Al Jazeera World

To some, they are heroes, while others called them outlaws.

Even their name - the Fellagha - had different meanings for different people. While the word literally translates to "bandits", in 20th century Tunisia, they were known as those who resisted the French presence in North Africa's smallest country.

In Tunisia, they were the separatist resistance fighters who launched a campaign against French colonial rule which, together with political negotiations, culminated in independence in 1956.

Drawn mainly from the mountainous rural south of the country, the Fellagha drew inspiration from their ancestors - rebels who had opposed the French immediately after colonial rule began in the 1880s.

By the 1920s, resistance to the French presence was growing, and by World War Two the Fellagha were launching regular attacks on French military installations in the country. In 1952, the armed resistance was officially launched and by 1954, Fellagha ranks had swollen to several thousand fighters.

Although the Fellagha faced a military opposition that was better equipped, better funded, more experienced, and had much greater numbers, they were determined. While on paper, the French army was a far superior force than the Fellagha, the Tunisians had local knowledge and public support on their side.

Like other North African independence movements, Tunisia's decades-long fight against colonial rule also began as a mainly political one - but was not ultimately achieved without a violent struggle.

In this two-part documentary, we take a look at the Fellagha mainly through the eyes of its old fighters: men who fought the French, and then continued to take issue with the country's new government even after independence.

In Episode 1, Rebels: When the French colonised Tunisia in the late 19th century they cemented their rule, but also triggered the founding of an armed rebel movement. As the independence movement grew, so did their armed struggle. This episode is built around the first-hand testimony of these Fellagha fighters, now old men but still vividly recalling how they were recruited, farmers by day and fighters by night; the details of their anti-French paramilitary activity and the toll the conflict took on their communities.

Episode Two will be available from October 2, 2019.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

To some, they are heroes, while others called them outlaws.

Even their name - the Fellagha - had different meanings for different people. While the word literally translates to "bandits", in 20th century Tunisia, they were known as those who resisted the French presence in North Africa's smallest country.

In Tunisia, they were the separatist resistance fighters who launched a campaign against French colonial rule which, together with political negotiations, culminated in independence in 1956.

Drawn mainly from the mountainous rural south of the country, the Fellagha drew inspiration from their ancestors - rebels who had opposed the French immediately after colonial rule began in the 1880s.

By the 1920s, resistance to the French presence was growing, and by World War Two the Fellagha were launching regular attacks on French military installations in the country. In 1952, the armed resistance was officially launched and by 1954, Fellagha ranks had swollen to several thousand fighters.

Although the Fellagha faced a military opposition that was better equipped, better funded, more experienced, and had much greater numbers, they were determined. While on paper, the French army was a far superior force than the Fellagha, the Tunisians had local knowledge and public support on their side.

Like other North African independence movements, Tunisia's decades-long fight against colonial rule also began as a mainly political one - but was not ultimately achieved without a violent struggle.

In this two-part documentary, we take a look at the Fellagha mainly through the eyes of its old fighters: men who fought the French, and then continued to take issue with the country's new government even after independence.

In Episode 1, Rebels: When the French colonised Tunisia in the late 19th century they cemented their rule, but also triggered the founding of an armed rebel movement. As the independence movement grew, so did their armed struggle. This episode is built around the first-hand testimony of these Fellagha fighters, now old men but still vividly recalling how they were recruited, farmers by day and fighters by night; the details of their anti-French paramilitary activity and the toll the conflict took on their communities.

Episode Two will be available from October 2, 2019.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Isaac Hernandez has an ambitious dream: He hopes to help change his country through the medium of dance.

As the first Mexican to hold the prestigious role of lead principal dancer at the English National Ballet, the 29-year-old has already achieved a great deal. Two years ago he was named Best Male Dancer at ballet's equivalent of the Oscars.

"I consider [dance] a human right," he tells Al Jazeera, "something that is an instinct that we all have."

Along with his 10 brothers and sisters, Hernandez was taught dance at an early age in the back yard of their home in Guadalajara by parents who were also dancers.

"Ballet has been so exciting at different points in my life," he says. "Because when I was just starting to dance it was purely recreational. But when I started to understand the mechanics and the techniques behind it, and started realising how that was pushing my physical ability to the limit and to discover new limits, that was just pure excitement. And the moment that I felt that on stage, then I understood what freedom meant."

