The first Spanish Royal visit to Ceuta is causing too much anger and talk in Morocco , the wound of Morocco is re-opened again and the King of Morocco can't close simply because this time it is about the nation's dignity.
Ceuta and Melilla two Moroccan cities had a meeting with the destiny from 500 years ago to fall under the Portuguese and Spanish occupation . Ceuta was invaded in year 1415 by the Portuguese then in 1518 by the Spanish. Melilla was invaded by the Spanish in year 1497 and so I consider them the oldest occupied Arab land in the Arab world
They are Moroccan territories originally according to history and geography.
Already their problem is unique and difficult because they are I guess from the oldest colonies or occupied territories in the world . The Moroccan people are demanding them to return back to the Moroccan Arabic sovereignty but talking is just simple
I remember that I read reports and saw Arabic documentaries about them , one of them in Nile News "This is channel is promising but it can be better if there were no censorship and it were an independent away from the official TV" , the main problem of Morocco is that these two cities are killing the country economically thanks to their vital location especially Melilla, already Spain does not want to negotiate or even talk about these cities because it considers them a substitute of Gibraltar which the UK refuses to return , it is a closed circle , Spain wants Gibraltar and UK refuses to return it back and Morocco wants Ceuta and Melilla and Spain refuses to return them back .
The Moroccan regime represented in the King and the various governments through all years with my all respect were and are not serious in getting back these two cities , they are using the case when they want something , yes the Moroccan people are serious and I am not suspecting for moment the seriousness of those protests the Moroccan people made on the borders of these cities during Juan Carlos' visit but the regime is not serious , even after the ministry's order to call the Moroccan Ambassador from Madrid.
With my all respect the Spanish-Moroccan relations are very strong , the two royal families are very close friends to each other as if Ceuta and Melilla were actually part from the Spanish territories not originally from the Moroccan territories.
If Morocco really wanted these two cities back, it would act in another way , more active , the case could have reached to the ICJ where Morocco reclaimed these two cities using international laws , history and maps , just like the famous Tuba dispute , the United Nations can investigate the case and the people of the two cities can say their word whether they want to stay under the Spanish flag or the Moroccan flag in a public poll , of course in the case of the poll I expect the result will be in the favour of the Spanish flag and the EU flag , people will not leave democracy and welfare to dictatorship and poverty with my all respect , already these two cities became Africa's haven and gate to the escape from the poor continent to the rich continent of Europe.Morocco did not even it discuss the issue in the Arab league "yes they may reach to nothing but it won't harm to discuss it". "That photographer who took that picture of this old lady is one hell of a Spanish Photographer that wanted to send a direct clear message"
the Moroccan regime is not interested in doing all these steps , only just discussing the issue inside the country , that's it simply because Morocco is facing another challenge,you see Spain is supporting the Moroccan Kingdom in its claim in the western Sahara and Morocco needs this powerful ally in the EU
I think that it is just like the bargain either the western Sahara or the two cities and Morocco has to choose and the mistake is not the Moroccans but their regime does not have a real will to get back these two cities
This is what I think , Countries that want its lands back do not depend on only good shy diplomatic efforts it would use all possible ways whether through Peace or war , in years 1774 ,1921 and 1926 there were attempts to take back these two cities by forces yet they failed , I am not saying that Morocco should go to war against Spain , heavens forbid we are Peaceful people , but I am wondering why the Moroccan kings forgot about there cities all those years and gave up in front of the Spaniards
Anyhow the visit of Juan Carlos and the protests of the Moroccans are good indicators that the people in Morocco still remember that their land is still occupied
You know it is a shame when the King of Morocco heads something called "The Al-Quds" council which supports the return of Jerusalem and does not really do something to return back his own land first , I mean before we as Arab talk about Palestine and Iraq , we should talk about these two cities first , after all Palestine and Iraq are relative young under the occupation compared to Ceuta and Melilla
With all do respect Zeinobia, Iraq comes before Palestine, Melila or even internal policies of Arab countries. In case of Morocco it is just a city- that doesnt undemine th cause, however. But I am just setting priorities straight.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in case of Iraq it is the once most powerful Arab country ( along with Egypt) the capital of the caliphate the guardian of the oldest and most brilliant civilsation on earth( along with Egypt). The bull of the Arabs- the country that was going to tilt th balance in the middle east in 1989 after breaking Iran and pursuing ambitious progress plans, especialy in military industralisation and Nuclear power.
