البحث

Startups: The future of Africa

THE STATE AND FUTURE OF ALGERIA-SLOVENIA RELATIONS

Shaping the future of gaming and entertainment in africa with AI

Focus Turns to Algeria’s New Government as Continuity Appears Most Likely

With the Constitutional Court having officially validated the final results of Algeria’s legislative elections, attention is now turning to the formation of the country’s next government. President Abdelmadjid Tebboune is expected to decide in the coming days on the composition of the new cabinet and the future of the Prime Minister, amid growing speculation over whether he will retain members of the current government, appoint political figures, or once again rely on technocrats drawn from the public administration, academia and state institutions. Political and constitutional indicators suggest that continuity is the most likely outcome. Throughout President Tebboune’s two terms, successive governments have been shaped largely around senior civil servants, academics and technical experts, while political parties have played only a limited role in cabinet appointments. The latest parliamentary elections did little to alter that equation. Rather than producing a rival parliamentary majority capable of imposing a partisan government, the vote consolidated a presidential majority that remained broadly supportive of the President’s programme. The elections also reignited criticism of political parties, many of which were blamed for the low voter turnout, reinforcing the argument for maintaining a government built on expertise rather than party representation. Speaking to Echorouk, political analyst Ali Hachani said any discussion over the composition of the next government must first be understood through the constitutional framework governing executive appointments. “The Constitution provides for two distinct scenarios,” he explained. “If a parliamentary majority emerges that differs from the presidential majority, the President appoints a Head of Government from that bloc. However, when Parliament is dominated by parties supporting the President’s programme, the Constitution provides for the appointment of a Prime Minister. That is the situation Algeria has experienced in recent years.” According to Hachani, the results of the latest legislative elections clearly fall into the second category. The winning parties did not create an alternative parliamentary majority but instead strengthened the presidential coalition, which continues to command the majority of seats in the National People’s Assembly. Consequently, he believes the constitutional path points toward retaining the current model, with a Prime Minister heading the government, while leaving open the possibility that other political forces could eventually join the presidential majority. Against that backdrop, Hachani does not expect the incoming cabinet to take on a distinctly political or partisan character. Experience over the past several years, he argued, has shown that President Tebboune consistently prioritizes professional competence and administrative experience over party affiliation when selecting ministers, resulting in governments dominated by technocrats rather than politicians. He acknowledged that parties aligned with the presidential majority may submit names for ministerial positions, but stressed that such proposals remain purely consultative. Under the Constitution, the appointment of ministers is an exclusive presidential prerogative, leaving the final decision entirely in the hands of the Head of State. Hachani also expects the anticipated cabinet reshuffle to remain limited in scope. Rather than a sweeping overhaul, he believes any changes will likely affect only ministries that, in the President’s assessment, have fallen short of expectations or failed to adequately implement his programme. President Tebboune, he noted, has consistently favoured stability within the executive branch over frequent ministerial reshuffles, arguing that continuity in government has proven more effective than repeated changes in leadership. As for the future of the Prime Minister, Hachani considers his continuation the most probable outcome, given the existence of a parliamentary majority that supports the President’s agenda. As required by established constitutional practice, the Prime Minister may submit his resignation following the elections. Should the President decide to retain him, he would simply reappoint him; if not, the resignation would be accepted and a successor designated. Another possibility, Hachani added, is for the President to accept the resignation while asking the outgoing Prime Minister to remain in a caretaker capacity as consultations begin on the formation of a new government. Those consultations could take into account candidates proposed by parties within the presidential majority, alongside respected national experts, although the President would ultimately retain sole authority over the final appointments and could also consult the Prime Minister on setting the government’s priorities. Hachani concluded that President Tebboune now finds himself in a constitutional position that grants him broad discretion in appointing both the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers. As a result, he argued, the next phase is likely to be defined less by political bargaining over ministerial portfolios than by the government’s ability to implement state policies and deliver on the President’s programme. In his view, that reality offers the clearest indication of what the next government will look like: a cabinet built primarily on competence, professional expertise and institutional experience, tasked with meeting citizens’ expectations while advancing the President’s reform agenda.

عراقجي يهاجم الرئيس الفرنسي: “فات الأوان”!

انتقد وزير الخارجية الإيراني عباس عراقجي الرئيس الفرنسي ايمانويل ماكرون قائلا: “إن الشعب الفرنسي يطالب بتغييرات جذرية”، معتبرًا أن “الأوان فات لإلقاء اللوم علی الآخرين”. وكتب عراقجي في منشور على منصة “إكس” موجها كلامه إلى الرئيس الفرنسي عشية احتجاجات كبيرة تشهدها المدن الفرنسية: “لقد جلب السيد ماكرون على نفسه المصير عندما أكد للرئيس الأمريكي ترحيبه بالفظائع المرتكبة ضد الإيرانيين.” Mr. Macron made his bed when he assured POTUS that he welcomes atrocities against Iranians. Too late to blame the war his ilk helped cause. The French people demand wholesale change, including freedom of assembly. Listen to the future of France, Mr. President. pic.twitter.com/dMCj6O6V8T — Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) October 19, 2026 وتابع قائلا: “فات الأوان لإلقاء اللوم على الحرب التي ساهم أمثاله في إشعالها. يطالب الشعب الفرنسي بتغيير جذري، بما في ذلك حرية التجمع.” مخاطبا ماكرون بالقول: “السيد الرئيس، أصغ إلى صوت مستقبل فرنسا”. تأتي تصريحات عراقجي في ظل احتجاجات تشهدها فرنسا على غلاء المعيشة وتراجع القدرة الشرائية والسياسات الاقتصادية للحكومة، تخللتها مواجهات بين محتجين وقوات الأمن وأعمال تخريب.