Despite living and performing around the world since he was 13, his heart remains in Mexico.

"There are realities about Mexico that, no matter how high I jump and how many turns I do, we cannot ignore; really there are real issues in my country that need to be addressed. For a very long time now, it's been very violent, it's been very corrupt," he says.

"But I have always been hopeful for my country because I recognise an essence in its people that gives me hope, that made me go back and say there's people here that are worth working for. And we need to be able to do it well."

Hernandez emphasises the need to do things without a political agenda, and for the wellbeing of individuals and the future of the country.

He set up a project to bring world-class dancers to Mexico to perform, teach in workshops, and inspire young dancers there. But government funding for the project has faced hurdles.

"One of the most popular sayings in Mexico is, if you are an artist you are going to starve, and the other one is that boys don't do ballet, and that ballet is a hobby, not a serious profession. So based on those three main issues that get passed through generations, I understood that the first thing that needs to happen is to change the mind of the parents for them to feel like their kids' passion could be a profession."

He believes that promoting the value of the arts could also be a way to help build Mexico's economy.

"I saw a huge potential in Mexico that was not being considered in that sense," he says. "So I started to promote a different way of seeing arts; not only as a tool for education, but as a tool for social mobility, so that a kid who starts dancing in a backyard can make a living, can improve his life, and by consequence improve a whole country."

On Talk to Al Jazeera, Hernandez discusses the joy of dance, why the arts urgently need government support in Mexico, and how young people should have the chance to realise their dreams.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Isaac Hernandez has an ambitious dream: He hopes to help change his country through the medium of dance.

As the first Mexican to hold the prestigious role of lead principal dancer at the English National Ballet, the 29-year-old has already achieved a great deal. Two years ago he was named Best Male Dancer at ballet's equivalent of the Oscars.

"I consider [dance] a human right," he tells Al Jazeera, "something that is an instinct that we all have."

Along with his 10 brothers and sisters, Hernandez was taught dance at an early age in the back yard of their home in Guadalajara by parents who were also dancers.

"Ballet has been so exciting at different points in my life," he says. "Because when I was just starting to dance it was purely recreational. But when I started to understand the mechanics and the techniques behind it, and started realising how that was pushing my physical ability to the limit and to discover new limits, that was just pure excitement. And the moment that I felt that on stage, then I understood what freedom meant."

Despite living and performing around the world since he was 13, his heart remains in Mexico.

"There are realities about Mexico that, no matter how high I jump and how many turns I do, we cannot ignore; really there are real issues in my country that need to be addressed. For a very long time now, it's been very violent, it's been very corrupt," he says.

"But I have always been hopeful for my country because I recognise an essence in its people that gives me hope, that made me go back and say there's people here that are worth working for. And we need to be able to do it well."

Hernandez emphasises the need to do things without a political agenda, and for the wellbeing of individuals and the future of the country.

He set up a project to bring world-class dancers to Mexico to perform, teach in workshops, and inspire young dancers there. But government funding for the project has faced hurdles.

"One of the most popular sayings in Mexico is, if you are an artist you are going to starve, and the other one is that boys don't do ballet, and that ballet is a hobby, not a serious profession. So based on those three main issues that get passed through generations, I understood that the first thing that needs to happen is to change the mind of the parents for them to feel like their kids' passion could be a profession."

He believes that promoting the value of the arts could also be a way to help build Mexico's economy.

"I saw a huge potential in Mexico that was not being considered in that sense," he says. "So I started to promote a different way of seeing arts; not only as a tool for education, but as a tool for social mobility, so that a kid who starts dancing in a backyard can make a living, can improve his life, and by consequence improve a whole country."

On Talk to Al Jazeera, Hernandez discusses the joy of dance, why the arts urgently need government support in Mexico, and how young people should have the chance to realise their dreams.

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Over decades, millions of people from the Arab world have emigrated - some driven by conflict and persecution, others for economic and family reasons. They have settled in Europe, Australia, the Americas and Africa.

But media coverage tends to focus on refugees fleeing war, poverty and persecution, often at the start of their treacherous journeys. These stories can sometimes be stereotyped and incomplete.

