https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_March exactly the same thing as what they tried to pull off in Ceuta last week, and with the support of the US. Since the occupation began, Morocco settled hundreds of thousands of its own people. Not surprising that another settler colonial state, Israel, is Morocco's ally.
There is a lot of simplistic, one-sided information in this thread. Truth is it's a complicated matter to decide how long and how strongly one has to hold a piece of territory before it is considered legitimately theirs. And what about language or cultural differences? Does that change things?
Should the Canaries be Spanish or African? Catalunya? Basque country? Should Gibraltar be British? Sicily Italian? The list goes on and on. In all these cases you will find people who will hold opposing opinions on this.
Moroccans firmly believe Western Sahara to be historically Moroccan. They also believe that Ceuta and Melilla are Moroccan, despite the fact they've been in Iberian hands for 500 years. They are called the colonized cities of Ceuta and Melilla on the TV and Radio.
The Moroccans I spoke to believe the government looked the other way to show displeasure at Spain because a Spanish minister visited Algeria to buy gas and oil. Obviously with the Iran war, Algeria's revenues and importance has grown.
Morocco and Algeria both view a side gaining influence as a zero-sum: if it's good for Morocco it is bad for Algerian interests and vice versa.
Meanwhile if all the north African countries united and built international infrastructure and cooperated like the UAE did, the entire southern Mediterranean coastal region would have been much better off.
One thing is clear: This cold war is a total waste of potential and a socioeconomic poison.
Dakhla is actually pretty tourist-friendly, and spending time there will quickly do away with the notion that nobody lives in Western Sahara. It's well-known for kiteboarding and windsurfing, since it's got pretty consistent wind and surf and a hot-comfortably dry climate. Pretty heavy police presence and you're supporting Moroccan arguable-occupation by heading there, though, so it's a tradeoff.
Dakhla and environs is also known for hundreds of elderly French, Italians, and Germans who spend winters down there in their camping cars. This was already a very developed scene when I first visited Western Sahara in 2007.
A series of enormous sand walls separate the morocco-occupied region from the sahrawi controlled region. These are one of the largest minefields in the world.
It's impressive to look at satellite images of this. Just a huge sand wall, with hundreds and hundreds of military outposts.
In spite of the craziness of the Berm, the funny thing is that the vast majority of foreign travelers passing through have never heard of it. It is out of sight of the Moroccan highway, and obviously something locals won't be talking about.
And related to what happened in Ceuta recently. "The Moroccans orchestrated a similar cross-border influx in 2021 in retaliation for Spain’s allowing Western Sahara President Brahim Ghali, whose nation Morocco claims for itself, into the country for medical treatment." https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ceuta-spain-morocco-...
Thank you! I ran into this a ton in college, and still do sometimes with new (to me) authors. I was confident about what was happening, but it's nice to know it's a documented phenomenon.
I visited the Saharawi refugees camps around 15 years ago or so in the south-west corner of Algeria.
They have been living in a limbo for 50 years at this point, but they still feel like they will be able to go back to their land therefore they don't really settle there (they are also in the middle of a desert). Some people gave up on the idea to return to their land (but still feel temporary), others were really frustrated with the fact nothing moved and you could see this frustration at the annual demo in front of the "Muro de la Verguenza", which is the "wall" erected by the Moroccans with landmines and strongholds along the front line.
It's fascinating. Basically the entire world's phosphate comes from this (it has 70% of the world's proven reserves). No country on earth recognizes Morocco's claims over this Saharawi land. At least they didn't until 2020 when Trump became the first in exchange for Morocco normalizing relations with Israel. The case has been taken to international court multiple times and always ruled against Morocco's claims.
Despite basically the whole world recognizing this unjust occupation, neither the Soviets, the US, Europe, nor China cared to do anything and disrupt this crucial aspect of the global fertilizer industry. The only allies the Saharawi had was Algeria.
Spain changed recently its pro-independent Sahara without a reasonable explanation. It totally feels like a betrayal. Many of us think it was because of pressures of the Americans and the Israelis.
A couple of misconceptions about Western Sahara I've seen pop up over the past few days:
- most (90%) of Morocco's phosphate mining is done in non-disputed territories (it's mentioned in the article). The most disputed resource is actually fish, and to some degree predicted oil reserves.
