After the first day of negotiations, Iran stated that some areas of convergence had been reached, but significant disagreements remain. Tehran called for continuing the diplomatic path despite the absence of an agreement. U.S. officials indicated that the discussions ended without a deal. According to them, Iran refused the American conditions, particularly regarding the nuclear issue. Nevertheless, the United States described the exchanges as serious while reaffirming its “red lines”. In a regional context marked by Israel’s opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, tensions between the United States and Iran continue to revolve around this issue. Since the creation of the Islamic Republic and the hostage crisis of 1979, several cycles of negotiations have taken place. At each stage, the level of U.S. representation has increased, moving from diplomats to government officials, then to special envoys, and today reaching the vice president. The U.S. president himself was reportedly in...

A new world map appears to have emerged since the beginning of the First World War, a brief conflict lasting around forty days, yet with deep and lasting consequences. The global center of gravity seems to have shifted toward Asia, with major powers such as China, Russia, and Iran. Africa, meanwhile, stands out as a vast continent with significant potential and a promising future. In contrast, the Americas appear to occupy a more peripheral position, while Europe is gradually returning to its natural geographical position west of Asia. Benyounès Saidi

 The recent meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and the leader of an important Taiwanese opposition party, received in Beijing with a great ceremony, takes place in a context marked by geopolitical tensions and by the attitude of the United States and the West in general toward China’s position on Taiwan. This exchange highlights an approach that combines political dialogue with certain forces on the island and a consistent affirmation of Beijing’s position on national unity. This way of combining diplomatic openness with strategic firmness may, in some cases, inspire other states facing similar situations related to their national unity. For such an approach to be truly effective and sustainable, it must also be grounded in moral and political coherence, avoiding alliances that contradict its own principles and the logic of the cause being defended. From this perspective, such approaches can be seen as aligned with the course of history when they reconcile strategic effec...

 The President of the United States has proposed a ceasefire and the opening of negotiations hosted by Pakistan. This is an important development showing that after a period of intense tension, diplomacy is beginning to regain its place. First observation: the generalized war that many feared did not occur. The conflict remained limited to the main belligerents. On one side were the allied countries — Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen — and on the other side the aggressor countries: the United States and Israel. Second observation: the negotiations that are now resuming appear to be based on new foundations. They take into account the Iranian demands, particularly the guarantee that no future attacks will take place and the recognition of Iran’s right to possess all the means necessary to ensure its own defense. These elements show that the situation is evolving in a direction different from what initially seemed likely. The logic of military confrontation is gradually giving way to n...

 The current conflict in West Asia shows all signs of a global conflict in the making. On one side, the United States, the world’s leading power, allied with Israel, a regional power of European origin. On the other side, Iran, supported by Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. Unlike 20th-century conflicts centered on Europe, we are witnessing a confrontation between a Western power and an expanding regional power. The conflict could quickly escalate. China, an emerging Asian power, may support Iran for economic and strategic reasons. Russia, as well as major European powers — the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy — could intervene. India could also become involved, extending the conflict into South Asia. These dynamics show that the conflict has already gone beyond its initial region and may involve actors from three continents. If these alliances materialize, we could be facing a real world war, different from those of the 20th century in terms of participants and geographic...

Over the past 48 hours, the U.S. president issued a two-day ultimatum to Iran regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, only to ultimately back down. This decision followed Tehran’s firm response, reaffirming its refusal to yield to any external pressure. Washington announced negotiations expected to last five days, suggesting a possible dialogue, but Iran denied any discussions, direct or indirect, indicating that the American statement was largely intended to “save face.” It should be recalled that this confrontation, involving Israel and the United States, targets a sovereign state. The Israeli government, particularly its Prime Minister, played a major role in drawing Washington into the confrontation, which goes beyond U.S. interests and is part of a complex regional dynamic where Iran’s sovereignty faces multiple strategic pressures. Iran responded with determination, defending its territory and sovereignty. It is clear that this aggression primarily serves Israeli objective...

