RichardAzzouz

Protesting against the Moroccan dictator in the White House D.C

War crimes are violations of the laws of war that result in individual criminal responsibility for actions committed by combatants during armed conflicts. These actions include: Intentionally Killing Civilians: Deliberately causing the death of non-combatants. Intentionally Killing Prisoners of War: Targeting and killing captured enemy soldiers who are no longer actively fighting. Torture: Inflicting severe physical or mental suffering on prisoners or civilians. Taking Hostages: Holding individuals captive to gain an advantage. Unnecessarily Destroying Civilian Property: Damaging civilian infrastructure without military necessity. Deception by Perfidy: Using treacherous tactics, such as pretending to surrender and then attacking. Wartime Sexual Violence: Committing sexual crimes against civilians or prisoners. Pillaging: Looting and plundering civilian property. Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing: Attempting to systematically eliminate a particular group. Granting No Quarter Despite Surrender: Refusing to spare lives after an enemy’s surrender. Conscription of Children in the Military: Forcing children into armed conflict. Flouting Legal Distinctions of Proportionality and Military Necessity: Ignoring rules about the use of force. The concept of war crimes emerged from international law, including the Lieber Code during the American Civil War and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. After World War II, the Nuremberg trials established principles of international criminal law, and the Geneva Conventions defined new war crimes. In recent times, international courts have extended these categories to apply to civil wars as wel

A boycott is an act of nonviolent, voluntary abstention from a product, person, organization, or country as an expression of protest. People engage in boycotts for various reasons, including moral, social, political, or environmental concerns. The primary purpose of a boycott is to inflict economic loss on the target or to express moral outrage, often with the aim of compelling the target to change an objectionable behavior1. The term “boycott” originated during the Irish “Land War” in the late 19th century. It was named after Captain Charles Boycott, an agent of an absentee landlord in Ireland. The Irish Land League organized social ostracism against Boycott when he attempted to evict tenants from their land. As a result, local workers stopped working for him, businesses ceased trading with him, and even the postman refused to deliver his mail. The word “boycott” quickly gained prominence and has since been used globally to describe organized isolation as a form of protest1. In summary, a boycott serves as a powerful tool to express dissent, influence change, and hold individuals, companies, or nations accountable for objectionable actions or policies.

