More than maintaining self-control, the picture reflects another aspect of the surrender to feelings of hatred that have grown between the parties to the Sahara conflict. To the extent that Moroccan forces have relied on reining in any emotional behavior while dismantling the camps of Saharan refugees, which were set up under the slogan of social demands for housing and work, it has been unacceptable for the angry protestors to resort to killing their victims. Everything in the Sahara conflict has given way to this strong picture, while no political rhetoric has been able to sum up the reality of what happened. Some of the Spanish press borrowed images of Palestinian children run over by Israeli killing vehicles and presented them as though they were the victims of the intervention by Moroccan forces, while the bodies of the victims of the moral crime in Casablanca were featured prominently in the newspapers, which claimed they were victims of Moroccan “aggression” in the Sahara. Some people in the media in Spain became embarrassed and apologized. Meanwhile, the image of a Saharan activist who was crying, and claimed that she knew the families of those Palestinian children, remained stuck in people's minds. There was a predetermination to use mistaken headlines, when the press claimed that the pictures were of the El-Oyoun camp victims. However, members of the UN Security Council, as they reviewed tape of the El-Oyoun incident, concluded by condemning the violence, but refusing to form an investigative committee. Their message was a telling lesson about the impact of visual images; they present facts as they are on the ground, without assigning political dimensions that benefit this or that party. The media aspect dominated the management of all characteristics and motives of the psychological war. Although the various types of deception do not change these types of wars, the biggest loser in what happened has involved seeing this ugly face of the conflict put forward. No party, whatever the cause it defends, should resort to this type of barbaric behavior, which has been invented by extremist organizations that are outside the law. While there has been a surrender to emotion and the fabrication of false images to convince Spanish opinion of something that did not actually take place, the Moroccans have been keen this time to document what happened, using both sound and image. Although Moroccan public opinion did not accept the idea of some of its forces being slaughtered so brutally, the belief took root that power had become weakness, as the matter involved preserving the lives of the angry Saharans, who the Moroccans had repeatedly said, prior to their intervention, did not enjoy a free choice to continue dialogue, which was about to achieve its goals. All of the expectations indicate that the Sahara conflict has entered a new phase. It was not possible for the conflict to go as far as boiling over, tension, and the excessive use of emotions, had it not gone as far as seeing the spread of desperation and anger, and because it is not a conflict with clear aspects and objectives. It was thus natural for it to spin out of control; the negotiations have not boosted hopes, the regional dialogue has not contained the repercussions of the El-Oyoun incident, and the positions of the parties to the conflict did not remain in their original position. However, seeing any conflict over a cause move from one phase to another is something desirable and acceptable, particularly in terms of controlling the contours of the “game.” There are always political goals that dictate the management of the conflict, in such a way as to guarantee to the parties, or to at least one of them, that escalation and heating-up will be a calibrated process. However, when the cards are re-shuffled and unaccustomed-to behavior infiltrates itself, the essential cause at stake becomes blurry. The Moroccans have avoided labeling their partners in the negotiations on a political solution for the Sahara conflict, but they have to be concerned with the establishment of peace and stability in the whole region. In fact, they talk to their partners, along with other parties concerned with the regional conflict. It is most worrisome that the method of negotiation no longer accommodates all contradictions. More dangerous than threatening to resort once again to arms is the possibility that another war has started. It is nothing new to see the parties to the Sahara conflict fire their guns. They did it when no solution seemed near. Today, nothing is easier than igniting fires. It will not be useful to ask who did it but to look for the fastest way to put out the flames. The El-Oyoun events remain a type of wound that leaves deep cracks in ideas, concepts and political wagers. To begin with, Saharans do not tend to be violent, and to them, erecting tents is an inherited tradition that stems from accord, and not from the type of enmity that leaves behind a profound gulf.