In the Arabs Abroad series, Al Jazeera World profiles the lives of migrants long after their initial journey. We meet people who have built successful lives away from their Arab homelands, while remaining connected to their roots - each in their own way giving something back to the region of their birth.

In ‘The Businesswoman and the Councillor’ we meet two remarkable women of Middle Eastern descent who are thriving in Europe : Dr Nada al-Rubaiee, a Dutch-Iraqi pharmacist and businesswoman, and Sumaya Abdel Qader, a Palestinian-Italian who is also Milan's first Muslim female councillor.

Read more: https://aje.io/cdxmk

-

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Over decades, millions of people from the Arab world have emigrated - some driven by conflict and persecution, others for economic and family reasons. They have settled in Europe, Australia, the Americas and Africa.

But media coverage tends to focus on refugees fleeing war, poverty and persecution, often at the start of their treacherous journeys. These stories can sometimes be stereotyped and incomplete.

In the Arabs Abroad series, Al Jazeera World profiles the lives of migrants long after their initial journey. We meet people who have built successful lives away from their Arab homelands, while remaining connected to their roots - each in their own way giving something back to the region of their birth.

In ‘The Businesswoman and the Councillor’ we meet two remarkable women of Middle Eastern descent who are thriving in Europe : Dr Nada al-Rubaiee, a Dutch-Iraqi pharmacist and businesswoman, and Sumaya Abdel Qader, a Palestinian-Italian who is also Milan's first Muslim female councillor.

Read more: https://aje.io/cdxmk

-

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

It has been a year since the former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan became Pakistan's Prime Minister.

Khan's campaign slogan was "Naya Pakistan" or "New Pakistan", a reflection of his promises to turn the county's economy around and end corruption.

But the first year of his premiership has not gone as smoothly as he may have hoped or even expected, especially in terms of the economy. The Pakistani rupee has lost 35 percent of its value during his time in office.

Khan's critics call him the prime minister of the U-turns, as he has been forced to go back on many of his campaign pledges in an attempt to rescue the situation.

"I'm glad they say I'm a prime minister of U-turns. Only an idiot doesn't do any u-turns," Khan tells Al Jazeera. "Only a moron, when he's on a course and he comes across a brick wall, only that stupid idiot keeps banging his head against a brick wall. An intelligent person immediately revises his strategy and goes around it."

But have any of these 'U-turns' had a positive impact on the country?

In terms of foreign affairs, Pakistan is closer than ever to its neighbour, China. But relations with its other neighbour, India, are at a new low.

Asked whether these two nuclear countries are at risk of another major conflict, or even war, Khan tells Al Jazeera he "absolutely" believes war with India could be a possibility.

"Eight million Muslims in Kashmir are under siege for almost now six weeks. And why this can become a flashpoint between India and Pakistan is because what we already know India is trying to do is divert attention from their illegal annexation and their impending genocide on Kashmir," he says. "They are taking the attention away by blaming Pakistan for terrorism."

"Pakistan would never start a war, and I am clear: I am a pacifist, I am anti-war, I believe that wars do not solve any problems," he clarifies.

But, he adds: "When two nuclear armed countries fight, if they fight a conventional war, there is every possibility that it is going to end up into nuclear war. The unthinkable."

"If say Pakistan, God forbid, we are fighting a conventional war, we are losing, and if a country is stuck between the choice: either you surrender or you fight til death for your freedom, I know Pakistanis will fight to death for their freedom. So when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, to the death, it has consequences."

"So that's why we have approached the United Nations, we are approaching every international forum, that they must act right now, because this is a potential disaster that would go way beyond the Indian subcontinent."

Until recently, Pakistan had made attempts to open dialogue with India "to live as civilised neighbours, to resolve our difference [over Kashmir] ... through a political settlement", but according to Khan, this is no longer the case.

"We discovered that while we were trying to have dialogue, they were trying to push us in the black list in FATF ... If Pakistan is pushed into the black list of FATF that means there will be sanctions on Pakistan. So they were trying to bankrupt us economically, so that's when we pulled back. And that's when we realised that this government is on an agenda. The agenda is to push Pakistan to disaster," says Khan.