- Tribal allegiances to the Moroccan crown date back from way before colonial times. Today, part of the Sahrawi population supports Morocco and another part supports independence.
- There are efforts on both sides to bolster their numbers: Moroccans emigrate to the disputed territories, and Polisario brings in migrants to its refugee camps. That's partly why organising a referendum is almost impossible: no-one agrees on who's allowed to vote.
- Morocco and Algeria (/ the Ottomans before Algeria) have been fighting over access to southwards trade for centuries. Geopolitically, the endgame for Algeria is to encircle Morocco.
- Polisario itself is quite antidemocratic. Only two leaders in 50 years of existence, and lots of corruption.
- Morocco's plan is actually of "advanced autonomy", which would let Sahrawis get their own parliament, amongst other things.
- Today, Sahrawis on the Moroccan controlled areas basically enjoy a welfare state with free transport, no VAT, and many other benefits.
All in all, it's far from the colonial story we'd reflexively apply onto this situation. I'm biased as I am Moroccan. In my opinion, Morocco is already a deeply multi cultural country, and we need a stable political environment to unite.
This conflict keeps the North Africa region one of the least economically integrated areas in the world. It prevents us from building sustainable people power against oligarchic and authoritarian powers, who are at least just as bad on the Algeria/Polisario side as they are on the Moroccan side (Algeria and Polisario are military dictatorship, Morocco is a constitutional monarchy, pick your poison).
Calling Morocco a "constitutional monarchy" when it is a hereditary dictatorship with no binding constitution (meaning no greater authority to punish the king for violating the "constitution") discredits all the other points you've made.
Also, there's a difference between undemocratic and antidemocratic. Morocco is antidemocratic, while Polisario is undemocratic. Polisario could be a democracy if it allows its leaders to be elected, but Morocco will never be a democracy since you don't elect kings.
We kinda voted for it, so it's quite binding on the king. We also have elections in a couple of months. The king has clear areas where he's limited, for example that he has to appoint the chief of government from the party that came in first.
In practice though, democracy doesn't seem to work at enacting very long term plans. The current dynasty knows how to balance out the different sources of power within the country (local/tribal, economic, and institutional), and they've done it for several centuries. It helps, in our regions, to have symbols to unite so many people who are so different from each other.
Now, the king and the palace are very rich and benefit from their positions. Institutional insiders rig the game. But elected officials do so the most in Morocco, and elected officials extract from the system in the West as well. It's an oligarchy anyway no matter which side you live on.
But I assume you did not call Algeria a constitutional dictatorship because the Algerian constitution itself isn't really binding. If your constitution doesn't allow for the impeachment of the head of state/government for violations of the constitution, then it is effectively meaningless. That's the difference between a law and a rule, the law is binding while rules aren't.
The US and French constitutions for example clearly outline procedures to impeach the head of the executive, while no such measures exist for the head of the executive in Morocco.
You don't need a constitution to depose leaders, a popular revolution will do the trick. Also, an impeachment clause doesn't prevent fascism. Many supposed democracies see their leaders flout the constitution constantly without consequences.
Constitution aren't truths, they're collective lies we agreed upon. In Morocco, authority is a social contract that is bound by customs, not by a blind belief in the moral superiority of law.
An impeachment clause is only necessary when you believe that government is the ultimate authority. If Moroccans believed that, then yes, your argument about hereditary monarchy would make sense.
That's not the case. No-one believes in authority here; we only accept it. So we know that if the king loses legitimacy, a popular revolution will happen. And the king knows that, so he won't push the buttons too much either.
In constitutional monarchy systems like the UK, the king/queen serves a merely representative and largely symbolic role. Morocco's king actually rules over the country. That is a big difference.
Claiming that Sahrawis benefit from a great welfare state, when their businesses have so often been confiscated and handed over to Moroccan settlers, is appalling.
> Sahrawis on the Moroccan controlled areas basically enjoy a welfare state with free transport, no VAT, and many other benefits.
How is this implemented? Do ethnic Sahrawis get special IDs that entitle them to such benefits? Or do they also apply to Moroccan settlers from the north? And considering that Moroccan provincial boundaries don't align with the borders of Spanish West Africa, where does Western Sahara even begin from the Moroccan point of view?