كيف يقوم “البنتاغون” و”وادي السيليكون” بتشكيل مستقبل الحروب؟

د. خالد وليد محمود في وقت يتزايد فيه الاعتماد على التكنولوجيا العسكرية كقوة محركة للحروب والصراعات المسلحة، يتناول كتاب “الوحدة إكس: كيف يقوم البنتاغون ووادي السيليكون بتشكيل مستقبل الحروب؟ “Unit X: How the Pentagon and Silicon Valley Are Transforming the Future of War لكاتبيه راج م. شاه وكريستوفر كيرتشوف، موضوعاً في غاية الحساسية حول دور …

استعادة روح الزمن الجميل… أم تلاعبٌ بالحنين!

الزمن في حد ذاته محايد، نحن مَن نُعطيه صفة الجمال والأمل أو نُعطيه صفة الرداءة واليأس. نحن مَن نُعطيه روح الحياة والسعادة أو نقتلها فيه. نحن من نجعله دافعا للتقدم أو كابحا له، نحن من نجعله وسيلة للتماسك الاجتماعي وربط الماضي بالحاضر والمستقبل أو نجعله أداة لزيادة تعميق اليأس بين الناس ومنعهم من الدخول في حالة من الطمأنينة والانسجام مع الذات. إننا يمكن أن نتحدث عن الزمن الجميل بصيغة اليأس ويمكن التحدث عنه بصيغة الأمل! بالصيغة الإيجابية أو بالصيغة السلبية. كما يمكن للبعض التلاعب بهذا الحنين الطبيعي إلى الماضي! بالصيغة الإيجابية استعادة روح الزمن الجميل كما تُطرَح اليوم ممكنة إذا ما حَرَّرنا أنفسنا من ضغوط الحياة المادية ومتطلبات العصر التي لا نهاية لها، وممكنة إذا ما اقتنعنا أن جمال الزمن هو في جمال العلاقات الاجتماعية بِقيمها السامية وأبعادها الإنسانية. أما بالصيغة السلبية فإن الحديث عن “الزمن الجميل” يصبح حديثا مُثبِّطا قاتلا للأمل مانعا الناس من مواجهة تحديات المستقبل والسير بثقة نحو غد أفضل، وفوق ذلك يُصبح مبرِّرا لكل نقائص الماضي حتى وإن كان ماضيا استعماريا ظالما بكل ما تحمل الكلمة من معنى! لقد ناقشت الكاتب الروسية – الأمريكية سفيتلانا بويم Svetlana Boym هذا الموضوع في كتابها الموسوم بمستقبل الحنين The Future of Nostalgia وبيَّنت بوضوح أن شروط الحياة المادية التي فرضتها العولمة هي السبب الرئيس لتفشي ظاهرة الحنين إلى الماضي عالميا. ذلك أن العولمة اتجهت نحو إلغاء القيم القائمة على الثقافات المحلية واستبدلتها بقيم عالمية ذات طبيعة مادية. الجميع بات يسعى لتوفير متطلبات المجتمعات العصرية ويقارن نفسه بالآخرين غافلا عما يملك من عناصر حياة غير مادية صنعت زمنه الجميل كما عاشه آباؤه وأجداده… ولذلك عندما يعجز عن الاندماج في هذه العولمة يعود إلى الحديث عن ذلك الزمن الجميل أو على الأقل إلى تضخيم الجوانب الإيجابية فيه. وبهذا المفهوم تُصبح محاولات تذكر “الزمن الجميل”، أو العودة إليه، كابحا لمواجهة تحديات المستقبل، خاصة عندما يتم استغلال هذا “الحنين” استغلالا سلبيا، أو يتم التلاعب بعواطف الحنين إلى الماضي الجياشة لدى الناس لنشر مزيد من الإحباط واليأس بينهم، وإحداث خلط لديهم في التمييز بين أسباب سعادة الأمس وتعاسته أيضا، وأسباب سعادة اليوم وتعاسته أيضا… لذا،علينا من باب وعي طبيعة المرحلة أن نُدرك الفرق الجوهري بين حديثنا عن “الزمن الجميل” بمقياس قيم القناعة والتضامن والمواساة التي تصنع دفء العلاقات الاجتماعية وصدقها وبساطتها وانعدام التكلف فيها، والزمن الحاضر بمقياس ماديات العولمة ومظاهر التقدم التكنولوجي المختلفة… وألا نخلط بين هذا وذاك… عندها فقط يُصبح بمقدورنا أن نصنع زمننا الجميل اليوم من خلال تكامل نصنعه بأنفسنا بين قيم زمن ما قبل العولمة وقيم مواجهة تحديات المستقبل بثقة ورباطة جأش… ولكي نستطيع فليس أمامنا سوى كشف التلاعب بروح “الحنين إلي الماضي” ووقفه، ذلك أن مثل هذا التلاعب إن لم ُيثبِّط روح التحدي لدينا فإنه سيمنعنا من صناعة المستقبل الذي نريد…