"There is no question of talking to the Indian government right now after they revoked this article 370 of their own constitution and they annexed Kashmir illegally against the UN security council resolution which had guaranteed the people that they would be able to hold a referendum, a plebiscite, to decide their destiny. So they have unilaterally not only broken international laws, but also their own constitution."

Asked about his government's achievements after the first year in office, Khan says: "We are already in a new Pakistan ... This government has done things which no government has done before. But, as they say, Rome was not built in a day. When you start making these massive changes, reforms, it takes time. The time to judge a government is five years ... The first year was the most difficult period, but from now onwards people will start seeing the difference ... the direction of the country is now right."

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

It has been a year since the former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan became Pakistan's Prime Minister.

Khan's campaign slogan was "Naya Pakistan" or "New Pakistan", a reflection of his promises to turn the county's economy around and end corruption.

But the first year of his premiership has not gone as smoothly as he may have hoped or even expected, especially in terms of the economy. The Pakistani rupee has lost 35 percent of its value during his time in office.

Khan's critics call him the prime minister of the U-turns, as he has been forced to go back on many of his campaign pledges in an attempt to rescue the situation.

"I'm glad they say I'm a prime minister of U-turns. Only an idiot doesn't do any u-turns," Khan tells Al Jazeera. "Only a moron, when he's on a course and he comes across a brick wall, only that stupid idiot keeps banging his head against a brick wall. An intelligent person immediately revises his strategy and goes around it."

But have any of these 'U-turns' had a positive impact on the country?

In terms of foreign affairs, Pakistan is closer than ever to its neighbour, China. But relations with its other neighbour, India, are at a new low.

Asked whether these two nuclear countries are at risk of another major conflict, or even war, Khan tells Al Jazeera he "absolutely" believes war with India could be a possibility.

"Eight million Muslims in Kashmir are under siege for almost now six weeks. And why this can become a flashpoint between India and Pakistan is because what we already know India is trying to do is divert attention from their illegal annexation and their impending genocide on Kashmir," he says. "They are taking the attention away by blaming Pakistan for terrorism."

"Pakistan would never start a war, and I am clear: I am a pacifist, I am anti-war, I believe that wars do not solve any problems," he clarifies.

But, he adds: "When two nuclear armed countries fight, if they fight a conventional war, there is every possibility that it is going to end up into nuclear war. The unthinkable."

"If say Pakistan, God forbid, we are fighting a conventional war, we are losing, and if a country is stuck between the choice: either you surrender or you fight til death for your freedom, I know Pakistanis will fight to death for their freedom. So when a nuclear armed country fights to the end, to the death, it has consequences."

"So that's why we have approached the United Nations, we are approaching every international forum, that they must act right now, because this is a potential disaster that would go way beyond the Indian subcontinent."

Until recently, Pakistan had made attempts to open dialogue with India "to live as civilised neighbours, to resolve our difference [over Kashmir] ... through a political settlement", but according to Khan, this is no longer the case.

"We discovered that while we were trying to have dialogue, they were trying to push us in the black list in FATF ... If Pakistan is pushed into the black list of FATF that means there will be sanctions on Pakistan. So they were trying to bankrupt us economically, so that's when we pulled back. And that's when we realised that this government is on an agenda. The agenda is to push Pakistan to disaster," says Khan.

"There is no question of talking to the Indian government right now after they revoked this article 370 of their own constitution and they annexed Kashmir illegally against the UN security council resolution which had guaranteed the people that they would be able to hold a referendum, a plebiscite, to decide their destiny. So they have unilaterally not only broken international laws, but also their own constitution."

Asked about his government's achievements after the first year in office, Khan says: "We are already in a new Pakistan ... This government has done things which no government has done before. But, as they say, Rome was not built in a day. When you start making these massive changes, reforms, it takes time. The time to judge a government is five years ... The first year was the most difficult period, but from now onwards people will start seeing the difference ... the direction of the country is now right."

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Peace talks between the United States and the Taliban began last October in Qatar, with the aim of ending the almost 18-year-old war in Afghanistan.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced that negotiations were over.

"They are dead. They are dead. As far as I’m concerned, they are dead," Trump told reporters, blaming a Taliban attack last week in which an American soldier was among the 12 people killed.

"They thought that they had to kill people in order to put themselves in a little better negotiating position ... You can't do that with me, so they [the talks] are dead as far as I'm concerned," Trump said.