A definition of lying: Lying means telling another person something the we believe to be false, with the intention of making the other person believe that this statement is true. According to this definition: There must be another person to which one is telling the lie; The speaker must believe that they are saying something that is not true; There must be an intention to deceive the other person. These are important considerations, because, for example, if the speaker says something that is not true, but they do believe it to be true, then they are not telling a lie. Your friend who thinks that he has been visited by aliens in his sleep last week is not lying to you, if he really believes that the aliens came for him. A little more tricky is the last requirement: The liar must have the intention of making the other person believe that the statement is true. Is a movie about James Bond a lie? Although it depicts events that never happened and the people who made it also knew very well that 007 is fictional, we would not say that the filmmakers are lying to us. This is because we all know that this is a fictional story. The filmmakers do not try to sell it as a documentary of real events. They intend to entertain the audience, not to deceive them into believing that James Bond exists. On the other hand, a “documentary” about aliens that tries to convince the viewer of their existence by faking photographs and dressing up children in aluminium foil does constitute a deception. The aim of the filmmakers in this case is to deceive the viewer. Lying means telling another person something the we believe to be false, with the intention of making the other person believe that this statement is true. Tweet! Lying and deception Deception is a wider concept than lying. To deceive means to cause someone to believe something that the deceiver believes to be false. Deception, as opposed to lying, is not restricted to statements. I can deceive someone by planting fake evidence, for example. Or I can deceive by doing nothing. A real estate agent who knows that the government is planning to build a highway close to a house and does not tell the buyer about it, is deceiving the buyer without actually doing anything. To deceive means to cause someone to believe something that the deceiver believes to be false. Tweet! When is lying permissible? Lying and deception may sometimes be morally permissible. Different moral theories have different opinions on this. Utilitarianism would say that an action is permissible if the sum of the benefit it creates is greater than the sum of harm. Sometimes, lying or deception can be more beneficial than harmful: for example, if you deceive a burglar into believing that your house is protected by installing fake security cameras on the outside, then this is clearly a permissible deception. “White lies” are another permissible form of lie. If you don’t want to visit your colleague this afternoon, you might tell them that you have another appointment, instead of telling them directly that you are bored in their company. In these cases, telling the truth would be more harmful than lying. Kantian ethics (named after philosopher Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804) emphasises that we should always act rationally. This means that we should not choose actions that would become impossible or meaningless if everyone performed them. Lying, in any form and for any purpose, is such an action. Lying only works when everyone generally tends to tell the truth. If all people were lying, then nobody would believe anything they are told, and then lying would make no sense: lying is self-defeating. Also, Kant says that we should treat other people as ends, meaning that we should always consider their wishes and choices and take them seriously, rather than merely using others for our own goals. In the case of the white lie, I would have to consider whether the person I’m lying to would actually prefer to know the truth. It is not entirely clear whether my colleague, whom I don’t want to meet, might prefer to be deceived about whether I like to meet them or not. In the case of the burglar, it seems clear that he would prefer to know the truth about my fake cameras, so that he can go on with his business and break into my house. But there’s a catch: the burglar himself is not treating me as an end in the first place. He is not respecting my wish to not be his victim. Therefore, he is the one who is first violating Kant’s ethics by trying to rob my house. And therefore, I am justified in preventing this immoral action against me. Kant’s Ethics: What is a Categorical Imperative? Recommended for you: Kant’s Ethics: What is a Categorical Imperative? Kant’s ethics is based on the value of one’s motivation and two so-called Categorical Imperatives, or general rules that must apply to every action. For Aristotle’s virtue ethics, lying is clearly not a virtue; honesty is. But things are more complex. Overdoing honesty to the point where it becomes harmful to the honest person as well as to others is not a good course of action either. So Aristotle would not say that I have to tell the burglar that my cameras are fake. All things considered, by deceiving the burglar, I have reached a situation where I am not less virtuous (since protecting oneself from immoral actions is not a lack of virtue), and I also prevented the burglar from doing something bad. In a sense, I have promoted the virtuous choice of the burglar by scaring him off. Whether this would apply to other lies and deception can, according to Aristotle, be judged only separately for each individual case. Aristotelian ethics does not provide general and abstract rules of conduct, but emphasises that the agent will have to evaluate every situation using their best ability, utilising their knowledge, experience and judgement. The overarching goal is always to be a virtuous person, rather than, say, to benefit oneself at the cost of others. For example, I might be poor and not have enough to eat and to feed my child at the same time. So I might give the last food I have to my child. If the child asks me if I am not hungry myself, I might lie and say that I have already eaten. In this case, my lie is an expression of a virtuous and noble state of mind and virtue ethics would probably not object to it.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group. The term was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin. It is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) of 1948 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group's conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[1] The preamble to the CPPCG states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world", and it also states that "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity."[1] Definitions of genocide See also: Genocide definitions The debate continues over what legally constitutes genocide. One definition is any conflict that the International Criminal Court has so designated. Mohammed Hassan Kakar argues that the definition should include political groups or any group so defined by the perpetrator.[2] He prefers the definition from Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn, which defines genocide as "a form of one-sided mass killing in which a state or other authority intends to destroy a group so defined by the perpetrator."[3] In literature, some scholars have popularly emphasized the role that the Soviet Union played in excluding political groups from the international definition of genocide, which is contained in the Genocide Convention of 1948,[4] and in particular they have written that Joseph Stalin may have feared greater international scrutiny of the political killings that occurred in the country, such as the Great Purge;[5] however, this claim is not supported by evidence. The Soviet view was shared and supported by many diverse countries, and they were also in line with Raphael Lemkin's original conception,[a] and it was originally promoted by the World Jewish Congress.[7] Genocides before World War I Main article: Genocides in history (before World War I) Analysis of genocides before World War I is the result of modern studies that apply objectivity and fact, while previous accounts of genocides mostly aimed to emphasize one's own superiority. According to Frank Chalk, Helen Fein, and Kurt Jonassohn, if a dominant group of people had little in common with a marginalized group of people, it was easy for the dominant group to define the marginalized group as a subhuman group; the marginalized group might be labeled a threat that must be eliminated.[8] While the concept of genocide was formulated by Lemkin in the mid-20th century, the expansion of various European colonial powers, such as the British and the Spanish Empires, and the subsequent establishment of colonies on indigenous territory frequently involved acts of genocidal violence against indigenous groups in the Americas (including Brazil, Paraguay, and the United States), Australia, Africa, and Asia.[9] According to Lemkin, colonization was in itself "intrinsically genocidal", and he saw this genocide as a two-stage process, the first being the destruction of the indigenous population's way of life. In the second stage, the newcomers impose their way of life on the indigenous group.[10][11] According to David Maybury-Lewis, imperial and colonial forms of genocide are enacted in two main ways, either through the deliberate clearing of territories of their original inhabitants to make them exploitable for purposes of resource extraction or colonial settlements, or through enlisting indigenous peoples as forced laborers in colonialist or imperialist projects of resource extraction.[12] The designation of specific events as genocidal is often controversial.[13] During the 17th century Beaver Wars, the Iroquois destroyed several large tribal confederacies, including the Mohicans, Huron, Neutral, Erie, Susquehannock, and northern Algonquins, with the extreme brutality and exterminatory nature of the mode of warfare practised by the Iroquois causing some historians to label these events as acts of genocide.[14] Genocides from World War I through World War II Main article: Genocides in history (World War I through World War II) In 1915, one year after the outbreak of World War I, the concept of crimes against humanity was introduced into international relations for the first time, when the Allies of World War I sent a letter to the government of the Ottoman Empire, a member of the Central Powers, to protest against the late Ottoman genocides that were taking place within the empire, among them, the Armenian genocide, the Assyrian genocide, the Greek genocide, and the Great Famine of Mount Lebanon.[15] The Holocaust, the Nazi genocide of six million European Jews from 1941 to 1945 during the Second World War,[16][17] is the most studied genocide,[18] and it is also a prototype of genocide;[19] one of the most controversial questions among comparative scholars is the question of the Holocaust's uniqueness, which led to the Historikerstreit in West Germany during the 1980s,[20] and whether there exist historical parallels, which critics believe trivializes it.[21] It is considered to be the "worst case" paradigm of genocide.[22] Genocide studies started as a side academic field of Holocaust studies, whose researchers associated genocide with the Holocaust and believed that Raphael Lemkin's definition of genocide was too broad.[19] In 1985, the United Nations' (UN) Whitaker Report cited the massacre of 100,000 to 250,000 Jews in more than 2,000 pogroms which occurred as part of the White Terror during the Russian Civil War as an act of genocide; it also suggested that consideration should be given to ecocide, ethnocide, and cultural genocide.[23] Genocides from 1946 through 1999 Main article: Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) The Genocide Convention was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951. After the necessary twenty countries became parties to the convention, it came into force as international law on 12 January 1951;[24] however, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council were parties to the treaty, which caused the Convention to languish for over four decades.[25] During the Cold War era, mass atrocities were committed by anti-communist/capitalist regimes,[26][27] as well as by communist regimes,[28] among them the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, the 1971 Bangladesh genocide, the Cambodian genocide, the 1984 Sikh genocide, the Guatemalan genocide and the East Timor genocide.[29] The Rwandan genocide gave an extra impetus to genocide studies in the 1990s.[30] Genocides after 2000 Main article: Genocides in history (21st century) Skulls of victims of the Rwandan genocide In The Guardian, David Alton, Helen Clark, and Michael Lapsley wrote that the reasons for the Rwandan genocide and crimes such as the Bosnian genocide of the Yugoslav Wars had been analyzed in-depth, and they also stated that genocide prevention had been extensively discussed. They described the analyses as producing "reams of paper [that] were dedicated to analyzing the past and pledging to heed warning signs and prevent genocide."[31] A group of 34 non-governmental organizations and 31 individuals, calling themselves African Citizens, referred to the Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide report prepared by a panel headed by former Botswana president Quett Masire for the Organisation of African Unity, which later became the African Union.[32] African Citizens highlighted the sentences, commenting: "Indisputably, the most important truth that emerges from our investigation is that the Rwandan genocide could have been prevented by those in the international community who had the position and means to do so. ... The world failed Rwanda. ... [The United Nations] simply did not care enough about Rwanda to intervene appropriately."[33] Chidi Odinkalu, former head of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria, was among those involved with African Citizens.[34] The ongoing Amhara genocide started in the early 1990s with the implementation of ethnic federalism under the TPLF-led ruling, and events of the Northern Ethiopia war (Tigray conflict) since 2020 that intensified the violence further with war crimes committed by the Tigray forces in both the Amhara & Afar regions. On 20 November 2021, Genocide Watch called for genocide in Ethiopia, predicted in the context of the war in Tigray and also the violence across the Oromia, and the Benishangul-Gumuz (Metekel) regions that worsened since 2018.[35] On 21 November, Odinkalu called for genocide prevention, stating: "We need to focus on an urgent programme of Genocide Prevention advocacy on Ethiopia NOW. It may be too late in 2 weeks, guys."[34] On 26 November, African Citizens and Alton, Clark, and Lapsley also called for the predicted genocide to be prevented.[31][33] The Rohingya genocide is an ongoing genocide of the Muslim Rohingya people consisting of arson, rape, ethnic cleansing, and infanticide by the Burmese military. The genocide has so far consisted of two phases so: the first was a military crackdown that occurred from October 2016 to January 2017, and the second has been occurring since August 2017.[36][37] The Chinese government has engaged in a series of human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang.[38] Legislatures in several countries, including Canada,[39] the United Kingdom,[40] and France,[41] have passed non-binding motions describing China's actions as genocide. The United States officially denounced China's treatment of Uyghurs as a genocide.[42] International prosecution Ad hoc tribunals In 1951, only two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) were parties to the convention, namely France and the Republic of China. The treaty was ratified by the Soviet Union in 1954, the United Kingdom in 1970, the People's Republic of China in 1983 (having replaced the Taiwan-based Republic of China on the UNSC in 1971), and the United States in 1988.[43] In the 1990s, the international law on the crime of genocide began to be enforced.[25] Bosnia and Herzegovina See also: Bosnian genocide and Srebrenica massacre Exhumed mass grave of Srebrenica massacre victims in 2007 In July 1995, Serbian forces killed more than 8,000[44][45][46

