Appealing diplomatic ties between Israel and Morocco are another building block for the new Middle East in which people of different faiths and races can live in peace and harmony.
But the agreement, prompted by the formal American recognition of Morocco ‘s claim over Western Sahara, was signed by the North African kingdom in 1975.
Outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump said peace and stability can be achieved when Western Sahara remains part of Morocco and not an independent entity. This represents not only a complete shift in U.S. policy, but has a major impact in any final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Guelmim Regional President Mbarka Bouaida told Ynet this week that the national ambitions of Western Saharans were not comparable to those of Palestinians, but there are similarities between the two.
Both the Western Sahara and the West Bank were occupied by countries wanting to designate them as a disputed region.
Both the Polisario Front of Western Sahara and the Palestine Liberation Organization were recognized by the United Nations as the representatives of their people in the 1970s.
In both territorial conflicts, the Trump administration reversed the long-standing position of the U.S. government based on international norms and principles and backed by international law.
The U.S. is now viewing the resolution of both conflict as the subject of creative thinking and pragmatism.
International law puts its religion in states. He sees the national aspirations of the people as an issue to be resolved within the framework of an independent state. But recent events have shown that the establishment of new nations does not always contribute to regional peace or stability.
Neither Kosovo nor South Sudan could emerge as successful new nations.
East Timor, the newest entity to achieve independence, has failed in its efforts. The violence erupted there in the post-independence period prompted regional powers such as Australia to send troops to the region and question whether independence was the best solution the international community could offer.
Trump’s news last week confirms his recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara challenging the international community about resolving territorial conflict.
There is no longer a focus on the requirement for a resident to withdraw and allow an independent state to be established. The new question to be decided is whether the withdrawal contributes to peace and stability.
Such a shift in the U.S. position could have a major impact on the way it looks at a complete solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Officially, Trump’s Mideast peace plan calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, but if the ultimate goal was not to advance the national aspirations of the Palestinians, what would the White House be like at the time? future see as the right resolution of this conflict?
Such an administration could ensure the withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank to a politically and economically capable independent Palestinian state.
It may also look at the historical example of Israel ‘s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and its takeover by the Hamas terrorist group as a warning that peace and stability are not the sure outcome of Israel’ s withdrawal.
The future of the Mideast in that case would be determined not by a political view but by an economic point of view.
The United States, Trump, will open a consulate in Western Sahara to promote cooperation and economic growth. Trump’s autocratic “treaty of the century” was also based on an economic plan for the Palestinians.
The term chosen by the outgoing president to describe his policy move on Western Sahara – “a just and sustainable solution” – borrowed from the hopes of the international community for its conflict between Israel and Palestine.
These words may not have been chosen by chance.
Solon Solomon is a visiting lecturer at King’s College London and a former employee of the Knesset Law Department