Americans couldn't have stayed for one day in Iraq, hadn't it been for the IRANI death squads and Quds legions engaging in ethnic cleansing of Iraq's Arab shiites and sunnis, scientists, seculars.....etc Thus, they are distracting resitance which have to protect the civilian population
That is not just a matter of dignity and pride for every Arab and Muslim on this earth. IT IS SERIOUS DANGER TO THE FUTURE PROSPECTS OF EGYPT AND ALL ARABS. Our weight has been reduced. Iran's weight has been multiplied by ten since the U.S handed it Iraq on silver plate. Ethiopia is occupying Somalia. Israel has become utterly daring and goes around threatening everybody. And why not? Arabs have become the the punch bowl in this world. Iran is ethnically cleansing Iraqis, oil countries are sleeping.....etc.
I am sure that the (fake) Islamic regime in Iran won't last for long, then Iran and Israel will reforge their alliance which had always proven to be reliable in times of hardship during IRAQ-IRAN WAR and the 6th of october war.
Remeber that there is huge difference between our rejection as Arabs for Israel which is an integral part of Arab perconality that has got nothing to do with politics or regimes.For example, Egypt has had peace with Israel for 30 years, yet the majority of Egyptians don't accept Istael and will never do. In Iran, however, it is the other way around, people has got no problem with Israel, and even if there are problems, they are just temporary- while the government go on harrasing Israel so as to distract attention from its crimes in Iraq, and to gain support from the ill-informed Arab masses, in order to boost its bargaining power with the U.S.
I hope that the wolves will turn against eachother LOL
U.S has turned gainst Iran now, for it seems that Iran wants a bigger share from the cake
What is ironic, is that the alliance has got historical roots, it was Xerxex the Persian the saved the Jews from the Arab Babylonian enslavement of Nabuchadenessar.
Remember Zeinobia
Had tyhe Iraqi project worked, it would have set a new paradigm in the region. But anyway, the definte conclusion is that without a unified strong, ARABIC IRAQ, there is no future for the Palestinian cause , and the whole regoion will be dragged into artficial sectarian and religous struggle engineered by Iran, Israel and the U.S.
we are laready hearing strange things about dividing Arab countries ( even Egypt) - talks about a middle eastern identity identity instead of an Arab. International media is sytematically undermining Arabs, their history and culture which both, are the richest and most important along with westen civilsation in terms of contribution to humanity. Then, Arabs will turn into banana republics dominated , not by the US, BUT BY ISRAEL AND IRAN AND MAYBE EVEN ETHIOPIA ( reflect on what is happening at the Nile sources in Africa).
The right order is Iraq, Plaestine, Sebtah and Melilah.
May Allah save us all
I respect your point of view , but may be if we start from the small cities to return them back then we will be able to return all our lands , with my all respect the view to Ceuta and Melilla as only small cities regardless of what they represent from an ugly old occupation is the reason that make us fail in returning any land what so ever , it does not matter if it is small or big , with my all respect the West of the Arab world does not suffer from the Iraqi problem especially Morocco as suffer economically from these two cities , I think I am speaking in a realistic not a dramatic tune
ReplyDeleteThe return and freedom of Iraq are the in the hands of its people in the first place , do not blame Iran but blame those Iraqis who sold themselves to external forces whether from Americans or Iranians or whoever
by the way I won't turn this debate in to an Arab VS. Iran , because it would a typical Arab act to run away from a fearful truth that An Arab land is occupied since the 15th century !!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Zeinobia,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the great post, and what applies to Ceuta and Mellila applies for Elat, previously Umm El-Rashrash, that is an Egyptian village occupied since 1949, yet they sold to public the legend that 100% of our national soil is returned in the era of that fighter pilot. Regards
Very interesting post, and very interesting last response. So are there any other lands that supposedly belonged to Egypt that was not regained? Can we apply this to the borders of Egypt's western desert and our borders with Sudan, since the two were united? Responses are highly appreciated.
