Two quick poitns:
Karim Said, "...parallels between Palestinians and Sahrawi are not accurate. Israeli want Palestinians out of those lands, not to mention restriction of movement etc..."
My comparison was at the level of rights, not the details of each case. Again, a people do not lose rights depending on who represents them or who they are allied with, whether its the right of return for Palestinians or the right of self-determination for native Western Saharans. Algeria's relation to the conflict at the level of rights is a non-sequitur. That was my point.
Secondly, Karim said, "What's relevant is the Al-morabitun were based in Marrakech. That's what gives them a Moroccan character."
They also had capitals in Timbuktu and Spain. Does that make them Malian and Spanish? And what is the direct relation between Mawlay Idriss, the founder of Morocco, and al-Murabitun beside geographical coincidence? The ultimate point, however, is that one can use history to justify anything. That's why the international practice of decolonization stuck to the borders drawn by colonialism. Otherwise, irredentism would lead to endless conflict, like we're seeing in Western Sahara.