 Significant divisions exist today between U.S. President Trump and several European leaders. Tensions arose when he expressed his intention to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory under Denmark. The Israeli-American aggression against Iran has deepened these divisions. Washington sought the support of European countries, but many refused. During an exchange with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, Trump even raised the possibility of the United States withdrawing from NATO. Founded in 1949 to face the Soviet Union, NATO should have disappeared with the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (a military alliance of Soviet bloc countries). Instead of that, it expanded, growing from 12 members at its creation to 32 today. A U.S. withdrawal would mark the end of NATO and allow a return to a more normal situation, opening the way to a new European space based on economic cooperation and cultural exchange, “from the Urals to the Atlantic.” Paradoxically, the agg...

 White House exchange was a masterclass in leadership. During the March 17 meeting, when President Donald Trump dismissed UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as “no Winston Churchill,” the Irish Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, corrected President Trump twice with calm clarity. He acknowledged Churchill’s role as a great wartime leader but noted that, given Ireland’s history and struggle for independence from the United Kingdom, Churchill’s legacy is viewed through a more complex lens. Mr Martin also defended Starmer, calling him “a very earnest, sound person” and praising his efforts to improve Irish–British relations. In a similar spirit, Zohran Mamdani, mayor of New York City, showed the same composure when he met President Trump despite previous criticism. Moments like these show that leadership is often revealed in how people respond to powerful and controversial figures. One can only hope that other European heads of state and governments will show the same clarity and courage when face...

 Whenever powerful countries, like the U.S., talk about regime change, they should think twice about the consequences. Iraq shows how foreign intervention can backfire. Iraq was once a secular, unified country. After the U.S. invasions and regime change — especially in 2003 — its institutions collapsed, and sectarian politics became dominant. Instead of restoring a secular state, the new system became organized around religious identity and divided factions, making politics unstable and fragmented. Today, 35 years after the first U.S. attack in 1991, Iraq still cannot form a stable government because competing blocs cannot agree, and the country hosts several foreign military presences — the U.S., Turkey, NATO, and armed groups backed by regional powers. The U.S. embassy has come under repeated attacks, and the U.S. government is urging its citizens to leave Iraq for their safety. As the old Arabic saying goes: “The winds do not always blow in the direction of the ships” — a stark ...

 The aggression led by Israel and the United States against Iran, initially expected to last a few days, has now entered its third week. How is this war unfolding? And who will win it? Military stakes are high, and censorship is strong, particularly in Israel. Yet, it is possible to attempt an answer based on available evidence. The material cost is enormous, nearly one billion dollars per day. Rising oil and gas prices weigh heavily on Europe. Growing opposition may emerge in the U.S., especially among business sectors sensitive to costs and risks of instability. Public opinion remains wary of a new Middle East war. Destruction in Iran is significant, but Israel also suffers heavy damage. Iran shows unexpected resilience and energy. Recent history offers lessons: the U.S. failed in long and costly wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, not only for military or political reasons but also because they were unjust. Today, Iran is a country victim of external aggression, which stre...

 Sometimes I read a book that touches me deeply, not only because of its content and message, but also because of the living presence of the person who wrote it. Jeanne Baillaut, the author of this third collection of free poetry entitled Tears and Flowers, is a young woman at heart, aged 91. A Frenchwoman, she was born in Spain where she lived for three years before moving to France, where she grew up and lived until 1956. That year she traveled to Morocco, and two years later she emigrated to Canada, where she still lives today. Her life has been rich in experiences and commitments, and she has contributed to the francophone community with sensitivity and cultural generosity. The texts gathered in this collection are not poems in the strict sense. They are closer to poetic prose, a form of writing that resembles speech, meant to be spoken, heard, and felt. Jeanne herself expresses it this way: “I write as I speak… What I find beautiful rises within me like the sea upon the shore ...