A representative government is not inherently a tyranny. Let’s delve into the definitions and concepts to understand why: Tyranny: Historically, tyranny referred to a ruler (a “tyrant”) who lacked legitimacy according to the country’s laws or traditions. Such a ruler did not rightfully inherit their position. In modern times, tyranny is characterized by a government led by an authoritative figure who: Is unfit to rule. Rules in a cruel and oppressive manner. Tyranny often involves infringing upon citizens’ rights and controlling them through fear1. Representative Government: A representative government, such as a democracy, allows citizens to elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf. In the United States, for example, citizens elect officials to represent their interests in government institutions. Representative democracy is constitutional because it operates within the framework of the supreme law (the Constitution) to protect the rights of all people2. Balancing Power: To avoid tyranny, it’s crucial to implement a system of checks and balances. In such a system: Each branch of government keeps the others in check. No single branch wields excessive power. This prevents any one person or group from abusing authority at the expense of citizens. Resistance to Tyranny: People have a right to resist tyranny. This can take the form of: Revolution: Overthrowing a tyrannical government. Historical Examples: The French and American Revolutions were motivated by resistance to tyranny. In summary, a representative government can be constitutional and protective of citizens’ rights, as long as it maintains a balance of power and avoids oppressive rule132.

What is Deception in Psychology? A general definition of deception in psychology is the act of misleading research participants about an experiment's purpose, conditions, or procedures or otherwise manipulating an experiment to control the behavior of the participants with the goal of producing better research results. A person There are two basic reasons that deception might be used in psychological research. Primarily, deception allows researchers to observe the genuine reactions of participants. Participants who have knowledge of the purpose or expected results of an experiment are more likely to act in a way that favors the expected result. Using deception allows researchers to keep participants from understanding the actual purpose of the experiment, which prevents participants from changing their behavior based on their perceptions of the experiment's purpose. A secondary purpose for using deception is to artificially create circumstances or situations that are difficult to study in the real world. If a research team wanted to learn more about the behavior of bystanders who film strangers in distressing situations rather than attempting to help, the researchers may create a fictional situation in order to observe behavior and interview bystanders. A few well-known cases of deception in psychological research are:

The Corrupt criminal clergy.

Silence complicity is a term that refers to the moral responsibility to speak up against human rights abuses or other forms of injustice12. Silence complicity implies that failing to voice one's opposition or dissent is equivalent to agreeing or supporting the wrongdoing23. Silence complicity can apply to individuals or corporations that have the power or influence to put pressure on the perpetrators or protect the victims12.

The prosecuted impoverished abused Berbers of the Rif, Atlas Mountains Moroccans under a Zionist dictatorship deception. The pretending Saints, holy and Divine Jews. Dar al Mahraz, et La Lej Families, passing for Alaouites. The French Jacobite agents, and Zionists collaborators war crimes accomplices

We are living in dark ages as the media, and governments are concerned! Human rights, justice, equality, civility, are the things of the past if we don't pay attention, we will be stripped out of our humanity sooner than you may think!

The prosecuted impoverished abused Berbers of the Rif, Atlas Mountains Moroccans under a Zionist dictatorship deception. The pretending Saints, holy and Divine Jews. Dar al Mahraz, et La Lej Families, passing for Alaouites. The French Jacobite agents, and Zionists collaborators war crimes accomplices