The president's move surprised the Taliban's leaders.

"It was astonishing for us because we had already concluded the peace agreement with the American

negotiating team," Suhail Shaheen, the Taliban spokesperson in Qatar's capital Doha, told Al Jazeera.

After nine rounds of negotiations in Doha, it seemed that most of the differences between the US and the Taliban had been resolved. The US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, also said a peace agreement was finalised in principle.

Since talks began, discussions focused on four key issues: a Taliban guarantee it will not allow foreign armed groups and fighters to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to conduct attacks outside the country; the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces; an intra-Afghan dialogue; and a permanent ceasefire.

Shaheen said a ceasefire inside the country was never part of the negotiations but rather an intra-Afghan matter that would form part of future discussions with the country's government - but only after foreign forces withdraw.

"About the other Afghans, we are ready to talk with them. If there is a ceasefire with them, there will be no attack [on] them. But this is another aspect of the Afghan issue. We want to end the occupation of Afghanistan first," he said.

He said the Taliban's agreement with the US was to offer them safe passage in the withdrawal of troops - something they would stand by if a deal is signed.

"If we sign an agreement with them, we have the obligation not to attack them and provide them a safe passage. If they withdraw without any peace agreement signing with us, it is up to our consent or willing[ness] whether to attack or not to attack them," Shaheen said.

"It is then up to us, because there is no agreement. So we will attack them if we see it is in our interest, our national interest, our Islamic interest. If we see it in our interest not to attack, we will not attack them."

"If the Americans want to not attack us, and they want to withdraw, and they sign the agreement, yes we will not attack them ... But if they attack us, they continue their bombardment, their night raids, [then] that will continue from our side what has been continuing for the last 18 years."

So with the US quitting the negotiating table, can peace be achieved in Afghanistan? And if so, what would it take?

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/

Peace talks between the United States and the Taliban began last October in Qatar, with the aim of ending the almost 18-year-old war in Afghanistan.

On Monday, US President Donald Trump announced that negotiations were over.

"They are dead. They are dead. As far as I’m concerned, they are dead," Trump told reporters, blaming a Taliban attack last week in which an American soldier was among the 12 people killed.

"They thought that they had to kill people in order to put themselves in a little better negotiating position ... You can't do that with me, so they [the talks] are dead as far as I'm concerned," Trump said.

The president's move surprised the Taliban's leaders.

"It was astonishing for us because we had already concluded the peace agreement with the American

negotiating team," Suhail Shaheen, the Taliban spokesperson in Qatar's capital Doha, told Al Jazeera.

After nine rounds of negotiations in Doha, it seemed that most of the differences between the US and the Taliban had been resolved. The US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, also said a peace agreement was finalised in principle.

Since talks began, discussions focused on four key issues: a Taliban guarantee it will not allow foreign armed groups and fighters to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to conduct attacks outside the country; the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces; an intra-Afghan dialogue; and a permanent ceasefire.

Shaheen said a ceasefire inside the country was never part of the negotiations but rather an intra-Afghan matter that would form part of future discussions with the country's government - but only after foreign forces withdraw.

"About the other Afghans, we are ready to talk with them. If there is a ceasefire with them, there will be no attack [on] them. But this is another aspect of the Afghan issue. We want to end the occupation of Afghanistan first," he said.

He said the Taliban's agreement with the US was to offer them safe passage in the withdrawal of troops - something they would stand by if a deal is signed.

"If we sign an agreement with them, we have the obligation not to attack them and provide them a safe passage. If they withdraw without any peace agreement signing with us, it is up to our consent or willing[ness] whether to attack or not to attack them," Shaheen said.

"It is then up to us, because there is no agreement. So we will attack them if we see it is in our interest, our national interest, our Islamic interest. If we see it in our interest not to attack, we will not attack them."

"If the Americans want to not attack us, and they want to withdraw, and they sign the agreement, yes we will not attack them ... But if they attack us, they continue their bombardment, their night raids, [then] that will continue from our side what has been continuing for the last 18 years."

So with the US quitting the negotiating table, can peace be achieved in Afghanistan? And if so, what would it take?

- Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe

- Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish

- Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera

- Check our website: https://www.aljazeera.com/