He never said northerners don't get the same benefit. The contrast was obviously with Sahrawis on the Polisario side, which stay poor and Moroccans outside of the Sahara, which have to pay VAT.
Yes, since he said neither of these things nor the opposite, I decided to take the opportunity to ask instead of assuming. For example, is Guelmim-Oued Noun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guelmim-Oued_Noun inside or outside the sahara for VAT purposes, or does it have a VAT border running straight across it? Such things would be interesting to know.
The investment incentives let the local elites coopt the Moroccan government, while the card buys the assent of lower income Sahrawis. It's caused systemic unemployment, despite Sahrawis GDP per capita being 26% over the national average (The PDF is from an NGO so it gives a relatively unbiased view of the situation)
From the Moroccan perspective, Western Sahara is just the Southern provinces. I'm guessing if you're part of a Sahrawi tribe, you get the card. It's less about where you live.
Also, people who relocate from the refugee camps to Morocco get that card + housing.
From what I understand, it's a secular movement but it's not anti-religion. It's rooted in socialism and Arab nationalism way more so than religion, although I think Islam has 'official religion' status.
Morocco OTOH is a Muslim state, with most laws being secular except for family laws, sexual freedoms, and inheritance. Before Western colonial times, the Moroccan royal dynasty built a lot of its soft power on spreading Morocco-based Sufi orders South, and one of the king's titles is "Commander of Believers", which is how caliphs of the original Muslim caliphate called themselves.
People like that he has this role because it helps keep Islam somewhat out of politics, but it cuts both ways: it's harder for religious conservatives to argue against more liberal laws when the institution (called the "Makhzen") proposes them, but it's even harder for individual liberty advocates to argue for a more progressive society when it goes against the Makhzen's plans.
In action, much of their leadership defected to join ISGS, AQIM, JNIM, and other Islamist groups in the Sahel and Maghreb in the 1990s to 2000s that have put Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger under siege. Adnan al-Sahrawi (POLISARIO turned Islamic State) played a major role in that.
It's a side effect of the Algerian Civil War in the 1990s (Military leadership versus moderate Islamists backed by Morocco versus hardcore Islamists backed by Iran - very very horrible civil war that the Maghreb never recovered from and only exacerbated the Libyan Civil War) and Polisario got pulled into it.
Both Morocco and Algeria have had a multi-decade rivalry over accessing the Atlantic Coast as well as becoming the primary hegemon of the Sahel and Maghreb.
The only winning move for Europe is doubling down support for FRONTEX and staying out of it. Otherwise, you get blowback like in France due to returnees the Algerian Civil War creating jihadist cells in the 1990s to 2010s (remember Charlie Hebdo, the Paris Bombings, and Flight 8969?). The Bosnian War had a similar impact as well. Most European jihadist networks trace their origins to veterans from the Algerian and Bosnian Wars.
As a North African, your inability to respect the right to self determination of a an aggreived minority population has nothing to do with the "economic integration of North Africa".
If you can find the empathy to do so, please reread my post realising that the people under a government are not the government itself. Morocco ≠ Moroccans.
The reality is we're all subjugated. Moroccans, Sahrawis, or Americans. And we're all minorities in Morocco: Sahrawis, Riffis, Chlouh, Doukkali, Chamá-lo, Fassi, Meknessi, Soussi, and I can keep going. The issues people are saying about the Moroccan government's behaviour in the Sahara are just as true in other places in Morocco. And they're just as bad as what any government who's taken by oligarchs does to its population.
"Economic integration" = more trade = more power together.
Your Algerian and he's Moroccan. You're both biased and both your governments are causing headaches for Europe.
They do bad stuff in Sahrawi and you guys do bad stuff in the Sahel.
And then they wonder why Bardella, Le Pen, Zemmour, AfD, and others became mainstream.
Edit: Can't reply
> I don't know why you are bringing Europe into this
Becuase whenever Morocco or Algeria or Tunisia or Libya or whoever gets into a tiff, Europe catches the cold because of bad apples in the diasporas, and that only enables the far right.
The only reason OP even posted this was because discussion about Ceuta has been flagged on HN.
