In a deafening silence—the silence of great ideas when they withdraw from the clamor of the world—the Egyptian philosopher Mourad Wahba passed away at the age of 100, leaving behind a void that cannot be measured by the number of books published, but by the rarity of Arab voices capable, like his, of going against the grain of dominant thought. His death represents a major loss for Arab rationalism. It marks a rupture, a stark reminder that philosophy in the Arab world remains an act of resistance, and that the price of such resistance is paid dearly, sometimes long after death.

There are certain court summonses whose dull thud echoes far beyond the mere slam of courtroom doors. The one awaiting Jafar Panahi this Sunday, January 4, 2026, at Branch 26 of Tehran’s Revolutionary Court, resounds like a discordant note disturbing, at the start of the year, the uneasy silence of world cinema.

For the first time in recent Swedish history, Education and Integration Minister Simona Mohamsson has announced the launch of a government investigation into what she describes as “the Islamist infiltration of Swedish society.” At the heart of the inquiry lies the Muslim Brotherhood network, accused of exerting growing influence over certain institutions and local political organizations.

Donald Trump’s latest proposal to end the war in Gaza is less a diplomatic blueprint than a piece of political theater — part personal gamble, part headlong rush, part global spectacle. What the White House presents as a finely tuned, 20-point “peace plan” reads more like a survival script in which every actor clings to power, rather than a roadmap to lasting peace.

Some cases leave a mark not only on political life but also on the journalistic conscience of a country. The so-called Libyan financing affair involving Nicolas Sarkozy is one of them. Ten years of investigation, a lengthy trial, a former President sentenced to five years in prison. And at the origin of this judicial earthquake: a document published in May 2012 by Mediapart. A document that the courts later established to be a forgery, but which nonetheless opened the way to an investigation and eventually to a historic indictment.

It is often repeated, like a mantra, that recognizing the State of Palestine would amount to handing Hamas a victory. But this overlooks a stubborn truth: it is precisely the refusal to recognize Palestine that fuels Islamism, by reinforcing the idea that only violence can open prospects. Saying yes to Palestine means giving substance to the two-state solution and thus marginalizing those who reject it. Hamas first and foremost.

Dear friend, When, in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, I called—in an editorial that didn’t earn me many friends (Screen Watch, #38, October 2023)—for an end to Hamas’s occupation of Gaza, while reminding readers of the fascislamist ideology of this organization and the Nazi affinities of its founders and inspirers, we felt united in grief and horror. Beyond our origins, our faith or lack of it, and our political positions, we were bound together in a humanist surge against ignominy, stunned to see a word resurface that we thought—and wanted—banished forever: Pogrom!

This is the story of a man who joined jihad at the age of 21, fought the “Great Western Satan” for two decades, seized power by force, and was “elected” president of the republic—not through the ballot box but through Bay’a, the oath of allegiance sworn by his followers. And now, here he is, received with honors at the Élysée and presented as a “moderate” who has renounced jihadist violence and is supposedly leading a democratic transition! All while his followers continue to massacre minorities in his country.

Of course, the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers are essential conditions for judicial impartiality. The verdict delivered by the Paris correctional court against Marine Le Pen, in the case of the Front National’s (now Rassemblement National) European parliamentary assistants, stems from this necessary—and sometimes perplexing—independence of judges. The surprise and embarrassment that the verdict has cast on the political class… even at the highest levels of government, are a testament to this.