ETHICS AND MORALITY The Tyrant's Handbook We must learn to recognize a tyrant's easy and alluring bag of tricks. KEY POINTS Becoming a tyrannical jerk is easy since arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. To become a tyrant in any context, however local or global, part-time or full-time, people simply pose as heroic no matter what. Tyrants demand that other people attend to the meaning of their words, though they ignore their meanings focused only on connotations. Tyrants are deliberately tone deaf to criticism because they translate all responses to them into evidence of their heroism. You may be surprised to learn that becoming a tyrant is simple. You don’t have to learn new skills; you just have to remove your conscience and you don’t have to do it all at once. No lobotomy required. Once you start becoming a tyrant, your self-awareness, conscience, and powers of reasoning will atrophy and disappear. They’ll no longer be necessary. In fact, they’ll only get in the way. Arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. You’ll have to pretend that you have more self-awareness, conscience, and rationality than everyone else. Don’t worry. Your posture will be a substitute for having them. Being a tyrant is fun and easy so long as people let you get away with it, which many will—if you do it right. Here’s all there is to it. Raise the loudest false alarms. Since desperate times call for desperate measures, declare holy ware and you can get away with murder. Pretend the world is in crisis and you have to save it. Or to keep it local, pretend that your spouse has become evil and you have to heroically rescue yourself from their treachery. One way or another, turn on all the emergency alarms you can imagine. People will back away at the sound of your siren, and your siren will help drown out your conscience. Fake objectivity. Talk like you know for certain and everyone else is just guessing (wrongly): Flatly assume that your rivals are biased. Only you see clearly, objectively. The writing on the wall can only be interpreted one way—your way. Everyone else is delusional. Even if your interpretation is a desperate lie, remember that anything’s possible. Your interpretation could still be true. Therefore it is true. Spin to the max. Exaggerate your fake crisis. Use superlatives. If you say your rivals are the absolute worst, they can’t say you’re worse. Declare your holy war crisis first and loudest. If they retaliate in kind, you can dismiss them as being defensive, just trying to wriggle out of facing facts. Use loaded terms that make you sound perfect and your rivals sound stupid, evil, biased, and weak. Spin their strengths as weaknesses and your weaknesses as strengths. If they succeed in landing an insult, interpret it as a compliment. If they call you an a**hole, wear it like a badge of honor. No matter what, comb all virtue to you and all vice to anyone who doesn’t align with you. Ignore what words mean. Don’t ever think about what words mean, just whether they sound positive or negative. Everything positive is about you. Everything negative is about your rivals. If you have residues of conscience, this may not come naturally. Don’t worry. Once tyranny becomes a reliable habit you’ll stop thinking. Align with the good name against the bad name. Label yourself with the most popular virtue against the most unpopular vice. You’re a patriot; your rivals are traitors. You’re mindful, your rivals are narcissists. You’re with God; your rivals are with the devil. That way, anyone who challenges your authority is attacking virtue itself. Act heroic no matter what. You must keep up the appearance of invincibility always. Never apologize. You are like a God, eternally right, righteous, and mighty. Even when you’re losing, you’re mighty—the martyr hero who is destined to rise again because you’re right and righteous. Cosplay and method act. Dress and act the part of the hero surrounded by evil stupid fools. No matter what your temperament or lifestyle, you can method-act the part. It’s easy. No matter who you are, there’s some Blockbuster movie hero you can pretend you are if you just stop looking at who you really are. Never look at yourself. Tyrants are mindless swellheads, braindead megaphones, robotic crusaders. They take up the most space but no one is home. They can’t see themselves and they refuse to accept that others see them. So speak like you are the absolute authority on your character. Or let others look at you. Pretend that the biggest sin is personal attacks. Never tolerate anyone calling you on your behavior. You are the authority on yourself and on everyone else too. You get to psychologize others; they don’t get to psychologize you. And why? Because you’re objective about everything including yourself. Your rivals are just biased. Remember, you are the supreme judge. You don’t just get to give the authoritative account of what’s true. You are the unbiased supreme judge presiding over all debates you enter. You get to decide what’s permissible evidence in your court. You get to decide what’s being debated and who wins every debate: you. Shame relentlessly. As the one who declares holy war, you are holy and therefore never have to face consequences. No matter how beastly you act, you remain the moral authority. This is the key to getting away with being a tyrant. So long as your rivals still have consciences, you’ll be able to shame them into backing off and giving you free rein. It's all about who gets to lead. People still burdened by conscience will try to reason with you. They’ll enable you by treating you as though you mean what you say. A tyrant’s power comes from getting to steer the debate. You’ll look like a winner if you’ve got the steering wheel and can lead your rivals to any topic you want. article continues after advertisement If you follow these simple steps, most people will despise you but they won’t be able to beat you, and some people, maybe a lot, will align with you because you’ll appear powerful, indomitable. You’ll beat the folks who care about substance and you’ll win the folks who only follow power. You’ll gain more confidence as you go, and soon you’ll be a clueless total jerk who gets away with murder. You’ll be freed from self-doubt, conscience, and introspection. You’ll have faith that the fates have destined you for greatness. Being a tyrant makes you feel like God, which is much more fun than being human, so long as people let you get away with it.

Sanctions The Security Council can take action to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Sanctions measures, under Article 41, encompass a broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed force. Since 1966, the Security Council has established 31 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the Former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti (2), Angola, Liberia (3), Eritrea/Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire, Iran, Somalia/Eritrea, ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida, Iraq (2), Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Lebanon, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya (2), the Taliban, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali. Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation. Sanctions do not operate, succeed or fail in a vacuum. The measures are most effective at maintaining or restoring international peace and security when applied as part of a comprehensive strategy encompassing peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peacemaking. Contrary to the assumption that sanctions are punitive, many regimes are designed to support governments and regions working towards peaceful transition. The Libyan and Guinea-Bissau sanctions regimes all exemplify this approach. Today, there are 15 ongoing sanctions regimes which focus on supporting political settlement of conflicts, nuclear non-proliferation, and counter-terrorism. Each regime is administered by a sanctions committee chaired by a non-permanent member of the Security Council. There are 11 monitoring groups, teams and panels that support the work of 12 of the 15 sanctions committees. The Council applies sanctions with ever-increasing cognisance of the rights of those targeted. In the 2005 World Summit declaration, the General Assembly called on the Security Council, with the support of the Secretary-General, to ensure that fair and clear procedures are in place for the imposition and lifting of sanctions measures. The establishment of a focal point for de-listing, and the Office of the Ombudsperson to the ISIL (Da'esh) & Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee are examples of this approach in practice.

AIPAC, Explained: The Inside Story of America's Powerful and Divisive pro-Israel Lobby The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has clashed with and cosseted, targeted and championed U.S. presidents and politicians, turning Israel into an increasingly partisan issue. Here's what you need to know about AIPAC, the revered, feared and reviled lobbying and political fundraising group poised to play an oversize role in 2024's elections Share in Twitter Share in WhatsApp Gift this article Send in e-mailSend in e-mail Go to comments Print article Save Save article to reading list Zen Read Ben Samuels Washington Get email notification for articles from Ben Samuels Follow Feb 28, 2024 WASHINGTON – Few people are entirely neutral in their assessment of the work and influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Whether revered, feared or reviled, AIPAC is seen by some as an icon of pro-Israel advocacy – or the bogeyman symbolizing everything that's wrong with America's political lobbying and fundraising scene. But no matter how it's characterized, AIPAC's political evolution over the past three years

