Far from taking any steps towards institutionalized political unity, the Arabs of today appear incapable of reaching any agreement in response to any of the serious and dangerous situations facing the Arabs collectively. Any follower of mediatised intra-Arab political or social debates would note the absurd pattern where the majority of debates amongst Arab representatives turn into un-intelligible disputes, worthy only of sighs of frustration and disbelief.

The divergence in interests combined with an inability to communicate has rendered the thought of mere collaboration between Arabs naïve and utopian.

The impotence of the Arabs in Palestine, Iraq, Sudan and now Yemen has saddened and frustrated generations, leading them either to utmost indifference or, more seriously, to religious fanaticism.

Whilst we are aware that the depressed tone of this article so far would appeal to many of our cynical readers, our actual purpose is to show that the spirit of Arab Renaissance still exists and is capable of making a major comeback.

The first Arab Renaissance started in the second half of the Nineteenth century as a corollary to the cultural and educational awareness raised after Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt and the contact with the western world. A significant Arab movement led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca grew under the shadow of the First World War. It did not however survive the Ottoman Empire and disappeared with the British and French division and dominance of the Arab world. A more mature Renaissance movement saw the light in the 1950’s focusing on the struggle against the establishment of Israel and the support of national independent movements growing in the “post colonial” countries.

The death of Jamal Abdul Nasser followed by the Camp David accord in 1978 ended a movement which could not survive with Egypt out of the equation. The military resistance to the Israeli invasion in Lebanon in the summer of 1982 followed by the First and Second Palestinian Intifada in 1987 and 2000 is considered by certain authors as the Third Arab Renaissance movement.

According to Issam Noman, a Lebanese politician and thinker, the Third Renaissance has progressed to a new civilized project, in line with the globalisation movement of the 21st Century. A project, which according to Noman, should be based on“mutual exchange, the removal of constraints and borders amongst countries, people and cultures in response to the telecommunication and technological revolution”.

And it is here that we contend that a spirit of Arab unity persists and grows in the region today, despite all political realities and agendas that push doggedly in the opposite direction. First and foremost, a pan-Arab mentality is manifesting itself in the world of business. We are not talking here of any significant pan-Arab economic initiatives at the government level. With the exception of the good work being done at the level of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), efforts at economic coordination amongst Arab governments are pretty much dead in the water.

Still, Arab businessmen and companies are approaching the Arab world as one market. This comes not as the result of some rosy ideological attachments, but from a pure sense of business opportunities. Start–ups are springing up across the Arab world, starting in one Arab country and then moving swiftly to establish a presence in other Arab countries.

This trend is most visible in businesses that are grounded in the knowledge economy. Internet and new media enterprises must approach the Arab market as one, as it speaks one language. The success of enterprises like Zawya.com, Yamli.com, and Koora.com speaks volumes about the need to adopt a holistic approach to conducting business in Arabia.

Samih Toukan, co-founder of Maktoob.com, said at the recent ArabNet conference (http://www.arabnet.me/) in Beirut: “Investors look at Arab world as a whole…as one market.” In fact, nothing embodies the point of this article as the vibrancy and exuberance that was manifested at ArabNet. Speakers talked with passion about the need to foster and support the growing digital and entrepreneurial spirit in the Arab world. Young innovators from Jordan, Lebanon and many other Arab countries presented their projects to various investors who were focused on the Arab world as one unit.

Contrast this enthusiasm with that surrounding the annual Arab Summit that was held at the end of March in Sert, Libya. The level of popular interest was possibly at an all time low. Arabs, including their leaders, fully appreciate that a pan-Arab approach to regional challenges is at best futile.

However, there continues to be a strong Arab connection at the human level that pierces through this collective cynicism towards a unified political approach. For despite all the intelligentsia’s newfound realism that confines any form of Arab unity to obscurity, no one in his right mind would or could deny that basic, emotional link that still binds one Arab to another. It is that link that transcends the daily conflict that marks Arab politics.

This article aims to start a conversation. It is not about adopting slogans for or against Arab unity. It is about rational debate. Is the growing sense of one Arab market, driven by innovators and businessmen, a precursor to a grass roots movement towards the adoption of a truly integrated Arab economy? Is such a development worthy of our focus and effort? Could the human bond between Arabs be a driving force for unified Arab effort towards change?

Decades of failure will naturally lead many to respond negatively to these questions. But this is ultimately a knee jerk reaction that is, in and of itself, yet another manifestation of our decline.