The Jeffrey Epstein case (2005-2019) is not a historical anomaly. It is part of a series of scandals where powerful individuals abused their positions to exploit vulnerable people. Among the precedents: the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium (1996-2004); the Jimmy Savile case in the UK (1960‑2000, revealed in 2012); the Harvey Weinstein case in the United States (revealed 2017, trial 2020), which sparked the #MeToo movement; and the NXIVM case (1998-2018) led by Keith Raniere. Different contexts, but the same mechanism: social influence, protective networks, prolonged silence. These cases show how power allows some individuals to turn their dominant position into impunity. It is not just a matter of individual morality but of structures that protect and delay the exposure of wrongdoing. Today, these revelations reveal a crack in the edifice of power — a positive sign that previously untouchable structures are beginning to fracture. But for this crack to lead to real improvements, responsibil...

 “  قضية جيفري إبستاين (2005-2019) ليست حالة استثنائية تاريخية. إنها جزء من سلسلة من الفضائح التي استغل فيها أفراد نافذون مواقعهم لاستغلال أشخاص ضعفاء. من بين الحالات السابقة: قضية مارك دوترو في بلجيكا (1996-2004)؛ قضية جيمي سافيل في المملكة المتحدة (1960‑2000، كشفت في 2012)؛ قضية هارفي واينشتاين في الولايات المتحدة (انكشفت في 2017، والمحاكمة في 2020) التي أطلقت حركة #MeToo؛ وقضية NXIVM (1998-2018) التي قادها كيث رانيير. سياقات مختلفة، لكن نفس الآلية: النفوذ الاجتماعي، شبكات الحماية، الصمت المطول. تظهر هذه القضايا كيف يسمح النفوذ لبعض الأفراد بتحويل موقعهم المهيمن إلى حصانة. ليست مجرد مسألة أخلاقية فردية، بل هي مسألة هياكل تحمي وتؤخر كشف المخالفات. اليوم، تكشف هذه الفضائح عن صدع في صرح السلطة — وهو علامة إيجابية على أن الهياكل التي كانت فيما سبق منيعة بدأت تتصدع. ولكن لكي يؤدي هذا الصدع إلى تحسينات حقيقية، يجب تحديد المسؤولية بوضوح. القضية ليست أخلاقية فقط: إنها مسألة سلطة، وهناك حاجة إلى مجتمع مدني وحركات قوية للحد وإنهاء هذه الانتهاكات.  بنيونس سعيدي

كتب أحد أبرز المدافعين عن الصهيونية مقالة* تمثل تحوّلًا واضحًا وتشير إلى تصدّع حقيقي في المشروع الصهيوني. فدون أن يتخلى صراحة عن الصهيونية، يقوم يوفال نوح هراري بتفكيك عدد من ركائزها الأخلاقية الأساسية.  إذ يرفض بشكل صريح فكرة أن اليهود هم «السكان الأصليون» للأرض، وينفي أن تمنح الممالك القديمة أو أحداث العصر الروماني أي حقوق سيادية حديثة، ويؤكد أن التاريخ لا يمكن أن يُستخدم كصكّ ملكية عقارية. وهذا وحده يمثل قطيعة مهمة مع التبرير الصهيوني الكلاسيكي. والأهم من ذلك، أنه يقرّ بأن الفلسطينيين في بدايات القرن العشرين كانت لهم مطالب أقوى بالأرض من المهاجرين اليهود، وأن معاداة السامية في أوروبا لم تكن مشكلة الفلسطينيين ولا مسؤوليتهم. وتظهر الصهيونية هنا لا بوصفها عودة تاريخية حتمية، بل كمشروع سياسي أقلّي، كان موضع خلاف حتى داخل الأوساط اليهودية نفسها. كما يتخلى هراري عن اللامساواة الأخلاقية المتجذّرة في الخطاب الصهيوني. فالروايتان الإسرائيلية والفلسطينية تُقدَّمان بوصفهما روايتين مُؤدلجتين، متخيّلتين، ومدمّرتين عندما تتحولان إلى يقينيات مطلقة. ولم تعد مفاهيم الأمن أو الحدود أو «حل الدولتين...