The role of woman in the development of Africa

The Position On Western Sahara Has Broken The Back Of Bilateral Relations

The French press focused prominently on the statements of President Abdelmadjid Tebboune in response to the storm caused by the recent remarks of the French ambassador to Algeria, Stéphane Romatet, considering what is happening at the level of bilateral relations to be a new episode in the series of tensions that characterize the Algiers-Paris axis, while it was notable that the subject was ignored by the majority of right-wing and far-right outlets, which used to hold talk shows and interviews to insult Algeria and Algerians. In this regard, the leading news channel in France, “TF1”, while reporting President Tebboune’s statements on its website, described what is happening between the two countries as a “new episode that comes after a deep crisis in which tensions escalated between Paris and Algiers in the summer of 2024 when France expressed its support for the autonomy plan under the (alleged) sovereignty of Morocco over the disputed territory of Western Sahara”, which caused Algeria to withdraw its ambassador from Paris, in a decision that served as a prelude to a series of events that further strained relations between the two countries. It noted that one of the most prominent episodes of this escalation was the decision of the Algerian authorities last March to enact a law criminalizing the heinous practices of French colonialism in Algeria, a text that holds the French state “legally responsible for its colonial past in Algeria and the tragedies it caused”. The leftist-leaning newspaper “Libération” paved the way for President Tebboune’s statements with an introduction reviewing the difficult stages bilateral relations have passed through, saying they have been “characterized by historical complexity since independence in 1962”, and noting that the future of these relations seemed to be in better shape after Emmanuel Macron described French colonialism as a “crime against humanity” and expressed his desire to “turn the page on the past”. However, the newspaper pointed out that “the visa crisis in 2021, followed by France’s recognition of (alleged) Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara in July 2024, ended this period of improvement”, before the crisis worsened with the arrest of the French writer of Algerian origin, Boualem Sansal, and the explosion of the crisis regarding the deportation of Algerians present on French soil illegally, as well as the arrest of Algerian consular employees in France, according to the same source. For their part, both the private news channel “BFMTV” and the “France 24″channel, which is affiliated with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, focused on their websites on President Tebboune’s statements, which set the record straight and contributed to ending the political and media debate in Paris regarding Algeria, which had given some the impression of Algerian suggestions regarding visas. The same source noted that what is happening is merely an episode in a “deep crisis” that exploded in the summer of 2024 between France and Algeria, when Paris offered its support for an autonomy plan under the (alleged) sovereignty of the Moroccan regime regarding the disputed territory in Western Sahara, causing Algeria to recall its ambassador, who has not yet returned to his post. Added to this, according to “France 24”, is an old crisis dating back to the remnants of the colonial era, which Paris has been unable to overcome due to the inability of successive French presidents to rid themselves of the Algeria complex, which seems to still be entrenched in the gears of the deep state in Paris, leading Algeria to respond by enacting a law criminalizing the practices of French colonialism in Algeria after years of hesitation for political considerations. What is striking is that many outlets and channels associated with the far-right, such as “Le Figaro”, “CNews”, and “Europe 1”, which are accustomed to delving into every small and large detail related to Algeria, did not address the statements of President Abdelmadjid Tebboune, which seem to have caused them embarrassment due to the absolute denial of any Algerian role in that French political and media storm. Furthermore, many newspapers and websites covered the President of the Republic’s statements from a news perspective, quoting the “Agence France-Presse” (AFP), in what appeared to be an indication of directives from certain parties keen not to push matters toward further media deterioration.

IATF 2025 | Africa Is the Future

Echorta Magazine: Algeria Confronts ‘Makhzen Poisons’ and Online Propaganda Campaigns