ReplyDelete@Dr.Eyad , the Um Rashrash Eilat is much tricky ,first we did not lose it in 1967 , no one spoke about it since 1949 , and more important this part of our land was taken from us since 1902 , I think by the approval of the Othman Empire and the blessing of the British
ReplyDeletewhen they draw the maps of that part you will be more surprise to know that the Aqaba Gulf was under our control , our full control , of course in 1902 there was no official Jordan yet
I do not think that Egypt would have regained back the control on Um Rashrash if it was included in the Peace treaty , Every country has a limit and seriously Israel will not give up its harbor on the red sea , this is from the political strategic point of view away from what I feel regarding it as an Egyptian land , already I want back the Aqaba Gulf too but we must realistic especially if we are speak about politics and if we are not considering war as an option
@Ayah, the Sudan bords , well do not forget Egypt and Sudan were united for a very long time , so it will be very tricky to know if they took a piece from our land or not because both were one thing for years but in Libya , yes they are parts from the EGyptian land , including one of the rich oil Oases and you will be shocked to know that these Oases sas given to Libya in time of President Nasser , Egypt foolishly did not know that it was on an Oil haven , we still have the maps , but no one is interested
Thanks for your response. It is such a pity that oil rich areas belonging to Egypt to just be given away. Anyway, since it by the consent of both parties, nothing can be done about it. The same would apply to Um Rashrash given the consent of the parties involved I believe. Thanks again for the post and the responses.
ReplyDeleteYou may call Ceuta and Mellila "Arab" lands, but the fact is, they're as Arab as Spain. Frankly, the Imazighen (Amazigh, Berbers) of Morocco feel that the Arabs took Morocco from them in the first place. Arabs were the invaders, not the Spanish.
ReplyDeleteDoes it only matter to you how recent the history is?
@taamarbuuta, Well Some of the Imazighen believe that the Arabs took North Africa starting from Libya from them actually
ReplyDeletebut even if the Arabs took this part of this land still this is not a Spanish Land in the end
By the way I believe in the matter of the Imazighen that it is easy to blame history from 14 centuries than to blame current regimes on the bad conditions in the countries
dear Taamar Buuta
ReplyDeleteyour comment is even more interesting than the post itself
the game of [[who took what from whom, which was belonging to a third party in earlier historical period]] can go forever !!!
this was among the ideas that sedimented the world war 2 itself
for example modern Egypt (Moh'd Ali's Egypt) once reduced the whole Nile Basin, Red Sea Coasts, Eden Gulf Inlets & huge shunk of the Ottoman Ruled Middle east under dirct goverment and/or sphere of influence upto deep Anatolia
of course raising such historical claim sounds hillarious
the scope of Arabic Culture as (Invader) to Nothern Afrika will result nothing but fueling a social collapse in the region,
((can you really defferentiate between Native Arabic, Native Moroccoan, Native Morrocoan speaking arabic or Bilingual???)).
I know that there is unsatisfaction by the current state of denial to the Imazighen language & culture, personally i don't mind to be recognized as official language, but i am egyptian and not moroccoan or algerian to judge
Morocco & Spain are lucky enough that the case is not so pressing to freeze their relations as they have other priorities to sittle.
@aardvark, my dear this is the golden time of playing on the ethnics and minorities game "divide Conquer"
ReplyDeletethe same game is been played in almost every Arabic country in a way or another , for example in Egypt ,the radical Copts and the Egyptian Nationalists are saying the same talk the Arabic invasion
about the Imazighen issue , I guess it is hard now to differentiate between the roots in Morocco that easy and I believe that the recognition of the Language and culture will not harm the Arab identity of Morocco ,do not forget for centuries the two cultures lived together in harmony , laws and discrimination came only in the modern times
very very well
ReplyDeletesomebodies here are playing "the fool" game here
our dear Amre are publishing his nonsense under the thin transparent cover of (Al-Hajjaj), and believing that his style of writing & terminologies used will not expose him, pathetic loser
and our dear Zeinobia is playing fools game giving him a space though she operated the moderator to expell him, not to mention that a link to his facist blog (El-Abyad) is just still there
LOL
The word Arab actually covers Amazig , Pharoahs , Phoenecians and Babylonians . How?