We should seek positive conclusions from the encouraging realities on the ground. Whether it’s in the emerging success of Arab businesses, or in the engagement of the sense of Arab civil society to address our common regional challenges, there lies somewhere, potentially, the seeds of reform.

Amid this whirlwind of activity, it is fair to say that the average Arab’s assessment of US policy is rather puzzled. Arabs have gotten used to the US government’s absolute bias towards Israel, a bias that reached its ultimate climax under the forgettable George W. Bush.

President Obama has spoken a different language. He seems genuinely focused on trying to build a bridge over the long years of mistrust between the Arab masses and the US political establishment.

This of course came to a head in Obama’s extraordinary Cairo speech, a speech of grand ambition that was historic in every sense of the word. Suddenly, it seemed that there is an American President who has at least an inkling of Palestinian suffering, and who wanted to talk of Palestinian rights on an equal footing with those of Israelis. Obama went as far as comparing the Palestinian struggle to that of African Americans in the US over the last two hundred years.

The tone and body language were of a kind that Arabs have not seen in years. The focus of the US administration on putting pressure on Israel to stop all settlement activity, as well as the language on how resolution of this conflict is the key to other conflicts in the region, was refreshingly empathetic.

Faced with this barrage of messages from the US administration, Arabs are reacting in various ways. On the one hand, you have so many who still find refuge in the safety of cynicism; nothing will ever change when it comes to US policy, the US administration is beholden to the agenda of AIPAC… Etc. Some Arab writers, whilst acknowledging the existence of some divergence in views between Israel and the current US administration, argue that signs of slight conflict do not represent the beginning of any real crisis in relations. A more resigned view also exists, which holds that Arabs are clutching at straws and, in fact, there is no real change in American policy.

On the other hand, you have a large number of optimistic Obama admirers who are convinced Obama will bring real and lasting change to this issue as he did to American politics. They have bought in wholesale into the Obama mantra which saw him declare on the eve of elections, “together, we will change the world.”

While we are strong admirers of Obama, we feel that the best approach, as always, is somewhere in the middle. There is the air of change in Washington for sure. We must acknowledge that element of change, and assess Obama’s policy regarding this issue with a sober and calm head. Most importantly, Arabs must react to this new policy with a positive and enabling attitude to ensure that we seize the momentum and guide it towards a just and fair solution.

Let us analyze in a measured manner some of the changes that the Obama administration has introduced into this issue. Firstly, the matter of continuing settlement activity was covered in great detail in the press. This was not a publicity stunt. Obama’s insistence on ceasing any expansion of Israeli settlement in the West Bank was stronger in both substance and tone than that of previous administrations. While some writers like Noam Chomsky claim that Obama did not match his words with any radical action, such as linking Israeli compliance to US aid, it is self-defeating to pretend that positions have not changed in the slightest.

Secondly, unlike George Bush, Obama has so far refused to follow Israel’s argument that the root of the problem is Iran and not occupation. Obama has clearly distinguished between the issues of Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While any nuclear proliferation is a cause of concern, it is good to see that Obama has not fallen for the trap of ignoring all the wrongs of Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights in the interest of pursuing a separate foreign policy challenge. To quote Time magazine’s Tony Karon,

“the US President won’t buy Netanyahou’s sequencing …. Netanyahou will say no progress is possible on the Palestinian front until Iran is defanged; Obama will argue that rallying Arab support against Iran’s ambitions requires resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Thirdly, the US administration has introduced the sense of urgency into the necessity of salvaging the two–state solution. While this has been the position of previous administrations, the Obama team is eager to see the vision materialize with speed.

Uncertainty still reigns over many aspects of the current administration’s policies. For example, the US approach to Jerusalem is not clear at all. In a campaign speech last year to AIPAC, Obama made it clear that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel. This seemed to deny all Palestinian rights to parts of Jerusalem in line with United Nations resolutions. Although Obama has since toned down his position in this regard, seemingly as a result of the advice of seasoned advisors like former President Jimmy Carter, he has not yet proclaimed a definitive position.

It is our view that there is some form of change taking place. This new-found flexibility in the American approach is primarily due to two interrelated factors:

Obama is first of all a man of the world who listens intently to all sides of a story. He brings a fresh analytical approach to the highest office in the US.

Secondly, this change is the result of the Obama administration’s analysis of the long term interests of the United States in the region. Certain commentators have argued that Obama’s team sees the necessity of integrating Israel into the region in order to guarantee a more secure future for its ally.

However, the issue is not the rationale behind Obama’s stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The question is whether there is a momentum of change, and how can Arabs seize the initiative in the interest of Palestinian rights and justice for all. We cannot sit back and let our inherent cynicism destroy the opportunity of the moment, yet again. What good is there to achieve from burying our heads in the sand and bemoaning our misfortune, yet again.