Algeria’s General Directorate of National Security (DGSN) has stressed that the country, along with all its security institutions, is now facing a new generation of threats. These range from “poisons” spread by its western neighbor in an attempt to corrupt the minds and bodies of Algeria’s youth, to hostile voices hiding behind computer screens and exploiting digital technologies to disseminate disinformation across borders. According to the DGSN, these campaigns seek to distort Algeria’s image and falsify facts, but they will not succeed as long as the nation is defended by men who have devoted their lives to serving and protecting it, foremost among them the People’s National Army and the country’s other security services. In the latest issue of Echorta (Police) Magazine (No. 165), titled “A Nation Whose Glory Was Guarded by the Martyrs and Is Built by Its Loyal Sons,” the editorial states that “all Algerian state institutions continue to work side by side with unwavering determination and unrelenting resolve, keeping firmly in sight the goal of achieving comprehensive development and advancing every sector through reforms that meet the challenges of the present and the aspirations of the future.” The editorial continues: “From development projects to reform initiatives, from investing in human capital to building infrastructure and public facilities, efforts converge and determination unites to move steadily toward broader horizons and a brighter future, in line with the sound guidance and far-sighted vision of President Abdelmadjid Tebboune.” The magazine further praises “the united efforts of Algerian hands and the ambitions of constructive national talent that are shaping tomorrow and envisioning the future, guided by knowledge and learning, and armed with awareness and a profound sense of responsibility for the trust placed upon them, in order to lay the foundations of a strong state underpinned by security and stability.” The editorial also highlights the responsibilities entrusted to the General Directorate of National Security, emphasizing that, “like all state institutions carrying out their duty in the service of the nation and its citizens, the DGSN remains vigilant in safeguarding security and preserving public order. It draws inspiration from the values of loyalty, discipline, and selfless dedication. Thanks to the vigilance and sacrifices of its personnel, the pillars of security and stability are strengthened, public trust is reinforced, and a modern security approach based on proximity to citizens and public service is translated into practice.” It adds that the DGSN continues to adapt to evolving challenges by modernizing its operational capabilities, enhancing training, and expanding the use of advanced technologies, enabling it to remain, alongside Algeria’s other security institutions, “an impregnable fortress protecting the nation and a towering bulwark against those who seek to undermine Algeria’s security and stability, backed by operational readiness and a strong digital footprint.”

البرازيل وصربيا وجنوب أفريقيا وأوزبكستان يتسابقون لاستضافة حدث phygital sports (الرياضات الجسدية الرقمية) العالمي

The Games of the Future (ألعاب المستقبل) هو حدث دولي سنوي يدمج بين العوالم المادية والرقمية وهو ذروة phygital sports (الرياضات الجسدية الرقمية). تجمع هذه البطولة السنوية الجيل القادم من الأبطال الرياضيين الديناميكيين من جميع أنحاء العالم للتنافس في مجموعة متنوعة من التخصصات والتحديات. سينعقد حدث The Games of the Future (ألعاب أعلنت شركة Phygital …