 One of the main supporters of Zionism has written an essay* that clearly represents a major shift — and a visible crack in the Zionist project. Without renouncing Zionism, Yuval Noah Harari dismantles several of its core moral pillars.  He explicitly rejects the idea that Jews are the “original indigenous people” of the land, denies that ancient kingdoms or Roman-era events create modern ownership rights, and insists that history cannot function as a real-estate deed. This alone marks a serious break with classical Zionist justification. More strikingly, he acknowledges that in the early 20th century Palestinians had a stronger claim to the land than Jewish immigrants, and that European antisemitism was not a problem Palestinians were responsible for solving. Zionism appears here not as an inevitable historical return, but as a minority political project — contested even among Jews themselves. Harari also abandons the moral asymmetry long embedded in Zionist discourse. Israel...

July 19, 2024, marks a monumental victory for justice, which has clearly sided with the rights of the Palestinian people. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an opinion declaring that Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal. The court demanded that all states take action to end this occupation and that Israel pay reparations to Palestinians who have suffered due to this situation. It is important to note that this opinion follows a recent decision by the Court requiring Israel to cease any actions in Gaza that could constitute genocide. This ICJ opinion will strengthen international pressure on Israel. Although it will take time, just like the end of apartheid in South Africa, there is no doubt that justice will prevail and that Palestinians will regain their right to self-determination. Benyounès Saidi

The New Popular Front won 182 seats in the snap parliamentary elections, making it the largest group in the French National Assembly, which has 577 seats. This is obviously a reason for immense satisfaction and relief for millions of French people who were enduring the anti-social policies of Macron's regime. It is also an open opportunity for all those who want real change. That said, and without minimizing the results obtained, it must be remembered that the new Popular Front only secured 31.2% of the seats in the National Assembly and that the percentage of French people who voted for it represents only 25.1% of the votes. In comparison, the Popular Front of 1936 obtained 63.5% of the seats and 57.8% of the French voted for it! This means that the New Popular Front is far behind the 1936 performance. But all this does not take away from the immense success achieved this week. It simply means that the New Front has enormous task to perform to convince more French people of the ne...

The Spanish government has decided to join South Africa in its action at the International Court of Justice against Israel. By doing so, Spain becomes the 50th country to join the camp accusing Israel of genocide against the Palestinian people. It is also the fifth country in Europe to take this step, following Ireland, Belgium, Turkey, and Albania.  For their part, the Belgian and French governments have declared their support for any decision made by the International Criminal Court concerning arrest warrants against the Israeli Prime Minister and Defense Minister.  The genocide against the Palestinian people will not go unpunished. Benyounès Saidi

Snap legislative elections will take place in France on the upcoming 30th of June and 7th of July in an environment marked by the rise of the far right. Western media have mentioned the "anti-Semitic" positions of both the far-right National Rally and ... the New Popular Front of the left! This is what is called a conflation, which aims to create confusion. It is worth remembering that the anti-Jewish policy of the fascist far-right was in effect during the 1939-45 war with France deporting 70,000 French Jews to German concentration camps. In contrast, the Popular Front of 1936 - led by a French Jew - aimed primarily to defend France against the rise of fascism. That was the goal in 1936, and it is also the goal in 2024. The truth is that the far right represented by the National Rally is fundamentally anti-Jewish, while the New Popular Front of the left opposes the policies of Israel responsible for genocide against the Palestinian people, which is not the same thing at all....

No, this is not a statement from Hamas, but from Daniel Hagari, the spokesperson for the Zionist army! It took 37,000 deaths and the destruction of an entire territory for the Zionist army to recognize this!  Why did it take 37,000 deaths to acknowledge this? Because Israel is an occupying army, and colonial occupying armies do not understand that a colonized people can resist.  Why also this "idea"? For a simple reason: Palestine was colonized and its people had only one choice, which was to resist the occupier.  Similarly, the Zionist entity reveals itself for what it is: Europeans who came to colonize a territory, as has been done for centuries. The European settlers who created the Zionist movement are Ashkenazi Jews who have no connection to Palestine. They are Russians, Poles, Belarusians, Austrians, Romanians, etc. The Zionist movement is a racist movement, just like Nazism: it presumes a "pure race."  The Jewish religion was born in Palestine, and people con...