I'm not Algerian and though I am of North African descent I am a US citizen that spent my whole life in the United States and I don't feel anything but embarrassment and contempt for the authoritarian country that my parents immigrated from. I don't know why you are bringing Europe into this.
It's always funny how one side always assumes they're right. But from outsider's perspective, both sides always suck (Palestine and Israel, I'm looking at you).
So, please, stop with the knee-jerk "It's a propaganda!". You don't bring anything to the discussion.
I'm indeed bringing something to the discussion. And I'm not Algerian, or from another imaginary "side".
I'm flagging that every little bit he's uttering in his comment should be fact-checked by a serious, educated reader if it is to be believed, as it's framed as a "casual" catchup on the situation of Western Sahara.
I don't have neither the time nor the interest to fact check, but I know enough to know that much of this perspective he's sharing is wrong, so my comment simply serves as a warning for those that want to take it. If you don't, that's fine.
One of the lesser known criticisms of the recent "Odyssey' film is that parts were shot in the Western Sahara. I believe Emily Wilson herself was critical of this.
I've never quite understood the nature of this criticism. At best I'd describe it as deeply intellectualized tribalism. But I think I'm being a little too kind.
I (in good faith) don’t understand what you don’t understand. Western Sahara is basically a colony so if you’re opposed to colonialism it isn’t super weird to be opposed to making a movie in that colony, paying taxes etc to the colonizers and so on, no?
I drove through, and the map on vehicle showed it as a separate country. Many, many people warned me the military in Morocco would be pissed and likely not let me in.
They seriously do not want people talking about it being a separate country, or occupied or anything like that.
I cut that corner off the map before I went into Morocco, and at more than one checkpoint they looked at it super carefully.
It is interesting that Western Sahara never developed piracy enterprises similar to Somalia. Is it some combination of:
* stronger government control from Morocco than Somalia has had internally
* little indigenous sea-faring populations outside of controllable cities
* sea lanes with less hospitable currents
* something else?
I had never heard of Western Sahara, nor did I know about Morocco's involvement even though I've visited Morocco several times. So I found this very interesting and I learnt something new. Seems to fit here quite well to me.
I find the value of this site to be the people. There are insightful discussions about immigration, visas, law, and other news-adjacent topics that have commenters who engage in a way I have not found elsewhere on the internet. I think this site has more value as a highly thoughtful forum space than a technical discussion space.
Should the Canaries be Spanish or African? Catalunya? Basque country? Should Gibraltar be British? Sicily Italian? The list goes on and on. In all these cases you will find people who will hold opposing opinions on this.
Moroccans firmly believe Western Sahara to be historically Moroccan. They also believe that Ceuta and Melilla are Moroccan, despite the fact they've been in Iberian hands for 500 years. They are called the colonized cities of Ceuta and Melilla on the TV and Radio.
The Moroccans I spoke to believe the government looked the other way to show displeasure at Spain because a Spanish minister visited Algeria to buy gas and oil. Obviously with the Iran war, Algeria's revenues and importance has grown.
Morocco and Algeria both view a side gaining influence as a zero-sum: if it's good for Morocco it is bad for Algerian interests and vice versa.
Meanwhile if all the north African countries united and built international infrastructure and cooperated like the UAE did, the entire southern Mediterranean coastal region would have been much better off.
One thing is clear: This cold war is a total waste of potential and a socioeconomic poison.
very much occupation https://www.freewesternsahara.org/history-of-conflict-press
It's impressive to look at satellite images of this. Just a huge sand wall, with hundreds and hundreds of military outposts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Western_Sahara_wall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Western_sahara_walls_moro...
Found it. It's Cody Dahler who is a cheeky commenter on "current events" -- he's worth watching. Couldn't find it on YT so FB it is:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/18E6NXM2NH/
They have been living in a limbo for 50 years at this point, but they still feel like they will be able to go back to their land therefore they don't really settle there (they are also in the middle of a desert). Some people gave up on the idea to return to their land (but still feel temporary), others were really frustrated with the fact nothing moved and you could see this frustration at the annual demo in front of the "Muro de la Verguenza", which is the "wall" erected by the Moroccans with landmines and strongholds along the front line.
Despite basically the whole world recognizing this unjust occupation, neither the Soviets, the US, Europe, nor China cared to do anything and disrupt this crucial aspect of the global fertilizer industry. The only allies the Saharawi had was Algeria.