History, Hegemony and the Civilizations That Outlive Empires

There are moments when the decline of a power can be measured in statistics, military setbacks or shifting alliances. And there are moments when something deeper seems to be happening — something we recognize before we can fully measure it: an entire historical order begins to lose the confidence, coherence and authority that once allowed it to shape the world in its own image. For those of us who grew up in societies that experienced colonialism not as an abstraction in a history book but as a memory still carried by families, cities and generations, this question is inevitably more than academic. We have seen the extraordinary power of the West, learned from its knowledge, encountered its institutions and contradictions, and watched its promises of universality collide, too often, with the realities of power. Today, as the Middle East is again shaken by war, Gaza devastated, Iran confronted, American power tested and the international order increasingly contested, we find ourselves returning to a thinker who understood that civilizations cannot ultimately be measured by the weapons they possess or the wealth they accumulate. Long before “multipolarity” became the vocabulary of contemporary geopolitics, Malek Bennabi had offered another way of reading history: through man, time, ideas, moral energy and the mysterious moment when a society acquires the capacity to enter history — or begins to lose it. Perhaps this is why Bennabi speaks so directly to our present. Not because he predicted it. But because he gave us a language with which to think about it. The Equation of History In a timely and readable recent book titled “Why History Matters”1, Dr Yakoob Ahmed engages themes from theology and civilization to imagination and storytelling with a view to reviving historical consciousness as both an intellectual and spiritual imperative. In it, he reminds us of the oft-cited saying according to which history tends to repeat itself and the quote, widely attributed to American humorist Mark Twain suggesting that “history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.2 One way to examine the idea that humans are destined to repeat the actions of the past, Ahmed says, is “through the rise and fall of states, the inevitable end of power, and the cyclical patterns of tyranny that ultimately come to a close.” He also rightly observed that Ibn Khaldun was not the only Muslim thinker who made the case of cycles in history, nor that simply Muslims wrote about cyclical theories. Indeed, during the 18th and 19th centuries, Ahmed adds, thinkers in Western Europe and the Ottoman 1 Yakoob Ahmed, Why History Matters: Reviving Faith Through the Lens of History, Ketebe Publishing, Istanbul, Türkiye, 2025. 2 Although the saying is almost universally attributed to Mark Twain, the earliest documented use of a similar phrasing appears in Theodor Reik’s 1965 essay The Unreachables, where he wrote: “It has been said that history repeats itself. This is perhaps not quite correct; it merely rhymes.” Twain did, however, express related ideas about historical repetition in his 1874 novel The Gilded Age: A Tale of To-Day, stating: “History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends”. This conveys a sense of historical echoes, though it does not use the rhyme metaphor. (Source: David J. Kent, in Word Hot White Snow, wordpress.com, April 2024). Empire examined Ibn Khaldun’s ideas to establish where and how nations tend to repeat themselves, and where lessons can be learned. He specifically mentioned the Scottish 18th century historian Alexander Fraser Tyler who claimed that democracies follow a predictable cyclical pattern, evolving from “having virtuous intentions to becoming corrupted, and later declining.” Conventional political science commonly diagnoses the deep and accelerating shift characterizing the modern landscape of global geopolitics — that is the transition away from a unipolar world anchored by Western hegemony toward a fragmented, multipolar reality— through macroeconomic volatility, demographic deficits, or logistical overreach. Such a view stems from a secular understanding of reality, typically supposed to be grounded in the scientific method, empirical evidence, rational enquiry, and experimentation, while totally excluding any religious interpretations. For his part, Malek Bennabi offered a profoundly different diagnosis. By way of a method reflective of his personal intellectual and religious culture — consisting essentially in bridging traditional Islamic sociology, mid-twentieth century Western historiography, and modern structural analysis — he approached history not as a sequence of random interactions or pure material accumulations, but as a rigorous biological and psychological cycle governed by structural laws. As outlined earlier, Bennabi treated sociology with the precision of mathematics through his famous triad: Civilization = Man + Soil + Time. These three fundamental elements, Bennabi explains, exist in every human group, yet they remain static, inert materials until they are vitalized by an ideological or spiritual catalyst. He mapped the lifecycle of any civilization across three psychological and chronological stages. Hence, when an intense moral breath tames the primal instincts of a society, it binds individuals into a unified social network (the Stage of the Spirit) turning raw human potential into an engine capable of historical creation of institutions, sciences, law, and physical architecture (the Stage of the Reason). Conversely, when that spiritual catalyst loses its active energy, the social network disintegrates and dissolves into individualism, hyper-consumerism, and a worship of material objects, thereafter initiating an irreversible slide into ethical decay, which in turn unavoidably leads to societal collapse (the Stage of the Instinct). How does Bennabi’s view compare to some other influential classical and contemporary civilizational theorists? During the classical and modern eras, two towering figures, Abdurrahman Ibn Khaldun and Arnold Toynbee, profoundly influenced the history of ideas concerning the study of the destiny of human civilizations, particularly through their monumental works, the “Muqaddimah” and ‘The Study of History”, respectively. It is therefore not surprising that Bennabi was considerably influenced by their theories. That being said, while Ibn Khaldun asserted that “Asabiyyah” (social bonds and group solidarity) naturally develops among rugged desert groups and nomadic states and is subsequently dissolved by urban luxury within a strict four-generation cycle, thus paving the way for the rise of a new group with a stronger asabiyyah, Bennabi deepened this observation. He posited that social cohesion is not generated spontaneously by environment or blood alone; rather, it is a secondary manifestation of a primary spiritual/religious catalyst. He further argued that luxury is not toxic because it is comfortable, but because it breaks the social network by shifting focus from transcendent duties to immediate individual instincts. Similarly, Bennabi’s framework closely parallels Arnold Toynbee’s concept of “Challenge and Response.” Both scholars rejected racial or strictly geographical explanations of historical primacy. Toynbee argued that when a “Creative Minority” stops