ETHICS AND MORALITY The Tyrant's Handbook We must learn to recognize a tyrant's easy and alluring bag of tricks. KEY POINTS Becoming a tyrannical jerk is easy since arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. To become a tyrant in any context, however local or global, part-time or full-time, people simply pose as heroic no matter what. Tyrants demand that other people attend to the meaning of their words, though they ignore their meanings focused only on connotations. Tyrants are deliberately tone deaf to criticism because they translate all responses to them into evidence of their heroism. You may be surprised to learn that becoming a tyrant is simple. You don’t have to learn new skills; you just have to remove your conscience and you don’t have to do it all at once. No lobotomy required. Once you start becoming a tyrant, your self-awareness, conscience, and powers of reasoning will atrophy and disappear. They’ll no longer be necessary. In fact, they’ll only get in the way. Arrogance breeds ignorance and ignorance breeds arrogance. You’ll have to pretend that you have more self-awareness, conscience, and rationality than everyone else. Don’t worry. Your posture will be a substitute for having them. Being a tyrant is fun and easy so long as people let you get away with it, which many will—if you do it right. Here’s all there is to it. Raise the loudest false alarms. Since desperate times call for desperate measures, declare holy ware and you can get away with murder. Pretend the world is in crisis and you have to save it. Or to keep it local, pretend that your spouse has become evil and you have to heroically rescue yourself from their treachery. One way or another, turn on all the emergency alarms you can imagine. People will back away at the sound of your siren, and your siren will help drown out your conscience. Fake objectivity. Talk like you know for certain and everyone else is just guessing (wrongly): Flatly assume that your rivals are biased. Only you see clearly, objectively. The writing on the wall can only be interpreted one way—your way. Everyone else is delusional. Even if your interpretation is a desperate lie, remember that anything’s possible. Your interpretation could still be true. Therefore it is true. Spin to the max. Exaggerate your fake crisis. Use superlatives. If you say your rivals are the absolute worst, they can’t say you’re worse. Declare your holy war crisis first and loudest. If they retaliate in kind, you can dismiss them as being defensive, just trying to wriggle out of facing facts. Use loaded terms that make you sound perfect and your rivals sound stupid, evil, biased, and weak. Spin their strengths as weaknesses and your weaknesses as strengths. If they succeed in landing an insult, interpret it as a compliment. If they call you an a**hole, wear it like a badge of honor. No matter what, comb all virtue to you and all vice to anyone who doesn’t align with you. Ignore what words mean. Don’t ever think about what words mean, just whether they sound positive or negative. Everything positive is about you. Everything negative is about your rivals. If you have residues of conscience, this may not come naturally. Don’t worry. Once tyranny becomes a reliable habit you’ll stop thinking. Align with the good name against the bad name. Label yourself with the most popular virtue against the most unpopular vice. You’re a patriot; your rivals are traitors. You’re mindful, your rivals are narcissists. You’re with God; your rivals are with the devil. That way, anyone who challenges your authority is attacking virtue itself. Act heroic no matter what. You must keep up the appearance of invincibility always. Never apologize. You are like a God, eternally right, righteous, and mighty. Even when you’re losing, you’re mighty—the martyr hero who is destined to rise again because you’re right and righteous. Cosplay and method act. Dress and act the part of the hero surrounded by evil stupid fools. No matter what your temperament or lifestyle, you can method-act the part. It’s easy. No matter who you are, there’s some Blockbuster movie hero you can pretend you are if you just stop looking at who you really are. Never look at yourself. Tyrants are mindless swellheads, braindead megaphones, robotic crusaders. They take up the most space but no one is home. They can’t see themselves and they refuse to accept that others see them. So speak like you are the absolute authority on your character. Or let others look at you. Pretend that the biggest sin is personal attacks. Never tolerate anyone calling you on your behavior. You are the authority on yourself and on everyone else too. You get to psychologize others; they don’t get to psychologize you. And why? Because you’re objective about everything including yourself. Your rivals are just biased. Remember, you are the supreme judge. You don’t just get to give the authoritative account of what’s true. You are the unbiased supreme judge presiding over all debates you enter. You get to decide what’s permissible evidence in your court. You get to decide what’s being debated and who wins every debate: you. Shame relentlessly. As the one who declares holy war, you are holy and therefore never have to face consequences. No matter how beastly you act, you remain the moral authority. This is the key to getting away with being a tyrant. So long as your rivals still have consciences, you’ll be able to shame them into backing off and giving you free rein. It's all about who gets to lead. People still burdened by conscience will try to reason with you. They’ll enable you by treating you as though you mean what you say. A tyrant’s power comes from getting to steer the debate. You’ll look like a winner if you’ve got the steering wheel and can lead your rivals to any topic you want. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jerkology/202109/the-tyrants-handbook

Human Rights advocate.

