, but never uprooted. For the Moroccan diaspora, attachment transcends oceans. Even in political, economic, or academic roles abroad, Moroccains carry their country of origin explicitly or implicitly. The otherness of host societies reinforces this identity. The external gaze consolidates this sense of belonging to a culture so distinctive that it crystallizes, is claimed, and magnified. This phenomenon, intense among Moroccans, compels us to name what went without saying in the homeland: a continuity at a distance. Neither frozen nostalgia nor mere inheritance, this relationship is a profound dynamic. Morocco is not just a place; it is the bond that spans generations, adapts without diluting, reminding us that exile does not undo all affiliations. Morocco is in our daily lives, in a perennial, solid, and unyielding memory that defies borders and time.