High-ranking American official receives Polisario Front delegation… Emergency in Morocco! Copy link

Algeria Gate: New information published on September 29th, 2026, by Algeria Gate and confirmed by the Italian daily Il Foglio reports a discreet meeting in Abu Dhabi between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saddam Haftar, son of Khalifa Haftar and number two of the Libyan eastern forces.

According to Algeria Gate, several official flights from countries in the region converged on Al Bateen Airport in Abu Dhabi at the time of Netanyahu’s visit. Among them was an Airbus A319 registered P4-KH5I9, an aircraft presented as being usually used by Saddam Haftar. The plane is said to have landed at 12:40 p.m., about twenty minutes after Netanyahu’s arrival.

Saddam Haftar seeking political support

Il Foglio cites in particular Mohamed Buisier, a former political adviser to Khalifa Haftar, who states that Saddam Haftar met Netanyahu in order to seek political support for his ambitions for the Libyan presidency. The Times of Israel also relayed the information concerning the arrival of Saddam Haftar’s aircraft shortly after that of the Israeli Prime Minister.

The Italian daily also notes the presence, in the same time slot, of flights coming notably from Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, without publicly establishing in the article consulted the identity of all the officials who were on board.

The name of Yassine Mansouri mentioned

According to the information relayed by Algeria Gate, Yassine Mansouri, Director General of the DGED (Moroccan external intelligence), is said to have participated in the meeting on the Moroccan side. This participation is not, however, confirmed by name in the Il Foglio article consulted, which limits itself to noting the arrival of a flight from Morocco. Mansouri’s presence must therefore, at this stage, be presented as information still to be confirmed by other independent sources.

This sequence occurs at a time when Saddam Haftar is multiplying international contacts concerning the political future of Libya.

Il Foglio also states that he is seeking to consolidate his relays in Washington and with other foreign partners.

The Abu Dhabi episode thus fuels questions about the regional dealings surrounding the future of Libyan power and about the role played by the United Arab Emirates in these discreet diplomatic exchanges.

Algeria Gate: Political analyst and international relations expert Ayoub Arfi said that the demand for permanent and equitable African representation on the Security Council, which Algeria has reaffirmed in the highest UN forums, goes beyond being a temporary continental demand and raises a fundamental question about the legitimacy of the structure of the international system itself.

Arfi explained that the Security Council, in its current composition dating back to 1945, still reflects the balance of power that followed the Second World War, at a time when the map of the world has changed radically since then. He considered that the continued absence of Africa from permanent membership constitutes a historical and institutional anomaly that cannot be justified by contemporary political or legal logic.

He stressed that the African demand cannot be regarded as a mere symbolic aspiration, but represents a real stake capable of redrawing the balances of representation within the most important international institution. He pointed out that any modification of the composition of permanent membership would open the door to a deeper review of the decision-making mechanism, including the veto right, which he described as remaining the greatest obstacle to any fundamental reform.

Arfi believes that the African demand, although it appears on the surface to be a representational demand, is in essence a real test of the willingness of the current permanent powers to accept an actual sharing of power within the UN system.

In explaining the reasons for Africa’s continued exclusion from the circle of permanent membership, despite its demographic, geographical, and political weight, Arfi attributed this primarily to a historical legacy that reflects the structure of colonial power on the basis of which the UN system was formulated at its founding, when most African countries were still under occupation and had no voice in shaping the international system.

He added that this founding legacy was not subsequently corrected despite the independence of the continent, due to the resistance of the permanent powers to any real expansion that would affect the balances of their influence within the Council.

The international relations expert pointed to a current political factor consisting of the absence of collective international will on the part of some major parties to carry out genuine reform that touches the core of their privileges. He explained that these parties often content themselves with formally supportive discourse regarding African representation, without translating it into actual initiatives within the corridors of the United Nations.

He noted that the African continent remains one of the regions most linked to the Security Council’s agenda, as the majority of the files listed on its agenda are African files. This highlights, in his view, a clear contradiction: the continent whose crises and conflicts are managed by Council decisions: from peacekeeping operations to sanctions, remains absent from the table where those decisions are made.