The French presence in Africa dates to the 17th century, but the main period of colonial expansion came in the 19th century with the invasion of Ottoman Algiers in 1830, conquests in West and Equatorial Africa during the so-called scramble for Africa and the establishment of protectorates in Tunisia and Morocco in the decades before the First World War. To these were added parts of German Togo and Cameroon, assigned to France as League of Nations mandates after the war. By 1930, French colonial Africa encompassed the vast confederations of French West Africa (AOF, f. 1895) and French Equatorial Africa (AEF, f. 1905), the western Maghreb, the Indian Ocean islands of Madagascar, Réunion, and the Comoros, and Djibouti in the Horn of Africa. Within this African empire, territories in sub-Saharan Africa were treated primarily as colonies of exploitation, while a settler colonial model guided colonization efforts in the Maghreb, although only Algeria drew many European immigrants. Throughout Africa, French rule was characterized by sharp contradictions between a rhetorical commitment to the “civilization” of indigenous people through cultural, political, and economic reform, and the harsh realities of violent conquest, economic exploitation, legal inequality, and sociocultural disruption. At the same time, French domination was never as complete as the solid blue swathes on maps of “Greater France” would suggest. As in all empires, colonized people throughout French Africa developed strategies to resist or evade French authority, subvert or co-opt the so-called civilizing mission, and cope with the upheavals of occupation. After the First World War, new and more organized forms of contestation emerged, as Western-educated reformers, nationalists, and trade unions pressed by a variety of means for a more equitable distribution of political and administrative power. Frustrated in the interwar period, these demands for change spurred the process of decolonization after the Second World War. Efforts by French authorities and some African leaders to replace imperial rule with a federal organization failed, and following a 1958 constitutional referendum, almost all French territories in sub-Saharan Africa claimed their independence. In North Africa, Tunisian and Moroccan nationalists were able to force the French to negotiate independence in the 1950s, but decolonization in Algeria, with its million European settlers, came only after a protracted and brutal war (1954–1962) that left deep scars in both postcolonial states. Although formal French rule in Africa had ended by 1962, the ties it forged continue to shape relations between France and its former colonial territories throughout the continent. General Overviews General information on French colonial rule in Africa can be found in works dealing with French imperialism as a whole, in specific regional or national histories, as well as in general and comparative studies of European colonialism in Africa. The books in this section belong to the first two categories. Among histories of French imperialism, Aldrich 1996 is a concise, readable overview of French colonial empire in the 19th and 20th centuries, presented in thematic chapters. In French, the two-volume series Mayer, et al. 1991 and Thobie, et al. 1990 remains the standard, if largely narrative, reference for scholars. Manning 1988 is a good reference in English, focusing only on sub-Saharan Africa and extending into the postcolonial period, while Coquery-Vidrovitch and Goerg 1992 offers a more African perspective on the history of French colonial rule and examines each of the territories of the two federations in sub-Saharan Africa. The essays in Thomas 2011, many concerning Africa, represent more recent scholarly approaches to the mind-sets of those involved in the French colonial endeavor that take account of the tensions between the ideologies and practices of French imperialism, as well as the agency of colonized people in negotiating colonial relationships. Regional approaches to colonial North Africa emphasize environmental, historical, and cultural linkages that transcend colonial and state boundaries, as well as the shared features of French colonial domination across the Maghreb. Rivet 2002 is an excellent synthetic analysis of the consequences of French colonization for North African societies. Katan Bensamoun, et al. 2007 is a more succinct introduction intended for undergraduate students. There are also good histories of the individual French colonies and the nation-states that succeeded them. Bouchène, et al. 2012 presents brief essays by international experts on all aspects of Algeria’s colonial history, offering a useful and accessible overview of current scholarship in the field. Aldrich, Robert. Greater France: A History of French Overseas Expansion. London: Macmillan, 1996. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-24729-5 A readable survey of French empire in the modern period intended as a textbook for undergraduates. Thematic chapters draw on examples from across the French empire, including but not limited to Africa. Bouchène, Abderrahmane, Jean-Pierre Peyroulou, Ouanassa Siari Tengour, and Sylvie Thénault, eds. Histoire de l’Algérie à la période coloniale, 1830–1962. Paris: La Découverte; Algiers: Barzakh, 2012. This collection of short essays intended for a general public offers an excellent introduction to the main themes in Algerian history during the colonial period. Coquery-Vidrovitch, Catherine, and Odile Goerg, eds. L’Afrique occidentale au temps des Français: colonisateurs et colonisés, c. 1860–1960. Paris: La Découverte, 1992. A study of encounters between colonizer and colonized in French West Africa throughout the colonial period, focusing on “history from below.” Following a general analysis of French colonial rule in the AOF, a separate chapter is devoted to each colony. Katan Bensamoun, Yvette, Rama Chalak, and Jacques-Robert Katan. Le Maghreb de l’empire ottoman à la fin de la colonisation française. Paris: Belin, 2007. A succinct, undergraduate-level textbook account of the histories of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco from the 18th century through decolonization, emphasizing economic and cultural history. Manning, Patrick. Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa 1880–1985. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. A general survey of Francophone Africa from 1880 to 1985, focused on political, economic and cultural developments. Offers a brief discussion of several important subjects and basic concepts of this historical period. Useful coverage of the first twenty-five years of independence and thus the continuities and ruptures between the colonial and postcolonial periods. Mayer, Jean, Jean Tarrade, Annie Rey-Goldzeiguer, and Jacques Thobie. Histoire de la France coloniale. Vol. 1, Des origines à 1914. Paris: Armand Colin, 1991. Functioning primarily as a reference work, the first volume of a two-part synthetic account of French colonial expansion and its impact on France by leading French scholars. The second part can be found in Thobie, et al. 1990. Both volumes devote significant attention to North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Volume 1 focuses on the processes of colonization and establishment of colonial administrations. Rivet, Daniel. Le Maghreb à l’épreuve de la colonisation. Paris: Hachette, 2002. A synthetic analysis of the impact of French colonization across the Maghreb, with a useful comparative sensibility and attention to both transformations and continuities. Thobie, Jacques, Gilbert Meynier, Catherine Coquery-Vidrovitch, and Charles-Robert Ageron. Histoire de la France coloniale. Vol. 2, 1914–1990. Paris: Armand Colin, 1990. Continues where Mayer, et al. 1991 left off, examining French colonial rule from the First World War to the era of decolonization. Despite its title, this volume takes the historical narrative only to the demise of the Fourth Republic in 1958. Thomas, Martin, ed. The French Colonial Mind: Mental Maps of Empire and Colonial Encounters. 2 vols. Lincoln: Nebraska University Press, 2011. This wide-ranging collection of essays by international scholars offers students and specialists alike an excellent cross-section of recent research on French colonialism, including in Africa. Volume 1 focuses on cultural encounters, and Volume 2 focuses on colonial violence. back to top Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login. How to Subscribe Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.