ReplyDeleteAnswer is very simple Arabism is a civilsation a culture that was indeginously developed inside the near east and north africa where culture and peoples have been interacting for 100,000 years. It is the integral sum of of near eastern cultures which had more elemnts in common than hose that existed among different Iranian people[s] Parthians, Achaemenids an Saassanids or chinese provinces where 40 languages existed. Leaving alone India with its 1500 languages 200 religons, and the tremendous racial and ethnic varriation all over India fom he Orth to the South and from thje east to the west..
Here is more elaboration on the origin of Arabism and how the entire middle easst has always ben Arabic for from pre-historic times
The Arab group covers pharoahs, Babylonians, Phoenecians, Syrinacs, Moroccans, Tunisians, ...etc
All together are the ancestors of the relatively newer Pennisula Arabs which were the nowhere land of all the ancient Arabic groups.
check the literature of banished Egyptians into the desert or the histories of the several groups in north western Arabia where they used to speak an ancient form of Arabic which was almost Hieroglypgic....or these of the various mesoptamioan groups pushed to the desert by the action of ammorites ( Northern Arabians later on) invasion, or the Akkadian North Eastern Arabs. In Arabia, prior to the oral poetic history of Arabs, they had only some vague folk tales about pharoahs, somerian and ammorite kingdoms. Bingo!
Pharoanic, Babylonian , Kannanites( the intermmediate link between pennisula Arabs and ancient Egyptian Arabs) all bear considerable resemblance to the more recent Arabic language which is a mix of Egyptian, babylonyan and Aramaic languages.
There are regional varriations, of course, but they are quite trivial within the overarching Arabic framework, especially when compared to the varriations among Iranians, chinese or Indians
In Pharoanic Egypt, for instance- the mummies from pyramid builders era revealed astonishing resemblance to their contemporary Mesoptamian types. Predynastic Egyptian pottery shared many elemnts in common with Somerian one....etc .
Yemen which was the first incubator of what is now known as Arabic is actually a melting point for Egyptians, Mesoptamoans and other semitic groups.
The Indo-European and Persian pressure prevented actualisation of greater Arabia ( the Arab world) which was not the case in China or India.....
Ancient Egypt was made up of numerous semitic settelments at different intervals- one in the pre dynastic era, several in the old kingdom, the modern kingdom ( the Hyksos)..etc The same goes for the parrallel sedentary civilisation- Mesoptamia.
So when I declare the region from Morocco to Iraq as exclusively Arabs, I am actually following the natural course of things because Arabism is the final pot that eventually managed to fuse and contain the mosrt unruly region in the world- inhabited by various mediteranean groups with a gene (v) that is exclusive to the region ( it is common even among Amazigs). Consequantly it is the sole and legitimate hier of the interactive ancient near easter civilisatians. The same way Europe is the hier of Greco-Roaman classics.
and I am sorry anonymous , I do not get what you are trying to say exactly
ReplyDeletecan you please tell me what you trying to say ??
Zeinobia
ReplyDeletewhy you are letting Amre post under the name (Al-Hajjaj)?
@anonymous , how can I be sure that he is Amre , there is no ip check here like wordpress.com where I can know for sure , I can't prevent anyone from commenting only suspecision , and as long as Hajjaj or anyone else did not cross the line I can't tell them not to come if I believe in freedom of expression "of course with limits"
ReplyDelete@Hajjaj with my all respect I won't engage in your wars and i guess I have the full freedom to do who ever I want in my blog roll it is my blog and it is my decision , you only as a visitor can suggest , and your suggestion can be accepted or declined
ReplyDeleteend of discussion
You call Marroco an Arab land??
