The Amazigh of the African North are the only ones who overcame the barriers of the division, and this is not just because they wave the joint identity flag. Indeed, the historic and geographic latitude that brought them together from the extreme end of Morocco to the last point in the Libyan Al-Salloum region has never acknowledged the barriers of borders. Indeed, the conquest of Andalusia was achieved through an Amazigh commander, Tarek Ben Ziad. No one in the Maghreb region has ever woken up and wondered how Arabs and Amazigh should co-exist. Indeed, the two ethnicities have achieved fusion through centuries of coexistence, causing their joint identity to gain additional dimensions where cultures come together and expand in the Arab, Islamic, Amazigh, African, and Andalusian horizons. When the Arab Maghreb was established at the end of the 1990s, the Amazigh intellectuals noted that this name carries some tension since it singles out the Amazigh component from a major and strategic project. Thus, they called for a Maghreb union in order to achieve fusion between all the components without any chauvinism. The idea of the Maghreb Union is not dead. However, the mere agreement on a date for holding the Maghreb summit has become a major challenge in light of the present barriers. It is not unusual that whenever there is some hope, analyses and interpretations start emerging about the priorities of the project: Should this project start from the economy in the form of a joint Maghreb market similarly to the European market, or should it turn into a deterrence structure in order to face the security challenges? Should it focus on the political agreement as a starting point that will ultimately lead to agreements in the fields of economy, trade, and the revoking of the customs' barriers that are currently preventing the flow of people and capitals? Without popular tributaries that push in the direction of enhancing cooperation, openness and interaction, the Maghreb structure will remain a mere project that is parachuted from above. Projects coming from above do not necessarily meet the popular requirements unless there is a common will and agreement when it comes to the major choices. On the other hand, the idea of a Maghreb structure had emerged through cultural, rights-related, and political projects. However, the idea has yet to develop into viable projects. As the Arab intellectuals were obsessed with their nationalistic commitments, their counterparts in the African North were bracing to establish the Union of the Maghreb Writers, an indication to their commitment to a unionist project. In addition, the lawyers formed a Maghreb union, whose members confronted freedom oppression and human rights violations. Similarly, the Maghreb Union of Syndicates was formed and constituted a reflection of the historic rebellion against the assassination of the unionist Farhat Hashad. However, negative winds blew over all these organizations that were supposed to keep carrying the Maghreb torch in order to light the way. In turn, the parties also brandished the idea of the Maghreb Union. During the 1958 Conference of Tangier – which included prominent parties from Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco – the partisan elites marketed this strategic choice in order to achieve solidarity and the confrontation of the threats. So why has this project stumbled despite the encouraging momentum that it gained on all levels? Why did the hopes and reasonable dreams that the former Maghreb leaders had promised to their populaces evaporate? The Amazigh of North Africa represent a more logical and comprehendible prototype. Through their different organizations, they meet and hold dialogues. There is no difference between the Amazigh, the Algerian tribes, or the Libyan Berbers. If the loyalty to one's identity truly enhances this direction – which rises above all the existing political differences between the countries of the region – then unity is a major component in the Amazigh identity and one that applies to the entire region. Anyone who supports the unity of identity must also support any tendency to correct any political wrongs. There are many reasons for classifying the Maghreb bet as a top priority, including the atmosphere of trust brought about by the Arab Spring and the possible securing of a democratic path – since this spring aims at achieving social justice, as well as freedom and development. However, this cannot be achieved without a strong regional structure where all the desires of the region's populaces come together. No structure can strive on its own or confront the challenges of this phase, which requires the unification of efforts. Thus, the shortest road to achieving the objectives of the Maghreb Spring consists of adopting an integrated Maghreb path including the economic, political, and human components. There is also the image of the Amazigh union, which indicates a strong awareness. Indeed, the Amazigh were able to demonstrate that pride in one's identity enhances the unionist structure. They also overcame their differences, which is a reflection of the extent of their agreement. The Amazigh language, culture, and entity have started to impose themselves and to restore their long marginalized status. Thus, one can now rely on this experience in order to overcome the difficulties. Providing justice to the Amazigh is no circumstantial matter and should not be a separate issue from providing justice to a society that has suffered from inequity and marginalization. Just like the Arab Spring brought some moderate Islamic movements to power that were once the object of caution and skepticism, the Maghreb Spring that aspires for building a strong, and cohesive union must greatly rely on the Amazigh experience. Looking at the events that are taking place at the heart of the Maghreb can sufficiently raise the level of hope in the rivers that are flowing with vitality and confidence.