Rif War and Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Karim al-Khattabi Flag of the Rif Republic (1921–1926) Sultan Yusef's reign, which lasted from 1912 to 1927, was turbulent and marked with frequent uprisings against Spain and France. The most serious of these was a Berber uprising in the Rif Mountains, led by Abd el-Krim, who managed to establish a republic in the Rif. Though this rebellion began in the Spanish-controlled area in the north, it reached the French-controlled area. A coalition of France and Spain finally defeated the rebels in 1925. To ensure their own safety, the French moved the court from Fez to Rabat, which has served as the capital ever since.[42] Nationalist parties Amid the backlash against the Berber Decree of 16 May 1930, crowds gathered in protest and a national network was established to resist the legislation. Dr. Susan Gilson Miller cites this as the "seedbed out of which the embryonic nationalist movement emerged."[43] In December 1934, a small group of nationalists, members of the newly formed Moroccan Action Committee (كتلة العمل الوطني, Comité d’Action Marocaine – CAM), proposed a Plan of Reforms (برنامج الإصلاحات المغربية) that called for a return to indirect rule as envisaged by the Treaty of Fes, admission of Moroccans to government positions, and establishment of representative councils. The moderate tactics used by the CAM to obtain consideration of reform included petitions, newspaper editorials, and personal appeals to French. World War II Main article: Morocco in World War II During World War II, the badly divided nationalist movement became more cohesive, and informed Moroccans dared to consider the real possibility of political change in the post-war era. The Moroccan Nationalist Movement (الحركة الوطنية المغربية) was emboldened by overtures made by Franklin D. Roosevelt and the United States during the 1943 Anfa Conference during World War II, expressing support for Moroccan independence after the war. Nationalist political parties based their arguments for Moroccan independence on such World War II declarations as the Atlantic Charter.[44] However, the nationalists were disappointed in their belief that the Allied victory in Morocco would pave the way for independence. In January 1944, the Istiqlal Party, which subsequently provided most of the leadership for the nationalist movement, released a manifesto demanding full independence, national reunification, and a democratic constitution.[45] Sultan Muhammad V approved the manifesto before its submission to the French resident general Gabriel Puaux, who answered that no basic change in the protectorate status was being considered.[46] Struggle for independence The innovative fact about Moroccan nationalists is that they globalized the Moroccan question through transnational activism.[47]: 15  This way they created a vibrant and wide global coalition of supporters who advocated their cause. This way they also managed to make their concerns global ones.[47]: 15  Among their active international supporters was Robert E. Rodes who fought actively in the US Congress for gaining support for the Moroccan cause.[47]: 31–34  In the late 1940s and early 1950s, with political and nonviolent efforts proving futile, the Moroccan struggle for independence became increasingly violent, with massacres, bombings, and riots, particularly in the urban and industrial center, Casablanca. Tangier Speech and Casablanca Tirailleurs Massacre Main articles: Tangier Speech and Massacre of April 7, 1947 The Massacre of April 7, 1947 in Casablanca as reported in France-Soir on April 9.[48] In 1947, Sultan Muhammad V planned to deliver a speech in what was then the Tangier International Zone to appeal for his country's independence from colonialism and for its territorial unity.[49] In the days leading up to the sultan's speech, French colonial forces in Casablanca, specifically Senegalese Tirailleurs serving the French colonial empire, carried out a massacre of working class Moroccans. The massacre lasted for about 24 hours from 7–8 April 1947, as the tirailleurs fired randomly into residential buildings in working-class neighborhoods, killing 180 Moroccan civilians. The conflict was instigated in an attempt to sabotage the Sultan's journey to Tangier, though after having returned to Casablanca to comfort the families of the victims, the Sultan then proceeded to Tangier to deliver the historic speech, in the garden of the Mendoubia palace, on 9 April.[50][51] Murder of Farhat Hached Main article: Casablanca Uprisings of 1952 The assassination of the Tunisian labor unionist Farhat Hached by La Main Rouge—the clandestine militant wing of French intelligence—sparked protests in cities around the world and riots in Casablanca from 7–8 December 1952.[52] Approximately 100 people were killed.[53] In the aftermath of the riots, French authorities arrested Abbas Messaadi, who would eventually escape, found the Moroccan Liberation Army, and join the armed resistance in the Rif.[54] Revolution of the King and the People Main article: Revolution of the King and the People Glaoui's attempted coup In 1953, Thami El Glaoui attempted to orchestrate a coup against Sultan Muhammad V with the support of the French protectorate.[55] The 1953 Oujda revolt broke out ten days after his "electoral" campaign passed through the city.[56] Exile of Sultan Muhammad The general sympathy of the sultan for the nationalists had become evident by the end of the war, although he still hoped to see complete independence achieved gradually. By contrast, the residency, supported by French economic interests and vigorously backed by most of the colonists, adamantly refused to consider even reforms short of independence. Official intransigence contributed to increased animosity between the nationalists and the colonists and gradually widened the split between the sultan and the resident general. Muhammad V and his family were transferred to Madagascar in January 1954. His replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa, whose reign was perceived as illegitimate, sparked active opposition to the French protectorate both from nationalists and those who saw the sultan as a religious leader.[57] By 1955, Ben Aarafa was pressured to abdicate. Consequently, Ben Aarafa fled to Tangier where he formally abdicated.[58] The French executed 6 Moroccan nationalists in Casablanca on 4 January 1955.[59] The aggressions between the colonists and the nationalists increased from 19 August – 5 November 1955, and approximately 1,000 people died[59] Facing a united Moroccan demand for the sultan’s return, a rising violence in Morocco, as well as the deteriorating situation in Algeria, Muhammad V returned from exile on 16 November 1955, and declared independence on 18 November 1955. In February 1956 he successfully negotiated with France to enforce the independence of Morocco, and in 1957 took the title of King.[citation needed] 1956 independence In late 1955, Muhammad V successfully negotiated the gradual restoration of Moroccan independence within a framework of French-Moroccan interdependence. Further negotiations for full independence culminated in the French-Moroccan Agreement signed in Paris on 2 March 1956.[60][61] However, provisions in the protocole annexe of the March agreement as well the Cooperation Agreement of 28 May 1956, which stipulated among other things that each country should refrain from adopting policies that were incompatible with the interests of the other, constituted an impediment to full independence, [62] as was the right of France to maintain troops in Morocco during a transitional period of unspecified duration. The outspoken support of the Moroccans and Muhammad V for Algerian independence brought about the rapid collapse of these agreements and the worsening of Franco-Moroccan relations, especially after the Meknès riots of 23-28 November 1956 in the course of which several hundred Moroccans and more than 50 Europeans were killed. [63] From a high of 350,000 in 1955, the number of European settlers dropped to 150,549 in 1963, and 25,343 in 1990.[64] French-ownership of agricultural land was gradually eliminated following the nationalization decrees of 1959, 1963 and 1973.[65] Following unrelenting diplomatic pressure by Morocco, the last French troops were finally withdrawn 1 November 1961.[66] The internationalized city of Tangier was reintegrated with the signing of the Tangier Protocol on 29 October 1956.[67] The abolition of the Spanish protectorate and the recognition of Moroccan independence by Spain were negotiated separately and made final in the Joint Declaration of 7 April 1956.[68] Through these agreements with Spain in 1956 and 1958, Moroccan control over certain Spanish-ruled areas was restored, though attempts to claim other Spanish possessions through military action were less successful. In the months that followed independence, Muhammad V proceeded to build a modern governmental structure under a constitutional monarchy in which the sultan would exercise an active political role. He acted cautiously, having no intention of permitting more radical elements in the nationalist movement to overthrow the established order. He was also intent on preventing the Istiqlal Party from consolidating its control and establishing a one-party state. In August 1957, Muhammad V assumed the title of king. Monetary policy Main article: Moroccan franc The French minted coinage for use in the Protectorate from 1921 until 1956, which continued to circulate until a new currency was introduced. The French minted coins with denomination of francs, which were divided into 100 centimes. This was replaced in 1960 with the reintroduction of the dirham Morocco's current currency. The Algeciras Conference gave concessions to the European bankers, ranging from a newly formed State Bank of Morocco, to issuing banknotes backed by gold, with a 40-year term. The new state bank was to act as Morocco's Central Bank, but with a strict cap on the spending of the Sherifian Empire, with administrators appointed by the national banks that guaranteed the loans: the German Empire, United Kingdom, France and Spain.[69] Repression Hubert Lyautey established the Native Policy Council (Conseil de politique indigène)[70] which oversaw colonial rule in the protectorate.Under the protectorate, Moroccans were prevented from attending large political gatherings.[71] This was because colonial forces deemed they might "hear things beyond their capacity to understand."[71][72] French authorities also forbade Arabic-language newspapers from covering politics, which sparked claims of censorship.[71] Under the French protectorate, entire articles were censored from the Istiqlal Party's Arabic Al-Alam newspaper, which was printed with blocks of missing text.[73] Postal history

Synonyms of karma 1 often capitalized : the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence Each individual is born with karma, the residual from past lives that must be resolved … —Diane Goldner broadly : such a force considered as affecting the events of one's life Claude says, "You reap what you sow." I call this idea karma, that what goes around comes around. —Anthony Walton I figured I needed all the good karma I could get if I was serious about winning Noah's heart. —Robin Palmer

