A tennis match that pitted Tunisian and Israeli pairs against each other in Helsinki for the Fed Cup was condemned last week by Tunisia’s Foreign Ministry, which called the matches “violations of Tunisia’s promises and commitments to the Palestinian cause”.

While President Kaïs Saïed has not commented himself, hardening Tunisia’s stance towards Israel has been a central feature of his presidency.

In January, Mr Saïed demanded a “thorough investigation” into the participation of a French-Israeli tennis player in an international competition in Tunis, and took the opportunity to restate his opposition to normalisation with Israel “in any form”.

In future, Tunisian athletes may be forced to choose between a political boycott which harms their careers and condemnation of their activities by a government whose position on Israel has become increasingly hard-line.

Mr Saïed made uncompromising hostility to “the Zionist entity” a rallying cry in his election campaign last year and condemned any relations with Israel as “high treason”.

The Tunisian political landscape is divided between Islamist and secular elements, and Mr Saïed’s rhetoric was intended to appeal both to Arab nationalists and left-wing progressives. Despite his lack of political experience or party affiliation, he secured more than 70 per cent of the vote in the second and final round in October.

A broad consensus holds Habib Bourguiba, Tunisia’s leader from 1956 to 1987, as a national hero for his reforms and socialist achievements.

Yet this idolisation tends to overlook his more conciliatory approach to Israel, which saw him repeatedly clash with other Arab leaders in calling for a peaceful solution to the crisis and ultimately the recognition of a Jewish state.

His successor Ben Ali, leader until 2011, adopted a generally friendly stance, even establishing full diplomatic ties until the outbreak of the Second Intifada in 2000.

Tunisia’s recent democratic transition has prompted a shift in approach.

Since the 2011 revolution, Tunisia’s foreign policy has for the first time become the subject of public debate rather than determined by an authoritarian regime.

At a time when many neighbours are adopting a more pragmatic approach to the Jewish state, the arrival of democracy in Tunisia has given many politicians the chance to exploit popular anti-Israeli sentiment.

A campaign against normalisation of relations has gathered pace, leading for instance to the tearing up of an Israeli flag in the Tunisian parliament in 2018.

But if this democratic transition has encouraged a hard-line anti-Israeli approach, it has also meant a newfound celebration of diversity.

The country’s small Jewish and Christian communities are a source of pride for many Tunisian Arabs who see pluralism and democracy as mutually reinforcing values.

Mr Saïed has treaded a thin line, appealing to Islamists while also signalling support for Tunisian minorities. In the televised debate before the election, Mr Saïed referred to a “state of war” with Israel before proudly recalling his father’s saving of a Jewish girl from Nazi forces in the Second World War.

120,000-strong at the time of national independence, Tunisia’s Jewish community has been reduced to only 1,500, the vast majority having emigrated to Israel and France.

Significant numbers from the diaspora return each year to visit family or for the pilgrimage to the ancient El Ghriba synagogue on the island of Djerba.

Many Tunisians have pointed to the inconsistency of claiming to support Tunisian Jews while condemning even personal relations with the state in which most have at least family connections.

Yves Kamhi, a Jewish Tunisian lawyer, sent a much-discussed open letter to Mr Saïed which highlighted the effects of his foreign policy on the Tunisian Jewish community, asking whether answering phone calls from his aunt in Israel would now constitute “treason”.

It remains to be seen whether Mr Saïed’s language of treason will be translated into any new form of law.

Most likely, the practical implications will be vague but the rhetoric will seek to unite a fragmented political scene behind a presidency otherwise lacking a clear policy agenda.