Arfi considered that this situation enshrines the logic of “decision without participation” and fundamentally contradicts the principles of representative justice on which any democratic UN institution is supposed to be based.

Regarding the repercussions of Africa obtaining permanent seats with full powers, including the veto right, Arfi explained that this would bring about a qualitative shift in the way African files are handled within the Security Council. Decisions relating to conflicts and peacekeeping operations on the continent would no longer be formulated exclusively according to the calculations of external major powers, but would take into account the African continent’s own vision of crises, based on the principle of “African solutions to African problems.”

He believes that this presence would enhance the chances of finding more sustainable settlements closer to the reality of the peoples concerned, in addition to contributing to the rebalancing of broader files that go beyond the continent, such as issues of disarmament, international economic reform, and climate change.

He clarified that a permanent and effective African presence would enable the continent to defend the interests of the countries of the South in general with a stronger voice and with real powers, instead of being content with the role of “observer” on issues of international peace and security, despite being the party most affected by them.

In this context, Arfi put forward Algeria as a natural and qualified candidate to represent the African continent in the event of the establishment of a permanent seat, based on its accumulated diplomatic record over decades of involvement in peace and security issues, support for liberation movements and paths of decolonization, as well as its current role in mediation and de-escalation in the Sahel and Libya files.

He also pointed to Algeria’s repeated presence as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, considering that it has demonstrated its ability to defend collective African positions with steadfastness and responsibility.

He added that Algeria’s commitment to the principles of sovereignty, non-interference, and the peaceful settlement of disputes gives it, in his estimation, additional credibility as a balanced voice capable of defending the interests of the continent without aligning itself with any international axis, which qualifies it to be among the African voices most agreed upon to assume this historic responsibility.

By Amar Belani, former Algerian Ambassador

Algeria Gate: The interview given by Massad Boulos, senior advisor to US President, Donald Trump, on Arab and African affairs, to France 24 this week was no polite diplomatic exercise. In four clear statements, Washington’s envoy dismantled the triumphalist narrative Morocco has relentlessly pushed for the past year.

First statement: Recognition of a temporary deadlock while Rabat proclaimed victory

“There is, at the moment, no solution that you can see or touch.”

Morocco built its entire communications strategy on a simple fiction: that Security Council Resolution 2797 had settled the Western Sahara question, leaving only the task of collecting the spoils. Boulos’s words cut through that claim. After three rounds of talks, the dossier remains stalled. Reality has overtaken propaganda.

Second statement: The patience that embarrasses those demanding an ultimatum

Boulos is waiting for the Polisario Front’s response. No deadline. No ultimatum.

While Rabat called for a more aggressive American approach and counted on Washington’s impatience to force the pace, the United States has chosen to wait. Moroccan diplomacy’s calculations have been exposed.

Third statement: Algeria praised, not singled out

For years, Rabat has insisted that Algeria is the real obstacle that must be isolated to unblock negotiations. Boulos chose this precise moment to do the opposite. He highlighted a constructive partnership and publicly thanked the Algerian authorities.

Fourth statement: Algeria cannot impose a solution

This is the line that will echo longest in Rabat. Boulos stated clearly that Algeria cannot impose a solution on Western Sahara, yet it can encourage the process—and, according to Washington, it has done so.

This position directly contradicts Morocco’s long-standing attempt to portray Algeria as the principal party to the conflict. Under the United Nations framework, the two parties remain Morocco and the Polisario Front. Algeria and Mauritania are neighboring countries invited to cooperate. Nothing more, nothing less.

What Rabat refuses to see

These four statements deliver a single message: the American administration never handed Morocco a blank cheque.

In its feverish and poorly calculated triumphalism, Morocco treated Resolution 2797 as an accomplished Algerian surrender. The US official has just reminded everyone that it was only a framework for negotiations.

A framework produces no result by itself. An agreement must still be reached, and above all the Polisario Front must give its clear and freely expressed consent. That remains the only condition for a mutually acceptable solution.