offering innovative solutions to existential challenges, it degenerates into a “Dominant Minority” that can only govern through coercive violence. Bennabi provided the inner psychological anatomy for this transition: the loss of creativity is the direct consequence of a society entering the Stage of the Instinct, where its ideas turn into hollow cultural artifacts, leaving behind nothing but raw force. All Roads Lead to Rome In more recent times, thinkers like Paul Kennedy, Francis Fukuyama, Samuel Huntington and others provided diverging opinions but having in common a strongly-marked materialistic perspective. In his acclaimed book “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”3, historian Paul Kennedy traces the postures of the world’s leading nations over five centuries starting with the Habsburg Empire in the 16th century. In it, he argues that empires project military power according to their economic resources but eventually the high cost of maintaining military supremacy weakens their economic base. As a result, they tend to respond by spending more on defense and thus weaken themselves further by diverting essential resources away from new, productive investment. Bennabi would view Kennedy’s fundamentally materialist analysis of “imperial overstretch” as a symptom, not a cause, given that, for him, economic and military imbalances occur only after a civilization has entered its Stage of the Instinct, and also because a society rich in “moral capital” can survive material scarcity, whereas a morally bankrupt society will collapse regardless of its GDP or military spending. Huntington, argued that post-Cold War conflicts would trigger along cultural and religious fault lines. Bennabi anticipated this friction but offered a deeper diagnostic. He contended that the tension between the West and the Islamic world is not an inherent clash of civilizations, but a clash between a dying, over-materialized civilization (the West) and a stagnant, “colonizable” society (the Islamic world) that has yet to rekindle its original spiritual formula. Bennabi’s entire philosophy stands as a direct refutation of Francis Fukuyama’s thesis positing that Western liberal democracy was the final endpoint of human ideological evolution. Bennabi warned against confusing “civilization” with “accumulation”, considering that buying, copying, or implementing Western political institutions and consumer products does not make a society civilized. Without a living spiritual and moral anchor, he explained, consumerist democracy is merely the final, sterile stage of the Stage of the Instinct. Two decades before Fukuyama, Bennabi used the concept of the “end of history,” but from radically different civilizational lenses: while Fukuyama — who views history as a linear, evolutionary process — history “ends” because the ultimate political and ideological consensus (that is Western liberal democracy and market capitalism) has been reached, for Bennabi — who views history as a cyclical law of nature — history “ must end at some point” when a specific civilizational cycle has exhausted its psychological and spiritual momentum. History then does not stop permanently; it resets so that a “new point” of civilizational genesis can begin. As for the “Last Man”, Fukuyama — drawing from Friedrich Nietzsche — sees him as a secure, materially satisfied individual devoid of great passions, higher ideals, or willingness to struggle, in other words, a figure representing the psychological stagnation of a triumphant Western model. Conversely, Bennabi observed a similar stagnation in the 3 Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000, Unwyn Hyman, London, 1988. Muslim world, which he termed the “colonizability” stage: when a civilization’s initial moral and spiritual impulse dies out, its people become passive consumers of other civilizations’ products, losing their agency in making history. Historian and demographer Emmanuel Todd famously predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union using mainly infant mortality rates. In his 2004 book first published in French “La Défaite de l’Occident” (The Defeat of the West) 4, he argues that the war in Ukraine (as well as the American nihilism exhibited in Gaza) acts as a revealer of the terminal decline of the West, triggered by internal self-destruction rather than just the power of its adversaries. Organized around demographic, industrial, and religious factors, Todd’s analysis concludes that the West in general and the United States in particular are in a deep state of social disintegration. Moreover, the total disappearance of Protestantism, which, he says, historically drove the strength of the Anglo-Saxon world (literacy, discipline, work ethic) left an ideological and moral vacuum. Thus, deprived of religious or collective guidance, the West has plummeted into a metaphysical void and a self-destructive impulse, resulting in a divorce between elites and the working class. In short, Todd is of the opinion that the Western bloc survives only through the aggressive expansion of an already hollow model. The concluding remark of the book is particularly grim: “If we want to anticipate America’s strategic choices, we must urgently abandon the axiom of rationality. The United States is not looking for gains by weighing costs. In the village of Washington, in the land of mass shootings, in the era of zero religion, the primary impulse is a need for violence.” Like Bennabi, Todd looks at the biological metrics of “Man” and “Time.” In particular, his observation of rising nihilism and declining birth rates in the West aligns precisely with Bennabi’s Stage of the Instinct, where individual gratification supersedes the generational transmission of civilization. In the same vein, jumping on the bandwagon of thinkers like Edward Gibbon5 in particular, historian Peter Heather and economist John Rapley contend, in their new book “Why Empires Fall”,6 that empires inevitably sow the seeds of their own destruction through an internal “imperial life cycle”. The authors show how an empire’s own success enriches and modernizes its geographic “periphery”, only to see these newly empowered outside regions rise up to challenge and overtake the imperial core. In such a pattern they find striking parallels between ancient Rome and the modern West (led by the United States), including — interestingly enough in light of the ongoing unjust US-Israeli war on Iran — in the fact that “the eventual revival of Persia as a peer competitor put unsustainable pressure on Rome’s declining fiscal and military capacities.”7 In concluding they stress that Western 4 Emmanuel Todd, La Défaite de l’Occident, Editions Gallimard, 2024. 5 Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) was a British historian, essayist, and politician best known for his six-volume The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in which he analyzed the causes of Rome’s fall from 98 to 1590, emphasizing internal decay, barbarian invasions, and the role of Christianity. His skeptical analysis of Christianity sparked lasting controversy, but his narrative style and rigorous scholarship profoundly influenced later historians and writers. Among those is British historian Niall Ferguson who said in 2015 that Europe “has grown decadent in its shopping malls and sports stadiums” while letting in “outsiders who have coveted its wealth without renouncing their ancestral faith (…) Like the Roman Empire in the early fifth century, Europe has allowed its defenses to crumble (…) This is exactly how civilizations fall.” 6 Peter Heather and John Rapley, Why Empires Fall: Rome, America, and the Future of the West, Allen Lane, 2023. 