Surprisingly, the best researched documentary I've seen on this came from a Youtuber called Cogito: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T2ha4a_AuE
EDIT: oh yeah and ofc Kissinger is involved in this :(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus#Biological_role
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Phosphor
Phosphor is not renewable/regrowable and recycling is very hard/expensive. In a nutshell: The worlds food completely relies on this molekule.
https://www.livescience.com/64677-stone-structures-discovere...
https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/byrfqojbz...
- most (90%) of Morocco's phosphate mining is done in non-disputed territories (it's mentioned in the article). The most disputed resource is actually fish, and to some degree predicted oil reserves.
- Tribal allegiances to the Moroccan crown date back from way before colonial times. Today, part of the Sahrawi population supports Morocco and another part supports independence.
- There are efforts on both sides to bolster their numbers: Moroccans emigrate to the disputed territories, and Polisario brings in migrants to its refugee camps. That's partly why organising a referendum is almost impossible: no-one agrees on who's allowed to vote.
- Morocco and Algeria (/ the Ottomans before Algeria) have been fighting over access to southwards trade for centuries. Geopolitically, the endgame for Algeria is to encircle Morocco.
- Polisario itself is quite antidemocratic. Only two leaders in 50 years of existence, and lots of corruption.
- Morocco's plan is actually of "advanced autonomy", which would let Sahrawis get their own parliament, amongst other things.
- Today, Sahrawis on the Moroccan controlled areas basically enjoy a welfare state with free transport, no VAT, and many other benefits.
All in all, it's far from the colonial story we'd reflexively apply onto this situation. I'm biased as I am Moroccan. In my opinion, Morocco is already a deeply multi cultural country, and we need a stable political environment to unite.
This conflict keeps the North Africa region one of the least economically integrated areas in the world. It prevents us from building sustainable people power against oligarchic and authoritarian powers, who are at least just as bad on the Algeria/Polisario side as they are on the Moroccan side (Algeria and Polisario are military dictatorship, Morocco is a constitutional monarchy, pick your poison).
Also, there's a difference between undemocratic and antidemocratic. Morocco is antidemocratic, while Polisario is undemocratic. Polisario could be a democracy if it allows its leaders to be elected, but Morocco will never be a democracy since you don't elect kings.
We kinda voted for it, so it's quite binding on the king. We also have elections in a couple of months. The king has clear areas where he's limited, for example that he has to appoint the chief of government from the party that came in first.
In practice though, democracy doesn't seem to work at enacting very long term plans. The current dynasty knows how to balance out the different sources of power within the country (local/tribal, economic, and institutional), and they've done it for several centuries. It helps, in our regions, to have symbols to unite so many people who are so different from each other.
Now, the king and the palace are very rich and benefit from their positions. Institutional insiders rig the game. But elected officials do so the most in Morocco, and elected officials extract from the system in the West as well. It's an oligarchy anyway no matter which side you live on.
But I assume you did not call Algeria a constitutional dictatorship because the Algerian constitution itself isn't really binding. If your constitution doesn't allow for the impeachment of the head of state/government for violations of the constitution, then it is effectively meaningless. That's the difference between a law and a rule, the law is binding while rules aren't.
The US and French constitutions for example clearly outline procedures to impeach the head of the executive, while no such measures exist for the head of the executive in Morocco.
Constitution aren't truths, they're collective lies we agreed upon. In Morocco, authority is a social contract that is bound by customs, not by a blind belief in the moral superiority of law.
An impeachment clause is only necessary when you believe that government is the ultimate authority. If Moroccans believed that, then yes, your argument about hereditary monarchy would make sense.
That's not the case. No-one believes in authority here; we only accept it. So we know that if the king loses legitimacy, a popular revolution will happen. And the king knows that, so he won't push the buttons too much either.
How is this implemented? Do ethnic Sahrawis get special IDs that entitle them to such benefits? Or do they also apply to Moroccan settlers from the north? And considering that Moroccan provincial boundaries don't align with the borders of Spanish West Africa, where does Western Sahara even begin from the Moroccan point of view?