Whatever conspiracy theory one can concoct out of thin air to justify Obama’s words and actions, it is high time for a proactive approach. Real change in politics can never come from resignation and passive aggression, which have dominated Arab political emotions for the last century.

Let us try to analyze the seeming shift and see how we can contribute to any momentum and actively encourage it. It is time to believe in our own capacity to contribute to the shaping of the future of the region.

Alright, some of you out there will point out that a similar election exists in Iraq. But we must say that there aren’t many in the Arab world who are ready to sing the praises of a fragile democracy that literally came on the backs of hundreds of thousands of lost innocent lives, not to mention that the war in question was brought about by a certain W, whom the world is desperate to consign to the dark corners of the brain’s memory.

On the other hand, there are the details of the Lebanese elections. And in so many of those details Arabs cannot help but find signs of concern.

There is concern that the Arabs are perhaps historically and genetically unsuited to liberal democracy. While it is common to have long-lasting political dynasties in places as far and wide as Argentina, the US and India, the Lebanese have taken the art of political succession to new heights or, more accurately, unparalleled lows!

We are not talking here about one or two political dynasties. In Lebanon, it seems that a large number of the seats in Parliament have turned into family fiefdoms. Father passes on the mantle to the son, or the son to the brother, or the husband to the wife, and on and on. And we cannot help but marvel at how the Lebanese electorate is so ready to align its support in line with wherever the movement of genes takes them.

It has to be acknowledged that many of the political acts of inheritance were brought about after spates of assassinations that have marked Lebanese history since the 1950s. While the human angle to these tragedies is heartbreaking and must be condemned in the clearest terms, it should not serve as a justification for the persistence of a monarchical form of democracy. In fact, it can even be argued that a system that honours legacy over principle is the worst form of memorial for those who gave their lives for Lebanon.

Let us survey some of the leading illustrations of this democratic system of neo-feudalism:

Obviously, world famous Saad Al Hariri has inherited both the business and political leadership of the Lebanese version of Camelot. He controls the 14 March coalition, currently holding the majority of the outgoing parliament. As for the Phalangist party, also members of the 14 March coalition, political powers have been passed on vertically, horizontally and in every other possible direction. First cousins Sami Gmayel and Nadim Gmayel, both sons of former presidents, are running in Matein district and Beirut’s first district respectively. Not to mention that Sami’s father, Amine, is still the leader of the Phalangist party. After a long successful career as university students, supporters and friends, not to mention relatives, have unanimously agreed that the time for Sami and Nadim to bring change to Lebanon has come.

Without any doubt, the star of the 2009 elections is Nayla Tueini, the political child prodigy par excellence. Nayla, 26, is crowning a long and memorable 2-year career as a journalist by running the leading newspaper in Lebanon and by running to succeed her father in Beirut’s first district. If successful, she can look forward to sharing a cozy family experience in Parliament with fellow candidate and grandfather, Michel Al Mur (running in Matein district), and uncle Marwan Hamade, running in El Chouf district.

This political inheritance business is not limited to the forces of the March 14 majority, as it applies in equal measure throughout the list of candidates of the Opposition Alliance. Names such as Suleiman Frangieh (Zgharta), Omar Karami (Tripoli), Ahmad Karami (Tripoli), Raafat Ali Eid (Tripoli), Karim Al Rassi (Akkar), Prince Talal Ursulan (Aley) and Maarouf Saad (Saida) come to mind, all having inherited their political power and right to run from their families. As for Ghassan Rahbani (Matein), he is practicing the arts of asymmetrical political succession. For his authority does not stem from family members long steeped in the world of politics, but from the sound of music.

The list goes on and on. There are no guns or tanks on the streets that impose these hereditary choices on the people of Lebanon. And it is there that the heart of the deadlock lies. The people are voting, with a free will, for representatives on the basis of name and rights of succession.

However, it must also be said that the system in Lebanon has encouraged the perpetuation of such narrow choices. The electoral system, adopted in the Doha Agreement of 2008, served to limit the districts along narrower family and communal lines.

Any observer of the Lebanese political scene would agree that it seems rather utopian to foresee any change of the current status quo in the near future. In fact, any call for a white revolution à la Obama would most likely be labeled as unrealistic or naïve.

Yet history has proven that change will come as soon people will want change. Voices calling for independent choices in Lebanon have always existed. One could only hope that our cynicism will be swept away by 2013.