7 Read in this respect: -the essay co-authored by Narges Bajoghli and Vali Nasr titled Iran’s New Grand Strategy, published in the July/August 2026 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/irans-new-grand-strategy). In it, the two scholars of Iranian origin examine how a new generation of Iranian leaders is reshaping the country’s domestic order, society, and regional policy. following recent conflicts; -Marc Lynch’s analysis titled The End of the American Middle East: Iran and the Last Gasp of a Failed Order, in the September/October 2026 issue of the same magazine, in which the Professor of Political Science and International Affairs global primacy cannot be recovered, but total collapse is not a foregone conclusion if leadership adapts. To preserve the West’s core interests, they say, Western leaders must stop trying to police the world and instead focus on creating a multipolar global framework. By doing so, “Not only would the form of the Western nation state — originally built on leveraged wealth flows from the rest of the planet — have managed to negotiate a moment of potentially existential crisis, but it would have generated a post-colonial legacy of real greatness, of which its citizens could be genuinely proud.” It is important to point out here that the literature on the historiography of how empires rise and fall, and more specifically the one on the parallel between the fate of ancient Rome and that of the modern West (under the leadership of the United States), has exploded in recent decades, especially following the fall of the Soviet Union and, consequently, the emergence of the United States of America as the sole “hyperpower,” to use the term coined by former French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. Almost two decades before Heather and Hapley, the former editor-at-large of Vanity Fair magazine in the US, and previously managing editor of The Atlantic Monthly, Cullen Murphy, wrote a compelling book8 on this very subject. In it, he explores how the Roman and American populations saw their political elites, and their insular cultures; looks at the consequences of military overstretch and the widening gap between military and civilian society; sees both states weakened through “privatization” and vexed by the paradoxical issue of borders; and argues that America most resembles Rome in the “burgeoning corruption of its government and in its arrogant ignorance of the world”. With regard to this last point, he writes: “The Romans were aware, to be sure, that all previous empires had fallen. But they saw their own empire as the culminating work of creation. The torch had been passed, once and for all. Roma Aeterna! In the eyes of a Roman living in the empire’s Golden Age, Rome would never die.” Outside of academia, French President Emmanuel Macron was one of the few Western leaders to publicly acknowledge this historical shift. At a conference, on August 27, 2019, at the Élysée Palace, he delivered a significant speech to his ambassadors accredited worldwide, in which he notably declared: “We are undoubtedly witnessing the end of Western hegemony over the world,” due to Western errors and the emergence of new powers. The President analyzed the transition from an international order shaped since the 18th century by the West (France, the United Kingdom, and then the United States) to a new balance of power disrupted by geopolitical missteps and American choices.9 The fate of the “Jewish State”: Like Father like Son at George Washington University and author of America’s Middle East: The Ruination of a Region, argues that “The American Middle East is finished. The regional order that has prevailed since 1991 has been one of the many casualties of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran. The American and Israeli failure to dislodge the regime in Tehran has proved the bankruptcy of decades of sanctions and violence (…) the old order is in fact giving way to something new (…) And assuming that the Iranian regime does not collapse any time soon — which it appears highly unlikely to do — an emboldened Tehran will hope to defend and expand its regional influence by bogging Washington down in the kinds of endless, borderless ‘gray zone’ conflicts in which it has always thrived.” 8 Cullen Murphy, The New Rome: The Fall of an Empire and the Fate of America, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA, 2007. 9 To read the full speech in French: https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel- macron/2019/08/27/discours-du-president-de-la- republique-a-la-conference-des-ambassadeurs-1 In his recent book, The Monstrosity of Our Century 10, Amir Nour devoted an entire chapter to the complex issue of the fate of what Israelis call the “Jewish state.” He expressed his conviction that this “state” — created from scratch with the active complicity and multifaceted support of the West in 1948 in a geographical and civilizational area entirely different from the history, culture, and aspirations of the Zionist settlers who came primarily from Central and Eastern Europe — lacks both the legitimacy and the demographics necessary to guarantee its long-term survival. Nour offered his perspective on what he considers the only lasting solution to a conflict originating In World War I and whose dramatic consequences risk multiplying in the future absent an urgent and definitive settlement. Past and present upheavals throughout the West Asian region prove beyond a doubt that such a lasting solution could be nothing other than the creation of a democratic state (or confederation) in Palestine where Muslim, Jewish, Christian and other citizens will have the same constitutional rights and obligations, and share the common desire to achieve peace and prosperity in a “holly land”, transformed by an “unholy alliance” between a supremacist Zionist ideology and nihilist West only pursuing its vested interests, into a land of genocide and other tragedies, of which the Palestinians are the principal sin-offerings. This viewpoint, long considered by representatives of the said alliance as a chimera, or even anathema, is today increasingly shared and defended by figures who are authorities in Western academic circles and, more significantly, among young Jews and a significant fringe within the American Democratic Party, as evidenced by recent polls conducted by bodies known for their seriousness.11 To back up our point, we’ll share in the lines that follow some viewpoints similar to Nour’s, expressed by well-known personalities from different cultural and religious backgrounds. In his latest book12 “Israël. Une course vers l’abîme” (Israel. A Race to the Abyss), renowned Jewish historian, a specialist of Nazi Germany and the genocide of the Jews of Europe, Omer Bartov gives a searing critique of Israel’s trajectory from a post-Shoah refuge to what he describes as an ethno- nationalist regime engaged in “systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts” in Gaza. The grandson and son of fervent Zionist figures, the Israeli-American