There seems to be some sort of conviction that Tunisia is the only success story resulting from the Arab Spring revolutions. Hazem Saghiya, a columnist in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, believes this impression was enhanced by the ratification of an exceptional constitution that distinguishes itself from other constitutions in the Arab world.
Tunisians have proven their ability to contain their differences in political channels and institutions. This in itself represented an immense achievement, one that would not have seen the light of day if it weren’t for the courage and persistence of the young men and women of Tunisia as well as unions, liberals and leftists. Add to this Ennahda’s flexibility and pragmatic willingness, leading it to prefer the interest of public stability over its own ideology. One must also highlight the importance of Western economic and political pressure – both American and European – to guide Tunisia towards such a path.
For now, it seems as though Tunisia may be able to save the Arab Spring that has been at risk in Egypt, and the one that lies drenched in the blood of monstrous violence in Syria.
One may not fully grasp the current situation in Yemen, where the conflict between North and South is coupled with another between the Huthis and the Sunnis. As for Libya, its diverse clans and regions have shown resilience and immunity to any attempt towards a modern state.
The writer asked: why was Tunisia the only one to demonstrate such broad popular movement on a national scale, along with an Islamic movement that has shown a flexibility unknown to all other Islamic movements in the Arab world? Why is Tunisia affected by economic pressure in a manner unbeknown to Egypt, while they are both susceptible to such vulnerability?
“Over the past few decades, with the end of the Cold War, we have been subjected to a wave of ideologies that led to a rejection of relativism and European centralisation, going against many irrefutable truths. Here comes Tunisia, taking us back to those truths, very much like Libya, Syria, Yemen and Egypt have, each in their own way”, added Saghiya.
Tunisia is actually telling us that the degree of contact with the West – quite strong in Tunisia’s case – is essential. It is the key component that explains the disparity with other countries of the Arab spring.
“Women’s role and rights fall under this same component, as does the level of education, the size of the middle class and knowledge of foreign languages. As for the nationalism of the ‘Tunisian nation’, it appears clearer than that of any other nation, completing itself with Arabism and Islam,” argued Saghiya.
Add this to the religious and sectarian harmony for which Tunisia is renowned and its distance from regional conflicts, and this definition will take on its full meaning.
A new round of Syria talks will be pointless
The new round of the Geneva conference saga slated to begin on Monday will not be any different to the ones that preceded it, predicted the columnist Rajeh Al Khoury in an article in the Lebanese daily Annahar.
Exploding barrels continue to wreak havoc in Syrian towns, dissipating any illusions anyone may have had about a possible solution for the crisis in the immediate future. The reality on the ground suggests Syria is on its way to segmentation.
To make matters worse, the Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov stated earlier this week that his country is incapable of finding a solution to the Syrian conflict on its own. “Perhaps he ought to remember that it was Russia that sponsored the crisis and allowed it to fester by supporting the regime and rejecting any peaceful solutions,” the writer said.
During the 10 days of the conference, 1,900 people were killed, but no agreement was reached. It was merely an opportunity for world representatives to indulge in flowery rhetoric with redundant clichés like “Bashar Al Assad will not be part of any transitional government” and “It is unimaginable that the man who led the brutal offensive against his people would regain legitimacy”, to which the regime representatives responded with a more obstinate stance and refusal to negotiate.
It all seems like a deliberate waste of time at the expense of innocent Syrians, the writer said.
Is Israel solution ‘one state for two people’?
Amid concerns on the part of the Israeli radical right wing over the outcome of the continuing Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that might end up eating away at a considerable chunk of the “promised land”, Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy recently offered a new theory in support of a “single state for two people” solution, wrote the columnist Mazen Hammad in the Qatari daily Al Watan.
Levy argues that since 1948 Arabs and Jews have been living together in a single state, albeit a non-democratic state that usurps the rights of the Arab part of its population. Nonetheless, the single state has been around for a long time.
“Israelis fear the one-state solution. They fear that their racist state would become bi-national,” the writer said.
Levy explains that the relationships between both peoples have fluctuated between calm and violent throughout the years, but in cities such as Jerusalem, Acre, Yafa and Galilee, the relationship hasn’t been impossible.
Israelis are reluctant to accept the recently proposed idea of a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. In this case, they are obligated to find another solution. This explains the rush to build settlements to prevent the segmentation of the West Bank, the writer said.
* Digest compiled by The Translation Desk
translation@thenational.ae