The investment incentives let the local elites coopt the Moroccan government, while the card buys the assent of lower income Sahrawis. It's caused systemic unemployment, despite Sahrawis GDP per capita being 26% over the national average (The PDF is from an NGO so it gives a relatively unbiased view of the situation)
From the Moroccan perspective, Western Sahara is just the Southern provinces. I'm guessing if you're part of a Sahrawi tribe, you get the card. It's less about where you live.
Also, people who relocate from the refugee camps to Morocco get that card + housing.
I'm not familiar with the situation, so maybe you can help me out. What's the stance of Polisario on Islam and religion in general?
Morocco OTOH is a Muslim state, with most laws being secular except for family laws, sexual freedoms, and inheritance. Before Western colonial times, the Moroccan royal dynasty built a lot of its soft power on spreading Morocco-based Sufi orders South, and one of the king's titles is "Commander of Believers", which is how caliphs of the original Muslim caliphate called themselves.
People like that he has this role because it helps keep Islam somewhat out of politics, but it cuts both ways: it's harder for religious conservatives to argue against more liberal laws when the institution (called the "Makhzen") proposes them, but it's even harder for individual liberty advocates to argue for a more progressive society when it goes against the Makhzen's plans.
In action, much of their leadership defected to join ISGS, AQIM, JNIM, and other Islamist groups in the Sahel and Maghreb in the 1990s to 2000s that have put Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger under siege. Adnan al-Sahrawi (POLISARIO turned Islamic State) played a major role in that.
It's a side effect of the Algerian Civil War in the 1990s (Military leadership versus moderate Islamists backed by Morocco versus hardcore Islamists backed by Iran - very very horrible civil war that the Maghreb never recovered from and only exacerbated the Libyan Civil War) and Polisario got pulled into it.
Both Morocco and Algeria have had a multi-decade rivalry over accessing the Atlantic Coast as well as becoming the primary hegemon of the Sahel and Maghreb.
The only winning move for Europe is doubling down support for FRONTEX and staying out of it. Otherwise, you get blowback like in France due to returnees the Algerian Civil War creating jihadist cells in the 1990s to 2010s (remember Charlie Hebdo, the Paris Bombings, and Flight 8969?). The Bosnian War had a similar impact as well. Most European jihadist networks trace their origins to veterans from the Algerian and Bosnian Wars.
With neighbors like these...
The reality is we're all subjugated. Moroccans, Sahrawis, or Americans. And we're all minorities in Morocco: Sahrawis, Riffis, Chlouh, Doukkali, Chamá-lo, Fassi, Meknessi, Soussi, and I can keep going. The issues people are saying about the Moroccan government's behaviour in the Sahara are just as true in other places in Morocco. And they're just as bad as what any government who's taken by oligarchs does to its population.
"Economic integration" = more trade = more power together.
They do bad stuff in Sahrawi and you guys do bad stuff in the Sahel.
And then they wonder why Bardella, Le Pen, Zemmour, AfD, and others became mainstream.
Edit: Can't reply
> I don't know why you are bringing Europe into this
Becuase whenever Morocco or Algeria or Tunisia or Libya or whoever gets into a tiff, Europe catches the cold because of bad apples in the diasporas, and that only enables the far right.
The only reason OP even posted this was because discussion about Ceuta has been flagged on HN.
So, please, stop with the knee-jerk "It's a propaganda!". You don't bring anything to the discussion.
I'm flagging that every little bit he's uttering in his comment should be fact-checked by a serious, educated reader if it is to be believed, as it's framed as a "casual" catchup on the situation of Western Sahara.
I don't have neither the time nor the interest to fact check, but I know enough to know that much of this perspective he's sharing is wrong, so my comment simply serves as a warning for those that want to take it. If you don't, that's fine.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/disney-criticized-for-film...
https://www.tiktok.com/@mrcodydahler/video/76701977955375710...
They seriously do not want people talking about it being a separate country, or occupied or anything like that.
I cut that corner off the map before I went into Morocco, and at more than one checkpoint they looked at it super carefully.
And of course there's the background indirect issue where the world's largest navy is stationed half on the same ocean.
Another is that Somalis are extra prone to piracy.
I learned quite a lot in just the first 10 seconds of looking at the wiki.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.eh
Consider applying for YC's Fall 2026 batch! Applications are open till July 27.