academician wonders what “went wrong” in the realization of the Zionist dream, an ideology, he says, that has now become “indefensible” and must be relegated to the dustbin of history.13 It is important to note here that in November 2023, Bartov believed that there was no evidence a genocide was happening in Gaza, and in an interview with Democracy Now! the same month he explained that neither the two-state solution nor a binational state is realistic, saying “A binational state wouldn’t work, and an independent Palestinian state has become practically impossible. The only solution is a confederation, two distinct but interdependent states, with shared institutions.” Without a political solution, he says, Israeli society will sink a little deeper into a moral and psychological abyss every day. He, therefore, places 10 See:https://www.claritypress.com/product/the-monstrosity-of-our-century-the-war-on-palestine-and-the-last-western- man/ 11 Read Bededict Vigers’ article “Israelis No Longer Ahead in Americans’ Middle East Sympathies” showing shifting public opinion in the United States, with 57% of Americans supporting an independent Palestinian state, and 41% expressing more sympathy for Palestinians compared to 36% for Israelis, especially among specific young adults: https://share.google/Sjb3Ar8563GxuAPWK 12 Omer Bartov, Israël. Une course vers l’abîme, (translated by Sibylle Grimbert), Editions du Seuil, May 2026. 13 For more insights about the Zionist ideology, read: Pr. Yakov Rapkin, Israel in Palestine: Jewish Rejection of Zionism, Aspect Editions, September 2025. his hope in international pressure, particularly from Germany, which would force Israel to accept the creation of a confederation based on openness and cooperation, linking two distinct states, one Palestinian and the other Israeli, separated by a border set along the “1967 Green Line” (the one that existed before the so-called Six-Day War). Pr. John Mearsheimer argues that history is not a neutral backdrop in international politics. It is “a living force that shapes perceptions, fuels grievances, and molds the behavior of states and societies. The Six-Day War of 1967 — which left Israel in control of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights — he rightly reminds us, was a humiliation for the Arab world and a turning point in regional memory. That defeat still echoes in Arab political culture, and the longer those territories remain occupied, the more deeply they entrench hostility toward Israel, not only among Palestinians but across the wider region. Beyond the Middle East, especially in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Mearsheimer adds, Israel is increasingly viewed through the lens of colonial history, and “in a multipolar world where the voices of the Global South carry more weight, this perception magnifies Israel’s isolation.” Moreover, resentment is not confined to the Arab-Muslim worlds and the other countries of the Global South. In Europe, Mearsheimer explains, memories of colonialism and guilt over the Holocaust initially produced strong sympathy for Israel, but “as the decades have passed, the sympathy has waned. This shift in European sentiment is significant because “Europe remains an important partner in international diplomacy, and its criticism adds to Israel’s isolation in global forums.” Even more significant is for Mearsheimer the fact that in the United Stated, “which has provided Israel with a unique combination of military aid, diplomatic cover, and economic assistance that no other state on earth has enjoyed for such an extended period of time — consensus is eroding as younger Americans evaluate Israel primarily through the lens of contemporary politics, namely respect for human rights and international law rather than Cold War ideologies and alliances. For them, “the narrative of eternal victimhood rings hollow when it conflicts with the lived reality of Palestinians under occupation.”. History, Mearsheimer concludes as a serious warning to Israel, “is full of examples where states dependent on external guarantees found themselves exposed when their patrons shifted course.” Concurring broadly with Mearsheimer’s views, Wadah Khanfar, a prominent Palestinian journalist and former Director of the Al Jazeera Network, explicitly compares the current contends that Western and Israeli strategists evaluate their conflicts in the Arab-Muslim world solely in terms of physical destruction and technological superiority. In doing so, they overlook the civilizational psychology of the region, and much like the Crusaders, the Mongols, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Western colonialists experienced in their entanglements with the peoples of the region, “bombing infrastructures does not erase a people’s will for dignity or their collective memory. The escalation against Iran and the siege of Gaza only entrench long-term resistance, turning Israel into a pariah state that is unmanageable for Washington.” For Khanfar, the war on Gaza and the strikes against Iran are not isolated events, but the convulsions of a dying Western order. Escaping the colonial era and Western hegemony in the Middle East, he says, relies on a dual dynamic: an internal impulse (the youth rejecting passive elites and rewriting the global narrative) and an external geopolitical coalition (i.e. an expanded Islamic alliance). Only through such a synergy will the region cease to be a playground for major powers and “once again become the author of its own history.”` Conclusion Only through such a synergy, Khanfar argues, will the region cease to be a playground for major powers and “once again become the author of its own history.” And perhaps this is where we should return, one final time, to Bennabi. Because the decline of one civilization is not the birth certificate of another. The weakening of Western hegemony, however profound it may become, will not by itself restore the historical agency of the Arab-Muslim world. Nor will American retreat, Israeli isolation, multipolarity, or the emergence of new powers automatically produce a new civilization. Bennabi would probably have regarded such expectations as another form of dependence: waiting for history to be delivered by the decline of others instead of creating it ourselves. This, ultimately, is why history matters to us. We come from a region that has known conquest and resistance, humiliation and renewal, colonization and independence. We have inherited both wounds and possibilities. And we have learned that military superiority can occupy territory, destroy cities and impose political orders — sometimes for generations — but it cannot indefinitely command memory, dignity or the human desire to recover agency. Empires eventually discover this. Peoples rarely forget it. Bennabi’s enduring lesson is therefore neither a prophecy of Western collapse nor a promise of Muslim renaissance. It is considerably more demanding: no civilization inherits the future simply because another civilization is losing its grip on the present. History does not reward those who wait beside the ruins of an exhausted order. It begins again with those capable of transforming Man, Soil and Time into meaning, responsibility and action. The question before us is therefore no longer merely whether an age is ending. It is whether we are ready to help write what comes next.