ReplyDeleteBy that theory southern Spain and Portugal are Arab too (our land was conquered by the Umayyad dynasty at the almost the same time as Marroco land) and then we get "occupied" by the christians kingdoms of the north...
why don´t you claim us as well? :)
Dear Marta with my all respect before 1497 Ceuta and Melilla were under which country control and even before the Portuguese control for Ceuta ??
ReplyDeleteTo which country they belong geographically and historically before 1497 !!!??
Zeinobia,
ReplyDeleteThe al-andalus teritory started to be conquered by the christian kingdoms of the north around 1212 until the last land (Gharnatah/ Granada) was taken in 1492...
This territories are not so apart as you would like to imagine, but I can understand your political and cultural need to see the mediterranian islamic world as an Arab world.
Dear Marta ,I do not see the Islamic world as an Arab world as others may see it
ReplyDeletelet's just agree n something before Tarek Ibn Ziad crossed the sea and said his famous words to his soldiers after burning the boats in the sea to start their invasion ,that part of Land was a part from Morocco , even before the Islam if you consider its spread means the Arabic invasion that part of land was under the Moroccan rule
from here I speak
On the origin of the Amazigs:
ReplyDeleteThe biggest warring Amazig tribe in north Africa-ZANATA which played a significant role in the Fatemid dynasity and in the invasion of sicily and south Italy, and which has got lineage with the Hawara tribes in upper Egypt- claims descnet from yemense tribes that imigrated to the region long before Islam( Homair).
Moreover, amaziges-anthroplogically as well as mythologically- are the descndents of the Kannanites who are the same as the ancient Egyptians and one of the ancestors of the pennisula Arabs.
Many amazigs claim descent from Yemen. So to put the the amazig problem in perspective, remeber that when the Arabs ruled Spain, there were successive conflicts between the "quisyeen and "yamanyeen" or in a different sense, Northern and southern Arabians. The berbers joined the Yamaneyeens( Ka7taneyeen) in their wars gainst the 3dnaneyeen due to the blood relations.
Of course the Islamic world is different from the Arab world.
However, the region from Morocco to Iraq remains Arabic as ARABS ARE THE ONLY REMAINING SEMITC TRIBE.
And those who hate Arabism may very well get themselves a cold drink
Just little correction to what you said ,Ancient Egyptians are not the son of Canan they are not canaanites
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan,read it carefully Egypt only ruled the canaanites but not to the degree that it become one of them
ancient Egyptians are the descedants of Mizraim , watch the name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizraim
both Canaan and Mizraim are the grandson of Noah , the son of Ham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham%2C_son_of_Noah
1) Wikipedia is not a reliablöe source- it is to be taken with a grain of salt. It is never acknowledged as source of scientific knowledge.
ReplyDelete2) the holy book whether old or new testament is a spiritual and religous book full of metaphors. Consequantly, scientic anthropolgy and history are discussed independently of religous narratives
") You are absolutely right Zeinobya, Kannanites were not Egyptians of course, but they were ethnically and culturally very close to Egyptians- they were of the same blood........ And, they are considered among the first wave to have immigrated out of the pennisula in 4000B.C and settled down in Plaestine and Egypt.
The first recorded pennisula Arab civilsation was the " Adomite" one in North western Arabia- those had a tongue very close to to the Egyptian and Kannanite one.
the blood relations and the strong common linguistic and cultural elements among the semotic near eastern peoples in Egypt, Levant , Iraq and the pennisula- which far exceeded those that existed among the savage diferent Iranian peoples who spoke diffeent tongues like Parthians, Achaemenids and Sassanids. Or even the very different Turkic tribes in Anatolia, central asia and white Russia
Arabs are believed to be descendants of Kauravs who were defeated in Mahabharat war. Arab originated from the word Aravasthan meaning the Land of horses. later a MLECHCHHA KNOWN AS MOHAMMED DEGENERATED AND DESTROYED THR arabs.
ReplyDeleteWtf?! Arabs are descendants of Ismael, one of the sons Ibrahim.
DeleteThe cities are not even Arab cities, but Imazighen cities. Same goes for Canary islands. Al these places are Imazighen places.
ReplyDelete