However, in the second part of the nineteenth century, Morocco’s weakness and instability invited European intervention to protect threatened investments and to demand economic concessions. Following the Hispano-Moroccan War of 1859–1860, Spain obtained the recognition by Morocco of its perpetual sovereignty over Ceuta, Melilla and the Chafarinas Islands as well as of the territory of Ifni. The first years of the twentieth century witnessed a rush of diplomatic maneuvering through which the European powers, France in particular, furthered their interests in North Africa.[13] French activity in Morocco began at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1904, the French government was trying to establish a protectorate over Morocco and had managed to sign two bilateral secret agreements with Britain (8 April 1904, see Entente cordiale) and Spain (7 October 1904), which guaranteed the support of the powers in question in this endeavor. That same year, France sponsored the creation of the Moroccan Debt Administration in Tangier. France and Spain secretly partitioned the territory of the sultanate, with Spain receiving concessions in the far north and south of the country.[14] First Moroccan Crisis: March 1905 – May 1906 Main articles: First Moroccan Crisis and Algeciras Conference The First Moroccan Crisis took place owing to the imperial rivalries of the great powers, in this case, between Germany on one side and France, with British support, on the other. Germany took immediate diplomatic action to block the new accord from going into effect, including the dramatic visit of Wilhelm II to Tangier on 31 March 1905. Kaiser Wilhelm tried to get Morocco's support if they went to war with France or Britain, and gave a speech expressing support for Moroccan independence, which amounted to a provocative challenge to French influence in Morocco.[15] In 1906, the Algeciras Conference was held to settle the dispute. Germany accepted an agreement in which France agreed to yield control of the Moroccan police, but otherwise retained effective control of Moroccan political and financial affairs. Although the Algeciras Conference temporarily solved the First Moroccan Crisis it only worsened international tensions between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente.[16] French invasion Main articles: Bombardment of Casablanca (1907), Émile Mauchamp, and French conquest of Morocco The assassination of Emile Mauchamp in Marrakesh, taken casus belli by France 1909 Morocco commemorative medal—distributed to French soldiers that participated in the French invasion of Morocco The French military conquest of Morocco began in the aftermath of Émile Mauchamp's assassination in Marrakesh on 19 March 1907.[17] In the French press, his death was characterized as an "unprovoked and indefensible attack from the barbarous natives of Morocco."[18] Hubert Lyautey seized his death as a pretext to invade Oujda from the east.[18] The French cruiser Gloire in the Bombardment of Casablanca August 1907, printed on a postcard In the summer of 1907, tribes of the Chaouia led a revolt against the application of terms of the 1906 Treaty of Algeciras in Casablanca, killing nine European laborers working on the rail line between the port and a quarry in Roches Noires.[19] The French responded with a naval bombardment of Casablanca from 5–7 August, and went on to occupy and "pacify" Casablanca and the Chaouia plain, marking the beginning of the French invasion from the west.[20][21] Hafidiya Main article: Hafidiya Sultan Abdelaziz did virtually nothing in response to French aggressions and occupation of Oujda and Chaouia. As a result, there was growing pressure for a jihad in defense of Morocco, particularly from Muhammad al-Kattani and the people of Fes. After the southern aristocrats pledged support to the sultan's brother, Abd al-Hafid, the people of Fes also pledged their support, though qualified by an unprecedented Conditional Bay'ah.[22] France supported Abdelaziz and promoted him in their propaganda newspaper Es-Saada (السعادة).[23] After defeating Abdelaziz in battle in 1908, Abd al-Hafid became the recognized leader of Morocco in 1909. Agadir Crisis Main article: Agadir Crisis

Since King Mohammed VI ascended to the throne of Morocco in 1999, Human Rights Watch has documented dozens of convictions of journalists and activists on speech-related charges, in violation of their right to freedom of expression. Such trials continue. Alongside them, authorities have refined a different approach for prominent critics, prosecuting them for nonspeech crimes, such as money laundering, espionage, rape and sexual assault, and even human trafficking. Such serious criminal allegations should be investigated without discrimination, and those responsible should be brought to justice in trials that respect due process and are fair for all parties, Human Rights Watch said. The report assesses whether the trial process in such cases respected international standards governing the right to fair proceedings. In the trials examined, Human Rights Watch found that dissidents, their relatives, or their associates were convicted based either on charges that by their very nature violated internationally recognized human rights or, when the charges were legitimate, on unfair proceedings that violated numerous fair trial guarantees. Procedural problems included pretrial detention without individualized justification, denying defendants access to their case files for protracted periods, rejecting defense motions to hear and cross-examine materially relevant witnesses, and sentencing jailed defendants in their absence after police failed to take them to court. In their aggressive pursuit of dissidents, including on serious charges, the authorities have violated the rights of their acquaintances, partners, families, and even people the authorities allege to be their victims. In one case, a court convicted Afaf Bernani of “defaming the police,” after she accused them of forging a statement in which she appeared to affirm to being sexually assaulted by her former boss, Taoufik Bouachrine, editor of the last critical daily print newspaper in Morocco. Bernani strongly denied ever making such an accusation. Bouachrine was later sentenced to 15 years in prison in 2019 on multiple accounts of sexual assault; Bernani has fled into exile. Investigations by Amnesty International and the Forbidden Stories journalistic consortium found that Moroccan authorities were behind the hacking of the smartphones of several journalists and rights defenders, alongside possibly thousands of other individuals, using the Pegasus spyware, between 2019 and 2021. Once it infects a smartphone, Pegasus grants government-linked parties unfettered access to all the device’s content.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/28/morocco-playbook-mask-worsening-repression

The irony of a dream.

Morocco has faced significant human rights challenges, including allegations of repression, unfair trials, and limitations on freedom of expression. Here are some key points: Freedom of Speech: Several high-profile journalists, activists, and protest leaders have been imprisoned in apparent retaliation for criticizing the ruling monarchy. Independent journalists like Omar Radi, Soulaiman Raissouni, and Taoufik Bouachrine have faced flawed court proceedings and are serving prison sentences. Tactics used by Moroccan authorities include criminal charges related to sexual offenses, unfair trials, and long prison terms. These tactics are part of an “ecosystem of repression” that also involves harassment, surveillance, smear campaigns, and physical intimidation1. Historical Context: During the period known as the “Years of Lead” (from the early 1960s to the late 1980s), Morocco witnessed brutal repression of political dissent and opposition. This repression involved widespread arrests, arbitrary detention, lengthy imprisonment, and even killings of political opponents2. Occupied Western Sahara: The Collective of Saharawi Human Rights Defenders in Western Sahara (CODESA) has documented continuous war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Moroccan occupation against Saharawi civilians3. While Morocco has made progress in some areas, these human rights concerns remain significant and require continued attention and advocacy. 🕊️